Value of an embedded site vs. a direct link?
-
We have a new site that is a great resource for a serious subject (suicide). I have been getting many requests from various communities and clinics about help on embedding our site in their websites.
Although I certainly don't want to keep this resource from being used as much as possible, I am curious about the SEO costs/benefit to having someone embed our site on their own website rather than provide a link to our website directly from theirs.
-
Dupe-content-wise, you should be fine. iFrames just make me itchy these days, and I've never thought they were good for users, but it shouldn't be a disaster for SEO. The biggest problem is probably just that you're not really getting any SEO value - it's really just direct traffic via a referring site. Granted, it's better than nothing, and I know from painful experience that sometimes you have to take what you can get in these situations.
-
It's old school IFraming. One group did it a few weeks back and I can see the page on their site that contains the iFrame listed as a referrer in my Google analytics.
I don't imagine it would cause a duplicate content issue since the pages are being read from my domain (through the iFrame) but I can't say that I am positive about that.
-
When you say "embed", do you know what they have in mind, specifically (that word means a couple of specific things depending on the context). If they're just looking to copy the content, then it's important that the link back to you and probably even use cross-domain canonical tags. Otherwise, they'll be competing with you for your own content. It's not just a matter of traffic, but Google could filter out your version of the page or even (at large scale) devalue your entire site. In other words, they could mistake you for the one copying the content, especially if the other sites are more authoritative.
If you're talking about old-school embedding, like wrapping up your content in an iFrame or something like that, I'd avoid it entirely. Those "solutions" are outdated and more trouble than they're worth.
It is common to "embed" some content, like infographics, but those embeds usually have a link back or some clear attribution. If you're just talking about using the content, then I think you're much better off just asking people to use snippets (like a paragraph or two) and then linking to the source.
If you've got a specific example of what someone has in mind, I'd be happy to dig deeper.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
WWW vs Non WWW for EXISTING site.
This one has sort of been asked already but I cannot find an answer. When we evaluate a new SEO client, previously with Majestic we would review the root domain vs sub domain (www) for which had the higher Trust Flow and Citation flow, and if there was a major difference, adjust the Google indexed domain to the higher peforming one. Is there a way to do this with Moz, Domain Authority, and Sub Domain authority are always returning the same DA for me. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | practiceedge10 -
White listing a site
A new clients site is blocked by a lot of Firewalls. And I can't work out why, the content is family friendly they sell nursery equipment. I've run it through the Google checker and there is no malicious software found on the site. Can anyone tell me what I need to do to get this site unblocked? The url is http://knuma.co.uk/
Technical SEO | | Marketing_Optimist0 -
Maintaining Link Value Of Old URLS With 301 Redirects
Large ecommerce site that has been around for a long time (15+ years.) During that time technology has changed a lot and we are running into issues maintaining 301 redirects for very old urls. For example we have a good amount of links to product and category pages. Some of the old links are to products that still exist and will exist for many years to come.(of note little to no traffic comes via these links. Most of them are close to 9 years old so they are buried deep within articles, forums, or websites) However as we make changes to the site and URL structure these old urls are taking up more resources to continue to maintain 301 redirects. I am Leary of no longer supporting them because I do not want it to impact rankings however there is concern on how much development time and technology resources it takes to continue to support as time goes on. Does anyone have experience handling redirects 3 or 4 url structures old? Looking for insight from someone who has crossed this bridge before.
Technical SEO | | RMATVMC0 -
Link removal from search rank checking sites
I'm going through the link removal process for unnatural links to a site. While I'm able to identify the obvious link profile and seo-article links that Google wants removed, what should we do about the links that are generated by the various seo link investigation and ranking services? Example: http://www.seoprofiler.com/analyze/allamericanfencing.com This site (seoprofiler) automatically creates these links to web sites when it generates its reports. Are those links that need to be removed or disavowed, or will Google not care? I want to err on the side of caution, but don't know how to treat these types of pages. The site didn't ask for or lobby for those links, so it's "natural" in that sense, but they're not editorially earned either (except for happen to be ranking for a similar term). Does anyone have experience on this aspect of the unnatural link grooming process?
Technical SEO | | CHarkins0 -
Site Map
For a long time our site map used to be http://www.efurniturehouse.com/sitemap.xml recently our hosting company changed the site map to: http://www.efurniturehouse.com/xml-sitemap.ashx I went ahead and submitted the new site maps to both Google Webmaster and Bing. I submitted the Google one on Monday and it states PENDING. ( A day later this pending) I just submitted the map to Bing. I now have 2 site maps on each. 1)Is having 2 a problem Will they ignore the old site map or can we delete and if so when can we delete I appreciate your input Regards Tony www.eFurnitureHouse.com
Technical SEO | | OCFurniture0 -
Why are my links not being counted?
I have a site that has over 400 links going to it. When I use Moz open site explorer or any other SEO tool its says I have only 12 links. Does anyone know why this could be happening?
Technical SEO | | Goopping0 -
Can I reduce link count by no following links?
Hi, A large number of my pages contain over 100 links. This is due to a large drop down navigation which is on every page. To reduce my link count could I just no follow these navigation links or would I have to remove the navigation completely?
Technical SEO | | moesian0 -
Is there a penalty for linking to sites that are all hosted on the same IP address?
Hi... We're doing some reciprocal link building and a gentleman has been kind enough to offer me sever additional links for the exchange. All of them (5) are on the same IP address as one of his links to which we have already linked. They are in a related field of endeavor, legal websites. If I make the swap with him, is Google going to disregard, penalize or otherwise marginalize my efforts? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | hornsbylaw0