Moving content from CMS pages to a blog - 301 or rel canonical?
-
Our site has some useful information buried in out-of-the-way CMS pages, and I feel like this content is more suited to our blog. What's my best method here?
1. Move the content to a blog post, delete the original page, and 301.
2. Move the content to a blog post, leave the original page up, and rel canonical.
3. Rewrite the content so it's not a duplicate, keep original page up, and post rewritten content on the blog.
4. Something else.
Some of this content has inbound links and some does not. Quite a bit of it gets long-tail traffic already. It just looks kludgy because it's on pages that really aren't designed for articles. It would look much nicer and be much more readable/shareable/linkable on the blog.
-
I would go with the 301 then. That way if anyone lands on your old site (say through a link) they'll be redirected to your blog, where you want them to be.
-
I would prefer that users end up on the blog version. So I am considering
CMS URL > 301 > Blog Post
CMS URL > canonical > Blog Post
Either way, the blog post would be the "correct" version of the content.
-
Well, what do you think is the better experience for the user? Both 301s and canonicals will transfer (most) of your link juice. Do you want users to end up on your CMS or on your blog? Depending on the answer, choose the 301 or canonical.
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
-
Does having no content on a mobile page have effect on the ranking.
We are about to go live with a mobile version of our webshop, mobile users will be shown an alternative version of the desktop page. At the moment we have little to no content on the mobile pages; how will this effect our ranking? (desktop and mobile page have the same URL and meta, only the "body" is different)
Technical SEO | | G.School0 -
Is it appropriate to use canonical for a yearly post with similar content?
I've begun writing an annual review of local business directories. Post from 2012 is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-in-2012/ New 2014 post is here: http://web.servicecrowd.com.au/blog/top-10-australian-business-directories-2014/ Is this appropriate use? Next year the post will be similar, but different metrics reported and slightly different review. Side note: For some reason the post hasn't been indexed by Google yet. Usually new posts are indexed as soon as they are shared on social media.
Technical SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Rel="canonical"
Hello guys, By fixing the duplicate meta description issues of my site I noticed something a bit weird.The pages are product pages and the product on each one of them is the same and the only difference is the length of the product. On each page there is a canonical tag, and the link within the tag points to the same page. www.example.com/Product/example/2001 <rel="canonical" href="www.example.com/Product/example/2001"></rel="canonical"> This happens on every other page. I read twice and I think I will do it again the post on GWT and I think that is wrong as it should point to a different url, which is www.example.com/ProductGroup/example/ which is the the page where all the product are grouped together. Cheers
Technical SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
Is page rank lost through a 301 redirect?
Hi everyone. I'd really appreciate your help with this one 🙂 I've just watched Matt Cutt's video 'what percentage of PageRank is lost through a 301 redirect?' and I am confused. I had taken this to mean that a re-direct would always lose you page rank, but watching it again I am not so sure. He says that the amount of page rank lost through a 301 redirect is the same as any other link. Does this mean that no page rank at all is lost during site migrations? Or is it the case that first page rank would be lost from the original link and then more page rank would be lost from any subsequent redirects? watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw
Technical SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
Rel canonical question
Hi, I have an e-commerce site hosted on Volusion currently the rel canonical link for the homepage points to www.store.com/default.asp. I spoke with the Volusion support people and they told me that whether the canonical link points to store.com/default.asp or store.com does not really matter as long as there is a canonical version. I thought this sounded odd, so looked at other websites hosted on volusion and some sites canonicalize to default.asp and others .com. (volusion.com canonicalizes to .com fwiw). The question is...I have a majority of my external links going to www.store.com , and since that page has default.asp as it canonical version, am I losing link juice from those incoming links? If so, should I change the canonical link? If I do what are the potential issues/penalties? Hopefully this question makes sense and thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | IOSC0 -
Duplicate page content
hi I am getting an duplicate content error in SEOMoz on one of my websites it shows http://www.exampledomain.co.uk http://www.exampledomain.co.uk/ http://www.exampledomain.co.uk/index.html how can i fix this? thanks darren
Technical SEO | | Bristolweb0 -
Moving a blog from unique domain to root /blog/ but on 2 different servers? HELP!
I have a main site hosted on one server, I have the blog hosted on another server - BOTH of which my team has FULL control over. I ultimately want the blog to reside on the root domain: www.mysite.com/blog/ My network team is saying "DNS will not allow this to happen, the resolution will ultimately have to be on blog.website.com" Has anyone out there done this? Is it even possible? HELP!
Technical SEO | | BCA0 -
Should rel canonical tags include the root domain
It does sound like a silly question but bear with me a little... I recently installed on my Joomla website a module that automatically creates rel canonical tags for pages that contain lists that can be sorted by different criteria: (price, alphabetic order, etc...) I know that a proper canonical tag should look like this: However, the module I'm using creates the following structure Will this work? I mean, will it be "understood" by the bots? To see what the module actually does, you can visit the following link http://www.quipeutlefaire.fr/fr/index.php?sort=price&sort_direction=desc&limit=10&limitstart=0&option=com_auctions&category=240 In the source code you will see that the canonical tag is Which is the original "unsorted" page. Thanks in advance for your help
Technical SEO | | QPLF0
