How far can I push rel=canonical?
-
My plan: 3 sites with identical content, yet--wait for it--for every article whose topic is A, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site A. For every article whose topic is B, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site B.
So Site A will have some articles about topics A, B, and C. And for pages with articles about A, the rel=canonical will point to the page it's on. Yet for pages with articles about B, the rel=canonical will point to the version of that article on site B. Etc.
I have my reasons for planning this, but you can see more or less that I want each site to rank for its niche, yet I want the users at each site to have access to the full spectrum of articles in the shared articles database without having to leave a given site.
These would be distinct brands with distinct Whois, directory listings, etc. etc.
The content is quality and unique to our company.
-
I think I'd start slowly in that case. Keep the relationship aspect in mind, too. Even if all three companies know the writer/client and are aware of the relationship, sooner or later one of these articles is going to take off. If one site gets the SEO credit and the other two sites aren't ranking, there may be friction. Even if the work is spread out evenly and all high-quality, you don't control (ultimately) what content finally sticks and is successful. I just think things could get weird all-around if you send every article three places and only one gets credit.
-
These are technically different companies with different products, all of which are in the securities industry. They are each founded by different groups of individuals, however my client is common among them and happens to be a fantastic writer. Many of the articles would add value to the readers of some of the other sites. I am hoping to develop a common command center so that in the editor for a given article he is able to just check off which of his sites the article will be published at, and which is to be considered canonical. So the sites will have different aesthetics and navigation, product pages, and other company-specific content, and not every article will show up on every site, however many will show up at multiple sites.
The idea of phasing in common articles with the cross-domain canonical strikes me as wise, and then just noindexing the non-canonical versions if I run into trouble.
-
Ah, understood. So, yes, in theory cross-domain canonical does handle this. I know major newspapers that use it for true syndication. There is risk, though, depending on the sites and content, and there is a chance Google will ignore it (moreso than in-domain canonical). So, I mostly wanted you to be aware of those risks.
META NOINDEX is safer, in some respects (Google is more likely to honor it), but if people start linking to multiple versions of the content, then you may lose the value of those inbound links on the NOINDEX'ed content. Since it's not showing up in search results, that's less likely (in other words, people are going to be most inclined to link to the canonical version), but it's a consideration.
It's really tough to give a recommendation without understanding the business model, but if you absolutely have to have separate sites and you feel that this content is valuable to the visitors of all three sites, then cross-domain canonical is an option. It's just not risk-free. Personally, I'd probably start with unique content across the three domains, then phase in the most useful pieces as duplicates with canonical. Measure and see how it goes. Don't launch 1,000 duplicates on three sites in one day.
-
Budget not an issue, although skilled labor is.
-
Very helpful, thank you!
There is in fact a legal reason why the sites must be distinct from each other and strong marketing reasons why we do need more than one site.
I should mention that although the pages hosting the shared articles will be 99% identical, each site will have other content distinct from the others.
I am open to dropping my idea to share an article database between the sites and just having unique content on each, although I have to wonder what the use of cross-domain canonical is, if not to support this kind of article syndication.
-
Completely agree with dr Peter. If you really need to separate those domains it should be a really good reason.
In my past I used to have many EMD domain to get easy traffic thanks to the domain name boost in serps and so those sites were ranking without many efforts, but after google heading more towards brands this kind of strategy is really time and money consuming.
It really depends on how much budget you may spend on those sites, but normally consolidating the value in one bigger site is the best way to build a brand and achieve links and ranks nowadays.
-
I tend to agree - you always run the risk with cross-domain canonical that Google might not honor it, and the you've got a major duplicate content problem on your hands.
I think there's a simpler reason, in most cases, though. Three unique sites/brands take 3X (or more, in practice) the time and energy to promote, build links to, build social accounts for, etc. That split effort, especially on the SEO side, can far outweigh the brand benefits, unless you have solid resources to invest (read that "$$$").
To be fair, I don't know your strategy/niche, but I've just found that to be true 95% of the time in these cases. Most of the time, I think building sub-brands on sub-folders within the main site and only having one of each product page is a better bet. The other advantage is that users can see the larger brand (it lends credibility) and can move between brands if one isn't a good match.
The exception would be if there's some clear legal or competitive reason the brands can't be publicly associated. In most cases, though, that's going to come with a lot of headaches.
-
Hi all, I think that your alternatives would be:
- one big site with all the thematics. In that way all users can access all content without leaving the site, no need for noindex no need for canonicals since you won't have dupe content
- three sites with specialized articles in each one. You may change slightly your design to give the user the feeling that the site is different but in the same network. Then you may interlink those sites as useful resources. Not optimal since they'll have a huge interlinking,
- as you said noindex the non canonical article. Remember that the noindex tag will prevent indexation not crawling because google will need to crawl your page to know that it should not index it. So you may add meta "noindex,nocache,follow" in the header and be sure that the juice is still flowing in your site.
-
Hmm, ok that's helpful.
The content would be identical with the possible exceptions of a very slightly different meta title and site footer.
What's my alternative to a setup like this? One site, one brand? Noindex the non-canonical article versions?
What I dislike about noindex is that it means inbound links to the non-canonical article versions bring me no benefit.
-
I believe you are playing with fire here... to me this looks like you are trying to manipulate search engines.
If you read the article About rel="canonical" on Google Webmasters Support, you will see they say rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive
Also in the same article they specify that rel="canonical" should be used on pages with identical content. Are you sure in your case the pages have identical content (per total) or just identical articles?
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
-
Traffic drop after Facebook push
Hi all, We experienced a strange phenonema after a Facebook push, it appears the Google organic traffic was all but dead for five days after. Totally not sure why! It has since returned to about 80% of previous levels. http://postimg.org/image/3n1b7m7hf/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottOlson0 -
What can you do about negative SEO?
We have a list of 240 domains (look exactly the same) linking to our site for a certain keyword. over 3000 links in total. It means that 50% of our keywords are this keyword and it's not a branded keyword which can affect us in the long term. I have done a WHOIS search and found a name, email and number. Vikas Kumar. I linkedin searched him and found his "legit" SEO site which has EXACTLY the same registration details as the spam sites. I emailed him and he said it would cost 5$ a link removal. I phoned him and he DENIED these emails. He then denied owning these sites etc. We have disavowed them but the anchor text % is still affecting us. Is there anything we can do? I know negative SEO isn't illegal but it's really frustrating. Anyone else had any problems with this type of thing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyB_UK1 -
Case Sensitive URLs, Duplicate Content & Link Rel Canonical
I have a site where URLs are case sensitive. In some cases the lowercase URL is being indexed and in others the mixed case URL is being indexed. This is leading to duplicate content issues on the site. The site is using link rel canonical to specify a preferred URL in some cases however there is no consistency whether the URLs are lowercase or mixed case. On some pages the link rel canonical tag points to the lowercase URL, on others it points to the mixed case URL. Ideally I'd like to update all link rel canonical tags and internal links throughout the site to use the lowercase URL however I'm apprehensive! My question is as follows: If I where to specify the lowercase URL across the site in addition to updating internal links to use lowercase URLs, could this have a negative impact where the mixed case URL is the one currently indexed? Hope this makes sense! Dave
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | allianzireland0 -
Canonical Rel .uk and .au to .com site?
Hi guys, we have a client whose main site is .com but who has a .co.uk and a com.au site promoting the same company/brand. Each site is verified locally with a local address and phone but when we create content for the sites that is universal, should I rel=canonical those pages on the .co.uk and .com.au sites to the .com site? I saw a post from Dr. Pete that suggests I should as he outlines pretty closely the situation we're in: "The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site." Thanks in advance for your insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wcbuckner0 -
Can we do Citation posting for national business?
I have payment gateway website, website provide services to US and other countries as well. Can I do citation posting for the website? Website is having contact us page with US address on it.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marknorman0 -
Should we use the rel-canonical tag?
We have a secure version of our site, as we often gather sensitive business information from our clients. Our https pages have been indexed as well as our http version. Could it still be a problem to have an http and an https version of our site indexed by Google? Is this seen as being a duplicate site? If so can this be resolved with a rel=canonical tag pointing to the http version? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | annieplaskett1 -
How canonical url harm our website???
Even though my website has no similar/copied content, i used rel=canonical for all my website pages. Is Google or yahoo make any harm to my SERP's?? EX: http://www.seomoz.org is my site, in that i used canonical as rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.seomoz.org" to my home page like that similar to all pages, i created rel=canonical. Is search engine harm my website???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MadhukarSV0 -
No index, follow vs. canonical url
We have a site that consists almost entirely as a directory of videos. Example here: http://realtree.tv/channels/realtreeoutdoorsclassics We're trying to figure out the best way to handle pagination and utility features such as sort for most recent, most viewed, etc. We've been reading countless articles on this topic, but so far have been unable to determine what might be considered the industry standard. Two solutions seem to stand out... Using the canonical url on all the sorted and paginated pages. However, after reading many blog posts, it seems that you should NEVER use the canonical url to solve the issue of paginated, and thus duplicated content because the search bots will never crawl past the first page leaving many results not in the index. (We are considering ruling this method out.) Another solution seems to be using the meta tag for noindex, follow so that a search engine like Google will crawl your directory pages but not add them to the index themselves. All links are followed so content is crawled and any passing link juice remains unchanged. However, I did see a few articles skeptical of this solution as well saying that there are always better alternatives, or that there is no verification that search engines obey this meta tag. This has placed some doubt in our minds. I was hoping to get some expert advice on these methods as it would pertain to our site. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grayloon0