Affiliate & canonicals
-
Hi, any help with this one would be great....
www.example.com sells widgets online. They are also promoted on a 3rd party website www.partner.com.
Currently www.partner.com links to a page on www.example.com that is completely branded with the 'partners' design, style and unique copy (you would think you were still on 'partner' website).
I saw this interesting article from 2011: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/getting-seo-value-from-your-affiliate-links (in particular idea 1)
Do you think adding a rel=canonical on www.example.com's partner page is still safe?
All the best & thank you,
Richard
-
Thank you Peter, very clear information
All the best!
Richard
-
Yeah, I think that's relatively safe, although it depends a bit on the scope relative to your overall site index and link profile (I wouldn't set up 500 affiliate URLs with a canonical on a site that only had 600 indexed URLs and a few dozen non-affiliate links). Keep in mind that Google may still choose to devalue the affiliate link, but the canonical tag will keep these landing pages from looking like duplicates and should prevent anything harsher.
-
Many thanks Martijn, your help is much appreciated.
All the best
Richard
-
Hi Richard,
Absolutely, in the case you mentioned within the article it was a duplicate page of their normal pro page. So adding a canonical tag with the URL of the original page was by far the best way to make clear for Google that the original version of the page could be found elsewhere.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Question on Indexing, Hreflang tag, Canonical
Dear All, Have a question. We've a client (pharma), who has a prescription medicine approved only in the US, and has only one global site at .com which is accessed by all their target audience all over the world.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jrohwer
For the rest of the US, we can create a replica of the home page (which actually features that drug), minus the existence of the medicine, and set IP filter so that non-US traffic see the duplicate of the home page. Question is, how best to tackle this semi-duplicate page. Possibly no-index won't do because that will block the site from the non-US geography. Hreflang won't work here possibly, because we are not dealing different languages, we are dealing same language (En) but different Geographies. Canonical might be the best way to go? Wanted to have an insight from the experts. Thanks,
Suparno (for Jeff)1 -
How to Implement AMP for Single Blog Post?
Hello Moz Team, I would like to implement AMP for my single blog post not on whole blog. Is it possible? if Yes then How? Note - I am already using GTM for my website abcd.com but I would like to use for my blog post only and my blog is like - abcd.com/blog..............let me clarify Blog Post means - abcd.com/blog/my-favorite-dress Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Johny123450 -
What is better? No canonical or two canonicals to different pages?
I have a blogger site that is adding parameters and causing duplicate content. For example: www.mysite.com/?spref=bl
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TMI.com
www.mysite.com/?commentPage=1 www.mysite.com/?m=1 www.mysite.com/?m=0 I decided to implement a canonical tag on these pages pointing to the correct version of the page. However, for the parameter ?m=0, the canonical keeps pointing to itself. Ex: www.mysite.com/?m=0 The canonical = www.mysite.com/?m=0 So now I have two canonicals for the same page. My question is if I should leave it, and let Google decide, or completely remove the canonicals from all pages?0 -
Proper Form for Title & Description Tags
Greetings MOZ Community: I operate a real estate web site in New York (www.nyc-officespace-leader.com) that I suspect has been hit by Panda 4.0. I believe a problem is thin content on product pages, which in my case are 350 listing pages. However I am also looking at how title and description tags are formatted for these 350 pages to ensure this is not a factor in the ranking drop. The title descriptions are written like this: <title></span><span class="webkit-html-tag">Flatiron loft for rent | West 21st Street | 1441SF $6604/month</span><span class="webkit-html-tag"></title> Is this sufficiently diverse? Will constantly repeating various street names, square footages and prices work against me? Will Google in a sense consider this thin or repetitive content? It does provide the visitor with key information. The descriptions meta tags are written along these lines: description" content="One of the most desirable full floor sublets in Midtown South. Recent build out, pristine condition, panoramic views, tech chic, spectacular. Top location." /><meta< span=""></meta<> From an SEO perspective are these critical tags written the way they should be? Thanks everyone!! Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Scanning For Duplicate Canonical Tags
I'm looking for a solution for identifying pages on a site that have either empty/undefined canonical tags, or duplicate canonical tags (meaning the tag occurs twice within the same page). I've used Screaming Frog to view sitewide canonical values, but the tool cannot identify when pages use the tag twice, nor can it differentiate between pages that have an empty canonical tag and pages that have no canonical tag at all. Any help finding a tool of some sort that can assist me in doing this would be much appreciated, as I'm working with tens of thousands of pages and can't do this manually.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edmundsseo0 -
Rel=Canonical - needed if part duplication?
Hi Im looking at a site with multiple products available in multiple languages. Some of the languages are not complete, so where the product description is not available in that language the new page, with its own url in the other languages may take the English version. However, this description is perhaps 200 words long only, and after the description are a host of other products displays within that category. So say for example we were selling glasses, there is a 200 word description about glasses (this is the part that is being copied across the languages) and then 10 products underneath that are translated. So the pages are somewhat different but this 200 word description is copied thru different versions of our site. Currently, the english version is not rel=canonical, would it be better to add the english version where we lack a description and do the canonical option or in fact better to leave it blank until we have a translated description? As its only part of the onpage wording, would this 200 word subsection cause us duplication issues?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | xoffie0 -
Another E-commerce Canonical Question
Hi guys, Quick question: one of our clients has an e-commerce site with a very poor canonical tag setup and thousands of pages of duplicate content. Let's use this as an example: BRAND > Category > Type > Color
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elcrazyhorse
Four separate pages/URLs. The BRAND page lists all products.
The Category page lists all BRAND products for that category.
The Type page lists all BRAND products of a specific type in that category.
The Color page lists all BRAND products of a specific type in that category of a specific color. Anyway, these generate four separate URLs: /BRAND
/BRAND/Category
/BRAND/Category-Type
/BRAND/Category-Type-Color Avoiding duplicate content and product listings, I would appreciate your proposed canonicalization strategy/feedback.0 -
Canonical Fix Value & Pointer To Good Instructions?
Could you tell me whether the "canonical fix" is still a relevant and valuable SEO method? I'm talking about the .htaccess (or ISAPI for Microsoft) level fix to make all of the non-www page URLs on a website redirect to the www. version - so that SEO "value" isn't split between the two. I'm NOT talking about the newer <rel= canonical="" http:="" ...="">tag that goes in the HEAD section on an HTML page - as a fix for some duplicate content issues (I guess). </rel=> I still hear about the latter, but less about the former. But the former is different than the latter right - it doesn't replace it? And I'm not sure if the canonical fix is relevant to a WordPress-based website - are you? Also I can never find any page or article on the Web, etc. that explains clearly how to implement the canonical fix for Apache and Microsoft servers. Could you please point me to one? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DenisL0