Site duplication issue....
-
Hi All,
I have a client who has duplicated an entire section of their site onto another domain about 1 year ago. The new domain was ranking well but was hit heavily back in March by Panda.
I have to say the set up isn't great and the solution I'm proposing isn't ideal, however, as an agency we have only been tasked with "performing SEO" on the new domain.
Here is an illustration of the problem: http://i.imgur.com/Mfh8SLN.jpg
My solution to the issue is to 301 redirect the duplicated area of the original site out (around 150 pages) to the new domain name, but I'm worried that this could be could cause a problem as I know you have to be careful with redirecting internal pages to external when it comes to SEO.
The other issue I have is that the client would like to retain the menu structure on the main site, but I do not want to be putting an external link in the main navigation so my proposed solution is as follows:
- Implement 301 redirects for URLs from original domain to new domain
- Remove link out to this section from the main navigation of original site and add a boiler plate link in another area of the template for "Visit xxx for our xxx products" kind of link to the other site.
Illustration of this can be found here: http://i.imgur.com/CY0ZfHS.jpg
I'm sure the best solution would be to redirect in URLs from the new domain into the original site and keep all sections within the one domain and optimise the one site. My hands are somewhat tied on this one but I just wanted clarification or advice on the solution I've proposed, and that it wont dramatically affect the standing of the current sites.
-
Yes, if the client doesn't mind not having the content on the old domain, then 301 redirects are the best solution. Without seeing the navigation menu and the two sites, it's hard to evaluate whether you need to change the links. If it would seem odd to user to click the current link and land on the new domain, then what you suggest sounds good. If both sites are clearly identified as being the same company and look pretty similar, you may not need to change the link(s). The 301 redirects will take care of the search engines, the change to the link(s) is a question of user experience.
-
Thanks Lestr
I think I will test the canonical solution initially and see its effect over the next couple of months then review the results.
If I was to convince the client to break out the section of the site completely would my initial proposed solution be a preferred option?
Thanks
-
That's what should happen in theory. Your telling Google an Bing that the original content is at the new domain with the canonical tags. They should essentially ignore the content on the old site and only care about the content of the new site, since it's the original.
There's two caveats, though. First, is the Google expressly states that they treat the canonical tag as a suggestion. So, there's no guarantee that they'll treat the tags the way they are intended. Secondly, if the new domain has already been hit by Panda, then you have a bit of an uphill battle. Google has already decided that they think the real source of the content is the old domain name and you are trying to convince them they have it backwards.
Even with the caveats, though, canonical tags are the only solution that fits the situation and the client's wishes (to still have the content on both sites). The only other suggestion you could give is to redo the content on the new site so it is unique. That's a lot more work, though.
-
OK, so if I was to roll out canonical tags across the original site pointing to the new site, would these eventually switch out for the new URLs within the SERPs?
Thanks
-
If you are wanting to continue to link to the old domain within the old domain but remove any hits from the new domain I would simply put a canonical tag in the old domain designating the new domain as the content source. This way you can continue to use it and link to it within the old domain to allow a unified UX and give full SEO credit to the right spot.
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
-
Links from a penalised site.
Hey Mozzers, Recently we have had a series of agencies in to pitch for work, one group mentioned that due to our association with a possibly penalised product review website, any links and activity associated with the brand would hinder our SEO. We currently have a good rating, but we are now no longer pushing our customers to the site as we move to a new platform. The current link back from this website is also no-followed. Any thoughts on how this could impact us? And how the agencies determined the site was penalised and causing us problems. Cheers Tim
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TimHolmes0 -
Old site penalised, we moved: Shall we cut loose from the old site. It's curently 301 to new site.
Hi, We had a site with many bad links pointing to it (.co.uk). It was knocked from the SERPS. We tried to manually ask webmasters to remove links.Then submitted a Disavow and a recon request. We have since moved the site to a new URL (.com) about a year ago. As the company needed it's customer to find them still. We 301 redirected the .co.uk to the .com There are still lots of bad links pointing to the .co.uk. The questions are: #1 Do we stop the 301 redirect from .co.uk to .com now? The .co.uk is not showing in the rankings. We could have a basic holding page on the .co.uk with 'we have moved' (No link). Or just switch it off. #2 If we keep the .co.uk 301 to the .com, shall we upload disavow to .com webmasters tools or .co.uk webmasters tools. I ask this because someone else had uploaded the .co.uk's disavow list of spam links to the .com webmasters tools. Is this bad? Thanks in advance for any advise or insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SolveWebMedia0 -
Review of our site
Hi Moz-Fans 🙂 I'm doing SEO for about a year now and have a new site to which I do not know where to improve any further. The main keyword is "Webdesign Freiburg" and the site is werkzeug - kasten . com Anyone want to have a look into and tell me what might bring us from page 2 to page 1 on google? Thanks a lot Marc
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RWW0 -
Why are these sites outranking me?
I am trying to rank for the phrase "a link between worlds walkthrough" I am on page 1 but there are several results that just outranks me and I cannot see any reason that they would be doing so. My site is hiddentriforce.com/a-link-between-worlds/walkthrough/ For that page I have 5 linking domains, varied anchor text that spans from things like "here" to a variety of related phrases. All of the links come from really good sites My page has 1400 likes, 90 shares, and about 20 each in tweets and +'s DA of 44 PA of 37 The 4 and 5 ranked sites both have WAY less social interactions, lower PA and DA, less links, etc Yet they outrank me why?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atomicx0 -
Why is my site not ranked?
Hey, does enybody have an idea, why my site www.detox.si is not ranked for the KW detox in www.google.si (Slovenia). It is being indexed, but it does not rank and i have no idea why. Best, M.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Spletnafuzija0 -
Mobile Sitemap Issue
Hi there, I am having some difficulty with an error on Webmaster Tools. I'm concerned with a possible duplicate content penalty following the launch of my mobile site. I have attempted to update my sitemap to inform Google that a different mobile page exists in addition to the desktop page. I have followed Google's guidelines as outlined here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DBC01
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34648 I'm having problems with my sitemap.xml file. Webmaster tools is reporting that it is not able to read the file and when I validate it I am getting an error stating that the 'Namespace prefix xhtml on link is not defined'. All I am trying to do is to create a sitemap that uses the rel="alternate" to inform Google that their is a mobile version of that specific page in addition to the desktop version. An instance of the code I am using is below: xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="gss.xsl"?> <urlset< span="">xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap/0.84 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd"> http://www.mydomain/info/detail/ <xhtml:link< span="">rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://m.mydomain.com/info/detail.html"/> <lastmod></lastmod>2013-02-01T16:03:48+00:00<changefreq></changefreq>daily0.50</xhtml:link<></urlset<> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Large Site SEO - Dev Issue Forcing URL Change - 301, 302, Block, What To Do?
Hola, Thanks in advance for reading and trying to help me out. A client of mine recently created a large scale company directory (500k+ pages) in Drupal v6 while the "marketing" type pages of their site was still in manual hard-coded HTML. They redesigned their "marketing" pages, but used Drual v7. They're now experiencing server conflicts with both instances of Drupal not allowing them to communicate/be on the same server. Eventually the directory will be upgraded to Drupal v7, but could take weeks to months the client does not want to wait for the re-launch. The client wants to push the new marketing site live, but also does not want to ruin the overall SEO value of the directory and have a few options, but I'm looking to help guide them down the path of least resistance: Option 1: Move the company directory onto a subdomain and the "marketing site" on the www. subdomain. Client gets to push their redesign live, but large scale 301s to the directory cause major issues in terms of shaking up the structure of the site causing ripple effects into getting pulled out of the index for days to weeks. Rankings and traffic drop, subdomain authority gets lost and the company directory health looks bad for weeks to months. However, 301 maintains partial SEO value and some long tail traffic still exists. Once the directory gets moved to Drupal v7, the directory will then cancel the 301 to the subdomain and revert back to original www. subdomain URLs Option 2: Block the company directory from search engines with robots.txt and meta instructions, essentially cutting off the floodgates from the established marketing pages. No major scaling 301 ripple effect, directory takes a few weeks to filter out of the index, traffic is completely lost, however once drupal v7 gets upgraded and the directory is then re-opened, directory will then slowly gain back SEO value to get close to old rankings, traffic, etc. Option 3: 302 redirect? Lose all accumulate SEO value temporarily... hmm Option 4: Something else? As you can see, this is not an ideal situation. However, a decision has to be made and I'm looking to chose the lesser of evils. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks again -Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bacon0