Should I put rel=publisher on UGC?
-
My website has a main section that we call expert content and write for. We also have a community subdomain which is all user generated.
We are a pretty big brand and I am wondering should the rel publisher tag just be for the www expert content, or should we also use it on the community UGC even though we don't directly write that?
-
Spencer, a most excellent question IMO.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say use it on both. It took some thinking and digging for me to wrap my head around it, but I think I have it:
You should only use rel=pub on one page of the site. Given that, you use it on the one that is your brand or which has the most traffic, gets lots of plus ones, etc. But, you said this: Â We also have a community subdomain...
I think the subdomain should be treated as its own site and let it also have rel=pub to the G+ of your main site. The individuals who write, whether for UGC or your experts writing will be rel=author for their pieces.
By doing it this way you can aggregate the plus ones to your G+ from all which gives your site a better profile in the eyes of the Google. This opens a lot of doors for you (at G's choice obviously. Â Now, I am certainly open to being wrong, but if you think about it for a moment it makes sense in this way: If your firm owns multiple sites (we are a marketing firm and we own a few properties ourselves outside of the main site) but your brand is what owns them, then you can be the pub of all. Again, the individuals writing will be the rel=author.Â
I look forward to more comments. Most excellent question for forcing us to think. -
I would surely (and only) use the rel-publisher field on the professional writer content and tie that into the Google+ profiles to have your listings and content stand out in SERP results, but would stay away from trying to get that tied together in the UGC section. Just my 2 cents, but without regular postings by UGC and tying that into the Google+ profiles of those writers who contribute, I don't think you would get the value back.
If these writers in the UGC are frequent, invite them to contribute to the PRO section of the site as 'guest' bloggers or writers. Just some suggestions I would follow myself Hope it helps!
Cheers!
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
-
Why do people put xml sitemaps in subfolders? Why not just the root? What's the best solution?
Just read this: "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here:Â http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location Yet surely it's better to put the sitemaps at the root so you have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xmlÂ
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xmlÂ
and so on... OR this kind of approach -Â
(b) http://example/com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml andÂ
http://example.com/sitemap/spongecakes.xml I would tend towards (a) rather than (b) - which is the best option? Also, can I keep the structure the same for sitemaps that are subcategories of other sitemaps - for example - for a subcategory of http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml I might create http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml - or should I add a sub folder to turn it into http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes/cherryicing.xml Look forward to reading your comments - Luke0 -
Rel="self" and what to do with it?
Hey there Mozzers, Another question about a forum issue I encountered. When a forum thread has more than just one page as we all know the best course of action is to use rel="next" rel="prev" or rel="previous" But my forum automatically creates another line in the header called Rel="self" What that does is simple. If i have 3 pages http://www.example.com/article?story=abc1
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Angelos_Savvaidis
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc3 **instead of this ** On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc1 On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc2 On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc3: it creates this On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc1 So as you can see it creates a url by adding the ?page=1 and names it rel=self which actually gives back a duplicate page because now instead of just http://www.example.com/article?story=abc1 I also have the same page at http://www.example.com/article?story=abc1?page=1 Do i even need rel="self"? I thought that rel="next" and rel="prev" was enough? Should I change that?0 -
Pages with rel "next"/"prev" still crawling as duplicate?
Howdy! I have a site that is crawling as "duplicate content pages" that is really just pagination. The rel next/prev is in place and done correctly but Roger Bot and Google are both showing duplicated content + duplicate page titles & meta's respectively. The only thing I can think of is we have a canonical pointing back at the URL you are on - we do not have a view all option right now and would not feel comfortable recommending it given the speed implications and size of their catalog. Any experience, recommendations here? Something to be worried about? /collections/all?page=15"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | paul-bold0 -
Is it worth putting images in your sitemap?
I am always trying to optimize our website and have came across adding images to the sitemap. Has anyone done this? Did it make a big difference?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Rel=next/prev for paginated pages then no need for "no index, follow"?
I have a real estate website and use rel=next/prev for paginated real estate result pages. I understand "no index, follow" is not needed for the paginated pages. However, my case is a bit unique: this is real estate site where the listings also show on competitors sites. So, I thought, if I "no index, follow" the paginated pages that would reduce the amount of duplicate content on my site and ultimately support my site ranking well. Again, I understand "no index, follow" is not needed for paginated pages when using rel=next/prev, but since my content will probably be considered fairly duplicate, I question if I should do anyway.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Appropriate use of rel canonical
Hey Guys,I'm a bit stuck. My on-page grade indicated the following two issues and I need to find how how to fix both issues.If you have a solution, could you please let me know how to address these issues? It's all a bit intimidating at the moment!!Thank you so much..****************************************************************************************************************************************Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation: We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. No More Than One Canonical URL Tag The canonical URL tag is meant to be employed only a single time on an individual URL (much like the title element or meta description). To ensure the search engines properly parse the canonical source, employ only a single version of this tag. Recommendation: Remove all but a single canonical URL tag
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StoryScout1 -
I want to put 65.000 productpages on NOINDEX, FOLLW at once! Would Google mind?
Or have we do this step by step, i.e: 13.000 pages on noindex
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Zanox
13.000 pages on noindex
13.000 pages on noindex
13.000 pages on noindex
13.000 pages on noindex Makes together: 65.000 pages0 -
Simple Pagination and Rel Canonical
Hello, I am trying to find a solid solution to this. I think it is simple, but trying to think of a good setup for SEO. If you have a paginated result set, page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4. What i am wondering is, should I point my REL CANONICAL page to Page 1 always, so i'm not loosing power from the first page? Domain structure: www.domain.com/search/[term]/page1/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | aactive
www.domain.com/search/[term]/page2/ Should I point all pages to page 1, so I don't get watered down as we go farther into the site? Thoughts?0