I'm thinking I might need to canonicalize back to the home site and combine some content, what do you think?
-
I have a site that is mostly just podcasts with transcripts, and it has both audio and video versions of the podcasts. I also have a blog that I contribute to that links back to the video/transcript page of these podcasts. So this blog I contribute to has the exact same content (the podcast; both audio and video but no transcript) and then an audio and video version of this podcast. Each post of the podcast has different content on it that is technically unique but I'm not sure it's unique enough.
So my question is, should I canonicalize the posts on this blog back to the original video/transcript page of the podcast and then combine the video with the audio posts.
Thanks!
-
If you combine them, you'll also need to rel=canonical or 301-redirect the audio pages to the video pages (or vise-versa). To avoid chaining your canonicals, the blog posts should all go back to whichever version (audio/video) you choose as the canonical.
It depends on usage, but I'm guessing the videos have higher engagement than the audio? You could just build a longish page that looks like:
[Video]
[Audio]
[Description]
[Transcript]Transcripts add a lot of SEO power to a page, potentially, and getting that content right on the main video page could help quite a bit, if you can keep it user-friendly.
-
Okay thanks, I'll discuss this with others at my organization. I think we will combine the video and audio posts into one and then rel=canonical the patheos blog posts to the original website.
Any other ideas or suggestions?
This has been great feedback thank you!
-
You have to understand that "unique" is relative. Yes, each of these pages have some unique content and legitimately target different things. In Google's eyes, though, they have virtually the same title tag, are on the same subject, share common header elements, text, and keywords, and could be seen as near-duplicates. The audio page especially appears thin, since Google can't weigh in the value of the actual audio itself.
Personally, I'd combine the audio/video on one page, for starters. I just don't see clear value in the separation, either for search or users. As for the transcripts, that page is essentially richer. It's the video + the transcript. From a business/organizational standpoint, I'm not really clear on what the two sites are trying to accomplish, but you are potentially diluting your ranking ability. Two sites are harder to market and promote than one - that's a reality that goes far beyond SEO.
I see that the two sites have very different purposes, but if it were me, I would probably focus the ranking power of these videos/podcasts on just one page, and use cross-domain canonicals. This is as much a business decision as an SEO decision, so I can only give you my opinions, but the four copies probably are hurting you in the long run.
-
Yes definitely. We are talking about dozens podcasts so far...
this is the video version of this podcast from the blog:
and this links back to the video and transcript post on the website
this is the audio version of this podcast from the blog:
and this links back to the video and transcript post on the website also.
video and transcript version of this podcast on the website:
http://ibelievepodcast.com/1452/die-without-knowing-christ-video-transcript
audio version of this podcast on the website:
http://ibelievepodcast.com/1455/die-without-knowing-christ-audio
as you can see there a total of four posts for each podcast.
-
If the intent of the blog on patheos is for people to stumble across that content, or to fuel a feed for users/subscribers on that site (as opposed to having higher search visibility than the actual podcast site), then you can go ahead and direct the canonical to the original podcast pages. Or, simply leave things as they are (so long as it's not creating thin/duplicate content issues).
If your patheos blog ranks higher in search results because it's part of a larger blog network, then you definitely won't want to change the canonical, because you'll want the blog to maintain it's juice.
Have you looked at your referral traffic data lately? How much traffic is the blog driving to the site? Enough to make it worth all the extra effort?
-
Any chance you could share one pair of URLs that you worry might seem like duplicates? Unfortunately, it's hard to tell out of context. How many podcasts/videos are we talking about - dozens, hundreds, thousands?
-
The website is the original source and the more important entity, so the goal is to bring people there. The blog that we manage is on a larger site called patheos.com, a religious website.
I'm not 100% sure if it's creating a "duplicate" content problem but I am feeling like there might be a uniqueness problem.
Both pages (the website and blog) exist in order to help promote the podcast with the blog posts linking back to their respective full transcript posts on the website.
So I'm thinking the other issue might be that the content on the blog if not duplicate, then is considered "thin". It is wordpress based and the content it includes is made up of posts, and there is one for each of the video and audio versions of the cast. The video version includes the video and and then a few short paragraphs talking about the topic at hand being discussed in the podcast. And the audio version is just one paragraph or so about the topic along with the audio. Technically unique from the video, but obviously short, and is generally targeting the same thing.
The website is also wordpress based and has a post for each of the video and audio versions of the cast as well. The video post just has the video and then the verbatim transcript, like Moz's whiteboard fridays! And then the audio version includes a short paragraph or so on the topic, again technically different or unique from the video transcript and also different from the other audio post on the blog but also "thin". Sorry if this is confusing...
Thanks so much for your responses so far, I greatly appreciate it!
-
I tend to agree with Karin. On the one hand - yes, this could be seen as duplicate/thin content, especially at large scale. On the other hand, I'm not clear on what your goal is or which set of pages is more important. Think about the business case and where you want to bring users, not just the SEO aspect. Why do both of these pages exist, and what are you trying to achieve?
-
What's the more valuable goal for your traffic: to have people find the blog or the main site? If you point the canonical tags from the blog to the site, then you'll reduce the chances of anyone ever finding the blog in a search, which would waste the extra effort of adding unique content about the podcasts (unless you have a devoted readership who is going from the podcast page to the corresponding blog post in order to see what extra insights you've added).
Is it creating any duplicate content issues to have the posts in both places? If so, that would be a good reason to redirect the canonical refs (or discontinue the blog altogether).
-
I believe best practice is to always canonicalize to the original content. However, the mix of the original content within those blog pages is tricky because I'm sure a lot has to do with how much content is duped.
Have you tried running any reports for duplicate content issues? I know Moz has some great tools and one of my favorites is Screaming Frog Spider. Have you also looked at your GWT to see what if any issues Google may have?
Duplicate content can be bad, but there are a few cases with transcriptions that we've recently discovered where penalties are non-existent. One of the recent lessons we learned was from a similar thread about video transcriptions. Phil in the post submitted some good links and research to back it all up.
Here's the link to that discussion: http://moz.com/community/q/video-seo-youtube-transcriptions-dupe-content
I hope this points you in the right direction!
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
-
Site redesign makes Moz Site Crawl go haywire
I work for an agency. Recently, one of our clients decided to do a complete site redesign without giving us notice. Shortly after this happened, Moz Site Crawl reported a massive spike of issues, including but not limited to 4xx errors. However, in the weeks that followed, it seemed these 4xx errors would disappear and then a large number of new ones would appear afterward, which makes me think they're phantom errors (and looking at the referring URLs, I suspect as much because I can't find the offending URLs). Is there any reason why this would happen? Like, something wrong with the sitemap or robots.txt?
Technical SEO | | YYSeanBrady1 -
Matt Cutts says 404 unavailable products on the 'average' ecommerce site.
If you're an ecommerce site owner, will you be changing how you deal with unavailable products as a result of the recent video from Matt Cutts? Will you be moving over to a 404 instead of leaving the pages live still? For us, as more products were becoming unavailable, I had started to worry about the impact of this on the website (bad user experience, Panda issues from bounce rates, etc.). But, having spoken to other website owners, some say it's better to leave the unavailable product pages there as this offers more value (it ranks well so attracts traffic, links to those pages, it allows you to get the product back up quickly if it unexpectedly becomes available, etc.). I guess there's many solutions, for example, using ItemAvailability schema, that might be better than a 404 (custom or not). But then, if it's showing as unavailable on the SERPS, will anyone bother clicking on it anyway...? Would be interested in your thoughts.
Technical SEO | | Coraltoes770 -
Do you think this site has been hit by penguin?
Hi Guys, I need some opinion on a website i am working on www.colourbnners.co.uk They updated their website in August but the company they used did not take into account the URL structure and hence there's a massive loss in links in August time. They also dropped off Google for all their key terms except their brand name 'colour banners'
Technical SEO | | gezzagregz
Since then, they have implemented a 301 redirect. Some key points They have not received any manual warnings in WMT I have disavowed some poor quality links that they have built over the years I am building high quality links quite selectively/slowly There were a lot of duplicate content issues - these have been resolved now.
So my question to you SEO pros is do you think its penguin? or something that i am missing?
If it is penguin, what is the best form of attack to get it removed? regards gezzagrez0 -
Google using descriptions from other websites instead of site's own meta description
In the last month or so, Google has started displaying a description under links to my home page in its search results that doesn't actually come from my site. I have a meta description tag in place and for a very limited set of keywords, that description is displayed, but for the majority of results, it's displaying a description that appears on Alexa.com and a handful of other sites that seem to have copied Alexa's listing, e.g. similarsites.com. The problem is, the description from these other sites isn't particularly descriptive and mentions a service that we no longer provide. So my questions are: Why is Google doing this? Surely that's broken behaviour. How do I fix it?
Technical SEO | | antdesign0 -
According to 1 of my PRO campaigns - I have 250+ pages with Duplicate Content - Could my empty 'tag' pages be to blame?
Like I said, my one of my moz reports is showing 250+ pages with duplicate content. should I just delete the tag pages? Is that worth my time? how do I alert SEOmoz that the changes have been made, so that they show up in my next report?
Technical SEO | | TylerAbernethy0 -
After entire site is noindex'd, how long to recover?
A programmers 'accidentally' put "name="robots" content="noindex" />" into every single page of one of my sites (articles, landing pages, home page etc). This happened on Monday, and we just noticed today. Ugh... We've fixed the issue; how long will it take to get reindexed? Will we instantly retain our same positions for keywords? Any tips?
Technical SEO | | EricPacifico0 -
I think I'm stuck in a 301 redirect loop
Hi all, I'm trying to correct some of my duplicate content errors. The site is built on Miva Merchant and the storefront page, /SFNT.html, needs to be permanently redirected to www.mydomain.com This is what my .htaccess file looks like: #RedirectPermanent /index.html http://dev.mydomain.com/mm5/merchant.mvc? RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^dev.mydomain.com$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*) http://dev.emydomain.com/$1 [L,R=301] DirectoryIndex index.html index.htm index.php /mm5/merchant.mvc redirect 301 /SFNT.html http://dev.mydomain.com/ RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=MYSTORECODE [NC] When I use this code and navigate to http://dev.mydomain.com/SFNT.html the URL gets rewritten as http://dev.mydomain.com/?Screen=SFNT So I believe this is what's called a "redirect loop".... Can anyone provide any insight? I'm not a developer, but have been tasked with cleaning up the problems on the website and can use any input anyone is willing to offer. Thanks, jr
Technical SEO | | Technical_Contact0 -
Duplicate content and URL's
Hi Guys, Hope you are all well. Just a quick question which you will find nice and easy 🙂 I am just about to work through duplicate content pages and URL changes. Firstly, With the duplicate content issue i am finding the seo friendly URL i would normally direct to in some cases has less links, authority and root domain to it than some of the unseo friendly URL's. will this harm me if i still 301 redirect them to the seo friendly URL. Also, With the url changed it is going to be a huge job to change all the url so they are friendly and the CMS system is poor. Is there a better way of doing this? It has been suggested that we create a new webpage with a friendly URL and redirect all the pages to that. Will this lose all the weight as it will be a brand new page? Thank you for your help guys your legends!! Cheers Wayne
Technical SEO | | wazza19850