Am I Syndicating Content Correctly?
-
My question is about how to syndicate content correctly. Our site has professionally written content aimed toward our readers, not search engines. As a result, we have other related websites who are looking to syndicate our content. I have read the Google duplicate content guidelines (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359?hl=en), canonical recommendations (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en&ref_topic=2371375), and no index recommendation (https://developers.google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/robots_meta_tag) offered by Google, but am still a little confused about how to proceed. The pros in our opinion are as follows:#1 We can gain exposure to a new audience as well as help grow our brand #2 We figure its also a good way to help build up credible links and help our rankings in GoogleOur initial reaction is to have them use a "canonical link" to assign the content back to us, but also implement a "no index, follow" tag to help avoid duplicate content issues. Are we doing this correctly, or are we potentially in threat of violating some sort of Google Quality Guideline?Thanks!
-
No, you will not receive any increase in your pagerank as a result.
Having said that, if the other website did NOT include the canonical link then there is a chance the link juice for the page would either be split equally between your site and their site or worse case it will all be given to their site (if Google thinks that they are the originator)! So indirectly, ensuring that they add the canonical tag will result in your page having a better ranking.
Hope that makes sense!
Steve
-
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I do have a follow up though... With the "canonical" and "no index, follow" tags in place, will any link juice be transferred?
For example:
Original article is published on www.mysite.com/original-article
Content is syndicated on www.theresite.com/syndicated-content with the following tags in place:
What I am getting confused about is since the syndicated content is not getting index, then does any sort of link attributes get passed through to my original article? In other words, does the canonical link pass any link juice even though the noindex tag is in place?
-
However, it is helpful to ensure that each site on which your content is syndicated includes a link back to your original article.
Yes, but you gotta be really careful. If you fill syndicated content with anchor text links you will have a Penguin problem.
** Wondering if this was written before Penguin. ** If I was the boss at Google we would have a bar of soap used to wash the mouth of Googlers who talk about link building.
-
**Our initial reaction is to have them use a "canonical link" to assign the content back to us, but also implement a "no index, follow" tag to help avoid duplicate content issues. **
This is the way to go. But, you must require them to use the canonical and the no index. You gotta say, "These are our conditions for your use of our content." If they are good guys then they should have no problem with it. Stick to your guns about this.
My bet is that some will simply rewrite your content.
-
Hi,
I would stipulate that anyone wishing to re-using your content does so on the condition that they include a canonical link back to your original article... Even if a few people do this then Google will soon realise that you are the author of the original article and credit you with the associated pagerank.
You should never look to create content solely for search engines (so you're doing the right thing). Website content should always be about your users but if you do this correctly then you will also benefit from the traffic the search engines generate!
Hope this helps.
Steve
-
Hi Brad,
Google's official version below:
- Syndicate carefully: If you syndicate your content on other sites, Google will always show the version we think is most appropriate for users in each given search, which may or may not be the version you'd prefer. However, it is helpful to ensure that each site on which your content is syndicated includes a link back to your original article. You can also ask those who use your syndicated material to use the noindex meta tag to prevent search engines from indexing their version of the content.
You can refer to it on this link
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
-
Duplicate content - multiple sites hosted on same server with same IP address
We have three sites hosted on the same server with the same IP address. For SEO (to avoid duplicate content) reasons we need to redirect the IP address to the site - but there are three different sites. If we use the "rel canonical" code on the websites, these codes will be duplicates too, as the websites are mirrored versions of the sites with IP address, e.g. www.domainname.com/product-page and 23.34.45.99/product-page. What's the best ways to solve these duplicate content issues in this case? Many thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Jade0 -
How to re-rank an established website with new content
I can't help but feel this is a somewhat untapped resource with a distinct lack of information.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ChimplyWebGroup
There is a massive amount of information around on how to rank a new website, or techniques in order to increase SEO effectiveness, but to rank a whole new set of pages or indeed to 're-build' a site that may have suffered an algorithmic penalty is a harder nut to crack in terms of information and resources. To start I'll provide my situation; SuperTED is an entertainment directory SEO project.
It seems likely we may have suffered an algorithmic penalty at some point around Penguin 2.0 (May 22nd) as traffic dropped steadily since then, but wasn't too aggressive really. Then to coincide with the newest Panda 27 (According to Moz) in late September this year we decided it was time to re-assess tactics to keep in line with Google's guidelines over the two years. We've slowly built a natural link-profile over this time but it's likely thin content was also an issue. So beginning of September up to end of October we took these steps; Contacted webmasters (and unfortunately there was some 'paid' link-building before I arrived) to remove links 'Disavowed' the rest of the unnatural links that we couldn't have removed manually. Worked on pagespeed as per Google guidelines until we received high-scores in the majority of 'speed testing' tools (e.g WebPageTest) Redesigned the entire site with speed, simplicity and accessibility in mind. Htaccessed 'fancy' URLs to remove file extensions and simplify the link structure. Completely removed two or three pages that were quite clearly just trying to 'trick' Google. Think a large page of links that simply said 'Entertainers in London', 'Entertainers in Scotland', etc. 404'ed, asked for URL removal via WMT, thinking of 410'ing? Added new content and pages that seem to follow Google's guidelines as far as I can tell, e.g;
Main Category Page Sub-category Pages Started to build new links to our now 'content-driven' pages naturally by asking our members to link to us via their personal profiles. We offered a reward system internally for this so we've seen a fairly good turnout. Many other 'possible' ranking factors; such as adding Schema data, optimising for mobile devices as best we can, added a blog and began to blog original content, utilise and expand our social media reach, custom 404 pages, removed duplicate content, utilised Moz and much more. It's been a fairly exhaustive process but we were happy to do so to be within Google guidelines. Unfortunately, some of those link-wheel pages mentioned previously were the only pages driving organic traffic, so once we were rid of these traffic has dropped to not even 10% of what it was previously. Equally with the changes (htaccess) to the link structure and the creation of brand new pages, we've lost many of the pages that previously held Page Authority.
We've 301'ed those pages that have been 'replaced' with much better content and a different URL structure - http://www.superted.com/profiles.php/bands-musicians/wedding-bands to simply http://www.superted.com/profiles.php/wedding-bands, for example. Therefore, with the loss of the 'spammy' pages and the creation of brand new 'content-driven' pages, we've probably lost up to 75% of the old website, including those that were driving any traffic at all (even with potential thin-content algorithmic penalties). Because of the loss of entire pages, the changes of URLs and the rest discussed above, it's likely the site looks very new and probably very updated in a short period of time. What I need to work out is a campaign to drive traffic to the 'new' site.
We're naturally building links through our own customerbase, so they will likely be seen as quality, natural link-building.
Perhaps the sudden occurrence of a large amount of 404's and 'lost' pages are affecting us?
Perhaps we're yet to really be indexed properly, but it has been almost a month since most of the changes are made and we'd often be re-indexed 3 or 4 times a week previous to the changes.
Our events page is the only one without the new design left to update, could this be affecting us? It potentially may look like two sites in one.
Perhaps we need to wait until the next Google 'link' update to feel the benefits of our link audit.
Perhaps simply getting rid of many of the 'spammy' links has done us no favours - I should point out we've never been issued with a manual penalty. Was I perhaps too hasty in following the rules? Would appreciate some professional opinion or from anyone who may have experience with a similar process before. It does seem fairly odd that following guidelines and general white-hat SEO advice could cripple a domain, especially one with age (10 years+ the domain has been established) and relatively good domain authority within the industry. Many, many thanks in advance. Ryan.0 -
Duplicate Content for e-commerce help
Hi. I know I have duplicate content issues and Moz has shown me the issues on ecommerce websites. However a large number of these issues are for variations of the same product. For example a blue, armani t-shirt can be found on armani page, t-shirt page, armani t-shirt page and it also shows links for the duplicates due to sizing variations. Is it possible or even worthwhile working on these issues? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | YNWA0 -
Is it a duplicate content ?
Hi
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | loumiPlease check this link : http : // www . speedguide . net/news/yahoo-acquires-email-management-app-xobni-5252 it's a post where the admin just write the first 200-300 words and then insert the "read more here" which links to the original post This make the website active as the admin always add new content but is this not against google rules as it's a duplicate content ?? Can you tell me the name of this strategy ? Is this really work to make the website active ??
0 -
Copied Content/ Copied Website/
Hello guys, I was checking my product descriptions and I found out that there is a website that is using my descriptions word by word, also they use company name, product images, they have a link that sends you to my site, contact form.. I tried to purchase something and the order came through our email, but i made an inquire and it didn't come through. Also they have a sub-folder with my company name. Also they have url's with my company name, and this isn't right is it? I am confused and honestly I don't know what to do, we don't take part to any affiliation program or anything like that and we don't ship out of Europe. This is a Chinese website. Just for curiosity, I noticed that one of our competitors is there as well, and it does seem weird. Here is the links: www.everychina . com/company/repsole_limited-hz1405d06.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
Moving content to a clean URL
Greetings My site was seriously punished in the recent penguin update. I foolishly got some bad out sourced spammy links built and I am now paying for it 😞 I am now thinking it best to start fresh on a new url, but I am wondering if I can use the content from the flagged site on the new url. Would this be flagged as duplicate content, even if i took the old site down? your help is greatly appreciated Silas
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Silasrose0 -
How do you optimize a page with Syndicated Content?
Content is syndicated legally (licensed). My questions are: What is the best way to approach this situation? Is there any a change to compete with the original site/page for the same keywords? Is it okay to do so? Will there be any negative SEO impact on my site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | StickyRiceSEO0 -
Tricky Decision to make regarding duplicate content (that seems to be working!)
I have a really tricky decision to make concerning one of our clients. Their site to date was developed by someone else. They have a successful eCommerce website, and the strength of their Search Engine performance lies in their product category pages. In their case, a product category is an audience niche: their gender and age. In this hypothetical example my client sells lawnmowers: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-34 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-33 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-25 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-3 For all searches pertaining to lawnmowers, the gender of the buyer and their age (for which there are a lot for the 'real' store), these results come up number one for every combination they have a page for. The issue is the specific product pages, which take the form of the following: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-34/fancy-blue-lawnmower This same product, with the same content (save a reference to the gender and age on the page) can also be found at a few other gender / age combinations the product is targeted at. For instance: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-34/fancy-blue-lawnmower http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-33/fancy-blue-lawnmower http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-32/fancy-blue-lawnmower So, duplicate content. As they are currently doing so well I am agonising over this - I dislike viewing the same content on multiple URLs, and though it wasn't a malicious effort on the previous developers part, think it a little dangerous in terms of SEO. On the other hand, if I change it I'll reduce the website size, and severely reduce the number of pages that are contextually relevant to the gender/age category pages. In short, I don't want to sabotage the performance of the category pages, by cutting off all their on-site relevant content. My options as I see them are: Stick with the duplicate content model, but add some unique content to each gender/age page. This will differentiate the product category page content a little. Move products to single distinct URLs. Whilst this could boost individual product SEO performance, this isn't an objective, and it carries the risks I perceive above. What are your thoughts? Many thanks, Tom
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SoundinTheory0