Using canonical for duplicate contents outside of my domain
-
I have 2 domains for the same company, example.com and example.sg
Sometimes we have to post the same content or event on both websites so to protect my website from duplicate content plenty i use canonical tag to point to either .com or .sg depend on the page.
Any idea if this is the right decision
Thanks
-
Unfortunately, that's a lot more tricky. If you're trying to rank both the .com and .sg version for, let's say, US residents, and those sites have duplicate content, then you do run the risk of Google filtering one of them out. If you use canonical tags or something like that, then one site will be taken out of contention for ranking - in that case, you won't rank for both sites on the same term. The only way to have your cake and eat it too is to make the sites as unique as possible.
Even then, you're potentially going to duplicate effort and cannibalize your own rankings, so it's a risky proposition. In some cases, it may be better to try to promote your social profiles and other pages outside of your site that have some authority. It doesn't have to be your own site ranking, just a site that's generally positive or neutral.
-
Thanks Peter you answer has enrich the discussion
I think your suggestion is the proper way for different local domains versions of the same company or blog
My case is little different that actually lately i am trying to rank both of them in the seek of reputation management
It wasn't intended to be like that on the beginning but now we are trying to take advantage of our other local domain like .sg , .ch and .ae
-
Do you want the .sg site to only rank regionally in Singapore? You could use rel=alternate hreflang to designate the language/region for the two sites, and help Google more accurately know when to display which sites. This also acts as a soft canonicalization signal and tells Google that the pages are known duplicates:
-
Here's an article about rel=canonical where Dr. Pete answers some rel=canonical questions. With regards to rel=canonical passing PageRank he says:
"This is very difficult to measure, but if you use rel=canonical appropriately, and if Google honors it, then it appears to act similarly to a 301-redirect. We suspect it passes authority/PageRank for links to the non-canonical URL, with some small amount of loss (similar to a 301)."
http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
At the end of the following Matt Cutts video (2:10), he says that there isn't a lot of difference between the page rank passing via rel=canonical and page rank passing a 301 redirect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA
When it comes to the content of the page, yes, the two versions of the page should be pretty close to identical. I've seen Google refer to it as "highly similar". Here's what Google says:
"A large portion of the duplicate page’s content should be present on the canonical version. One test is to imagine you don’t understand the language of the content—if you placed the duplicate side-by-side with the canonical, does a very large percentage of the words of the duplicate page appear on the canonical page? If you need to speak the language to understand that the pages are similar; for example, if they’re only topically similar but not extremely close in exact words, the canonical designation might be disregarded by search engines."
See: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
So, if your pages are too dissimilar then Google may ignore the rel-canonical "suggestion" and the "wrong page" or both pages may appear in Google's index.
-
i think this is useful resource that answer a lot of questions around canonical
-
Thanks Doug for your useful response
Just i need to clarify your sentence
"Be aware that the value of any inbound links to that article will be allocated to the canonical version. "
Do you mean canonical link is passing the page rank similar to 301 Redirect?
What if the 2 pages wasnt 100% identical ?
-
Check this Video Out : http://moz.com/blog/handling-duplicate-content-across-large-numbers-of-urls
-
Yes, this sounds absolutely correct.
You can check it's working by doing a search for some unique content in your article or using the query with the article's title:
site:{domain} "title"
If everything is working correctly you should only see the canonical version of the article in Google's index. (you can also use the inurl: to check too.
Be aware that the value of any inbound links to that article will be allocated to the canonical version. (This doesn't apply to social follows/likes though.) So think carefully about the audience for the article before deciding which version is canonical.
It may not apply in your case, but it can be a good idea to think about your readers too. By adding a link in the article to the other site, you can help to cross-promote them. You may find tat if some of your visitors find your cross posted article relevant and useful to them they may be more interested in other article on the source site.
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 and 404 errors
I apologize in advance, but I am an SEO novice and my understanding of code is very limited. Moz has issued a lot (several hundred) of duplicate content and 404 error flags on the ecommerce site my company takes care of. For the duplicate content, some of the pages it says are duplicates don't even seem similar to me. additionally, a lot of them are static pages we embed images of size charts that we use as popups on item pages. it says these issues are high priority but how bad is this? Is this just an issue because if a page has similar content the engine spider won't know which one to index? also, what is the best way to handle these urls bringing back 404 errors? I should probably have a developer look at these issues but I wanted to ask the extremely knowledgeable Moz community before I do 🙂
Technical SEO | | AliMac260 -
Another Duplicate Content - eCommerce Question!
We are manufacturers of about 15 products and our website provides information about the products. We also offer them for sale on the site. Recently we partnered with a large eCommerce site that sells many of these types of products. They lifted descriptions from our site for theirs and are now selling our products. They have higher DA than us. Will this cause a ranking problem for us? Should we write unique descriptions for them? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Chris6610 -
Tags, Categories, & Duplicate Content
Looking for some advice on a duplicate content issue that we're having that definitely isn't unique to us. See, we are allowing all our tag and category pages, as well as our blog pagination be indexed and followed, but Moz is detecting that all as duplicate content, which is obvious since it is the same content that is on our blog posts. We've decided in the past to keep these pages the way they are as it hasn't seemed to hurt us specifically and we hoped it would help our overall ranking. We haven't seen positive or negative signals either way, just the warnings from Moz. We are wondering if we should noindex these pages and if that could cause a positive change, but we're worried it might cause a big negative change as well. Have you confronted this issue? What did you decide and what were the results? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | bradhodson0 -
Development Website Duplicate Content Issue
Hi, We launched a client's website around 7th January 2013 (http://rollerbannerscheap.co.uk), we originally constructed the website on a development domain (http://dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk) which was active for around 6-8 months (the dev site was unblocked from search engines for the first 3-4 months, but then blocked again) before we migrated dev --> live. In late Jan 2013 changed the robots.txt file to allow search engines to index the website. A week later I accidentally logged into the DEV website and also changed the robots.txt file to allow the search engines to index it. This obviously caused a duplicate content issue as both sites were identical. I realised what I had done a couple of days later and blocked the dev site from the search engines with the robots.txt file. Most of the pages from the dev site had been de-indexed from Google apart from 3, the home page (dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk, and two blog pages). The live site has 184 pages indexed in Google. So I thought the last 3 dev pages would disappear after a few weeks. I checked back late February and the 3 dev site pages were still indexed in Google. I decided to 301 redirect the dev site to the live site to tell Google to rank the live site and to ignore the dev site content. I also checked the robots.txt file on the dev site and this was blocking search engines too. But still the dev site is being found in Google wherever the live site should be found. When I do find the dev site in Google it displays this; Roller Banners Cheap » admin <cite>dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk/</cite><a id="srsl_0" class="pplsrsla" tabindex="0" data-ved="0CEQQ5hkwAA" data-url="http://dev.rollerbannerscheap.co.uk/" data-title="Roller Banners Cheap » admin" data-sli="srsl_0" data-ci="srslc_0" data-vli="srslcl_0" data-slg="webres"></a>A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more.This is really affecting our clients SEO plan and we can't seem to remove the dev site or rank the live site in Google.Please can anyone help?
Technical SEO | | SO_UK0 -
Duplicate content error from url generated
We are getting a duplicate content error, with "online form/" being returned numerous times. Upon inspecting the code, we are calling an input form via jQuery which is initially called by something like this: Opens Form Why would this be causing it the amend the URL and to be crawled?
Technical SEO | | pauledwards0 -
How I implement the cross domain rel canonical?
I just watched the WBF on cross domain rel canonicals. I understand the concept, but not sure how I go about actually doing the rel canonical? If I have www.mysite.com and someone we just partnered with, www.othersite.com wants to create new pages and use my content, what will the rel canonical tag look like on www.othersite.com? Do I need to also put this tag on www.mysite.com? I want to make sure each of my pages that the other site is copying is getting the "SEO credit."
Technical SEO | | NueMD0 -
Duplicate content
I have to sentences that I want to optimize to different pages for. sentence number one is travel to ibiza by boat sentence number to is travel to ibiza by ferry My question is, can I have the same content on both pages exept for the keywords or will Google treat that as duplicate content and punish me? And If yes, where goes the limit/border for duplicate content?
Technical SEO | | stlastla0 -
Using the Canonical Tag
Hi, I have an issue that can be solve with a canonical tag, but I am not sure yet, we are developing a page full of statistics, like this: www.url.com/stats/ But filled with hundreds of stats, so users can come and select only the stats they want to see and share with their friends, so it becomes like a new page with their slected stats: www.url.com/stats/?id=mystats The problems I see on this is: All pages will be have a part of the content from the main page 1) and many of them will be exactly the same, so: duplicate content. My idea was to add the canonical tag of "www.url.com/stats/" to all pages, similar as how Rand does it here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps But I am not sure of this solution because the content is not exactly the same, page 2) will only have a part of the content that page 1) has, and in some cases just a very small part. Is the canonical tag useful in this case? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | andresgmontero0