Can I use content from an existing site that is not up anymore?
-
I want to take down a current website and create a new site or two (with new url, ip, server). Can I use the content from the deleted site on the new sites since I own it? How will Google see that?
-
Thank you. That is a great answer!
-
Hi there,
I would say that, taking William's point into account, canonicals might work in order to remove any possibility that Google would see the new site as copying the old one. That said, I can't guarantee that they could not either manually or automatically (manually would be much easier) note that the two sites are owned by the same person and that the domain change is a measure taken to avoid a penalty. The truly safest thing to do is to re-write the content and start afresh. The next safest is to remove the content from the old site, force a re-crawl / wait for Google to update its cache of the old site excluding the content, and then re-publish on the new site.
Canonicals will make this process quicker, but I don't believe it can be guaranteed that they won't result in Google making a stronger connection between the two sites, which might not go well. Again, this is only if there are enough similarities for Google to understand that this is not a scraper / scrapee situation but a situation where one entity owns both sites.
I'm sorry not to give a definitive answer.
-
After reading Jane & William's discussion--do you both agree that canonicals is the way to go? The site will be similar (trying to create a non-penalized site). The sites will have different ip's and servers but a lot of the same content. None of the same backlinks... I just don't want to do the work if it's going to end up hurting me worse. I don't see how I can get all those bad backlinks removed.
-
Really good point. Taking that into account, I might guess that an anti-manipulation method Google might employ is to grab registration details, hosting data, analytics codes, etc. and other identifying factors to determine whether the canonicalised content is owned by the same person. That is, canonicals between tightly-linked sites where the "duplicate" is penalised could hurt the canonical source, stopping people using this in place of the old 301 trick. If the scraper site has nothing in common with the source, Google does not pass on any negative metric from the duplicate.
This is just a theory too of course! I'd be confident assuming that they're taking precautions to stop this becoming a common trick. Awesome point!
-
The thought behind canonicals is this:
-
One of their uses is to fight against scrapers and such by still having the canonical tags in place when these spammy places grab your content.
-
If penalties passed through canonicals, then the penalties these scrapers have would effect your site terribly. This is not the case, in my experience.
-
So, unless Google has already implemented the human tracking that was discussed a few Whiteboard Fridays ago, this should work. And even with hardcore human tracking for penalities, I think its yet to be seen if this would focus on small sites trying to fix penalities as opposed to the large black hat spammers.
There is a bit of theorycrafting here, but in RoxBrock's specific situation, it looks like he has to pick the lesser of all evils.
-
-
The idea of using canonicals interests me, but I am not 100% sure it is risk-free. It used to be the case that you could 301 penalised websites and remove the penalty (we're talking 2010 and earlier here). Google is very keen on transferring penalties these days, so I would be surprised if they are leaving a loophole for canonical tags open like this, or if they will keep that loophole open for long.
You would ideally leave the site live and remove its content as William says - once you see that the cached version of the site no longer contains the content you want to move, you can feel free to take the old site down and put the content up on the new site.
We don't know what lengths Google is going to or will go to to avoid people being able to re-use previously penalised content (including good content from penalised websites) but the safest thing you can do whilst using this old content right now is ensure the old content has been deindexed before putting it up again elsewhere.
The actual safest thing you can do is re-write the content, but I realise this might not be possible.
-
Put the canonical tags in the old content, and point it to the new pages.
If you believe there are penalties, then 301ing is a little risky.
De-indexing content doesn't mean Google forgets it was there, they still have it cached, so this isn't ideal.
It looks like canonical may be your best bet.
-
So you suggest leaving the old site up and add the content to the new site with the canonical tag pointing to old site? Any other options you can think of?
-
You would need to keep the site live to speed up the de-indexation. Then block all bots through robots.txt and force a crawl.
Make sure this is what you want to do. There are other options for this situation depending on your intent. Canonical tags, for example, would not transfer penalties and still show Google where the good source of the content is.
-
Many bad links were built on the old website by a questionable SEO firm, so I do believe the URL has been hit, but not with a formal penalty.
In order to redirect the old web pages I would need to keep the website live which really does not serve my purpose--which is to use great content that was written in-house on a clean website with no backlinks (starting from scratch).
How would one go about "de-indexing" content?
Thank you for prompt responses.
-
301 redirect the old web pages to the new ones using an .htaccess file on the old website. This will show Google that the content has moved to the new web pages. Check out the link for more information: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection
-
Interesting question!
I had to do some research on this, there is not much out there. One place I was sure to find and answer was the depths of the underworld in blackhat forums. I found a whole discussion on it from 6 months back. (Not going to link to a black hat site, sorry)
However what they said and had tried and tested was that the site must be de-indexed and the same for all pages so that it did not trip the duplicate content.
However lets back things up a little. Why are you doing this? Does the original have a penalty?
Why not keep the original live and put a canonical link in your page pointing to the new site stating that is the original content owner? this way you will get traffic right away and not have to start ranking from scratch.
Need to know more about your reasons please.
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
-
Google URL Shortener- Should I use one or multiple???
I have a client with a number of YouTube videos. I'm using Google URL Shortner to allow the link to show in the YouTube text (as its a long URL). Many of these links go to the same page ex .com/services-page Should I use a single short URL for each video linking to the .com/services-page or should they be unique each time? If unique, would Google possibly think I'm trying to manipulate results? Thanks in advance. I'm just not sure on this one and hope someone knows best practice on this. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mgordon1 -
Can I post an article on my blog if it has already been published and taken down?
Hi Guys, A writer for my site has offered to let me post her article on my blog, however the article has already been published on another blog, but the blog has now been taken down. If I publish this on my blog will there be any harm to my blog? I want to stay clean and not be in trouble with penguin in any way shape or form! Cheers everyone appreciate some advice here!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Different site behind the flag
Hello, I am in a very complicated situation. I have a site in Itaian which is targeted in Italy by webmaster tools so the majority of the organic traffic comes from there and everything is fine. However this site got a link from a major international site. So now I get traffic from all over the world but I can't take advantage of it. From the Italian traffic I get from this site I see high pageviews numbers and many minutes in average visitor time. The problem in this situation is that for many reasons this website cannot be translated so I can put many language choices in this site. I want to ask, If I put, let's say an English flag in top of my site, that will indicate the English language, but instead of the user to see an English version of the site he/she will be redirected(no follow link) to another site of the same content in English, will this violate any of Google's guideline or hurt the seo of the original site? Thank you all!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tz_Seo0 -
Suspicious external links to site have 302 redirects
Hi, I have been asked to look at a site where I suspect some questionable SEO work, particularly link building. The site does seem to be performing very poorly in Google since January 2014, although there are no messages in WMT. Using WMT, OPenSiteExplorer, Majestic & NetPeak, I have analysed inbound links and found a group of links which although are listed in WMT, etc appear to 302 redirect to a directory in China (therefore the actual linking domain is not visible). It looks like a crude type of link farm, but I cant understand why they would use 302s not 301s. The domains are not visible due to redirects. Should I request a disavow or ignore? The linking domains are listed below: http://www.basalts.cn/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | crescentdigital
http://www.chinamarbles.com.cn/
http://www.china-slate.com.cn/
http://www.granitecountertop.com.cn/
http://www.granite-exporter.com/
http://www.sandstones.biz/
http://www.stone-2.com/
http://www.stonebuild.cn/
http://www.stonecompany.com.cn/
http://www.stonecontact.cn/
http://www.stonecrate.com/
http://www.stonedesk.com/
http://www.stonedvd.com/
http://www.stonepark.cn/
http://www.stonetool.com.cn/
http://www.stonewebsite.com/ Thanks Steve0 -
Has anyone used this? www.linkdetox.com/
Has anyone used this? www.linkdetox.com/ Any opinions about it?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Llanero0 -
Schema.org tricking and duplicate content across domains
I've found the following abuse, and Im curious what could I do about it. Basically the scheme is: own some content only once (pictures, description, reviews etc) use different domain names (no problem if you use the same IP or IP-C address) have a different layout (this is basically the key) use schema.org tricking, meaning show (the very same) reviews on different scale, show a little bit less reviews on one site than on an another Quick example: http://bit.ly/18rKd2Q
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Sved
#2: budapesthotelstart.com/budapest-hotels/hotel-erkel/szalloda-attekintes.hu.html (217.113.62.21), 328 reviews, 8.6 / 10
#6: szallasvadasz.hu/hotel-erkel/ (217.113.62.201), 323 reviews, 4.29 / 5
#7: xn--szlls-gyula-l7ac.hu/szallodak/erkel-hotel/ (217.113.62.201), no reviews shown It turns out that this tactic even without the 4th step can be quite beneficial to rank with several domains. Here is a little investigation I've done (not really extensive, took around 1 and a half hour, but quite shocking nonetheless):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqbt1cVFlhXbdENGenFsME5vSldldTl3WWh4cVVHQXc#gid=0 Kaspar Szymanski from Google Webspam team said that they have looked into it, and will do something, but honestly I don't know whether I could believe it or not. What do you suggest? should I leave it, and try to copy this tactic to rank with the very same content multiple times? should I deliberately cheat with markups? should I play nice and hope that these guys sooner or later will be dealt with? (honestly can't see this one working out) should I write a case study for this, so maybe if the tactics get bigger attention, then google will deal with it? Does anybody could push this towards Matt Cutts, or anybody else who is responsible for these things?0 -
HELP - Site architecture of E-Commerce Mega Menu - Linkjuice flow
Hi everyone, I hope you have a couple of mins to give me your opinion. Ecommerce site has around 2000 products, in english and spanish, and around only 70 hits per day if that. We have done a lot of optimisation on the site - Page Titles, URL's, Content, H1's, etc.... Everything on page is pretty much under control, except I am starting to realise the site architecture could be harming our SEO efforts. Once someone arrives on site they are language detected and do a 302 to either domain.com/EN or domain.com/ES depending on their preferred language. Then on the homepage, we have the big MEGA MENU - and we have
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bjs2010
CAT 1
SubCat 1
SubsubCat 1
SubsubCat 2
SubsubCat 3 Overall, there are 145 "categories". Plus links to some CMS pages, like Home, Delivery terms, etc... Each Main Category, contains the products of everything related to that category - so for example:
KITCHENWARE
COOKWARE BAKINWARE
SAUCEPANS BOWLS
FRYING PANS Kitchenware contains: ALL PRODUCTS OF SUBCATS BELOW, SO COOKWARE ITEMS, SAUCEPANS, FRYING PANS, BAKINGWARE, etc... plus links to those categories through breadcrumbs and a left hand nav in addition to the mega menu above. So once the bots hit the site, immediately they have this structure to deal with. Here is what stats look like:
Domain Authority: 18 www.domain.com/EN/
PA: 27
mR: 3.99
mT: 4.90 www.domain.com/EN/CAT 1
PA: 15
mR: 3.05
mT: 4.54 www.domain.com/EN/CAT 1/SUBCAT1
PA: 15
mR: 3.05
mT: 4.54 Product pages themselves - have a PA of 1 and no mR or mT. I really need some other opinions here - I am thinking of: Removing links in Nav menu so it only contains CAT1 and SUBCAT1 but DELETE SUBSUBCATS1 which represent around 80 links Remove products within the CAT1 page - eg., the CAT 1 would "tile" graphical links to subcategories, but not display products themselves. So products are only available right at the lowest part of the chain (which will be shortened) But I am willing to hear any other ideas please - maybe another alternative is to start building links to boost DA and linkjuice? Thanks all, Ben0 -
We seem to have been hit by the penguin update can someone please help?
HiOur website www.wholesaleclearance.co.uk has been hit by the penguin update, I'm not a SEO expert and when I first started my SEO got court up buying blog links, that was about 2 years ago and since them and worked really hard to get good manual links.Does anyone know of a way to dig out any bad links so I can get them removed, any software that will give me a list of any of you guys want to do take a look for me? I'm willing to pay for the work.Kind RegardsKarl.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wcuk0