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
-
Using PURL.org/GoodRelations for Schema Markup
Hello awesome MOZ community! Our agency uses JSON-LD for our local business schema markup. We validate our markup using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool. All good! Recently, I discovered a competing agency using our similar JSON-LD markup (that's ok) and "http://purl.org/goodrelations" markup. The latter appears to be–potentially–black hat SEO. Why? According to MOZ, "there is no conclusive evidence that this markup improves rankings." BUT, the purl.org markup has provided an opportunity for "keyword stuffing". Using purl.org markup, the agency has stuffed/used 66 of the same keywords into the validated markup. I would love to get feedback from the MOZ community. Can schema markup–of any kind–be used to "keyword stuff"? If so, why aren't sites getting penalized for this? Is this practice flying under the elusive algorithm radars? Thanks! Your feedback, insight, and snarky remarks are welcome 🙂 Cheers!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SproutDigital0 -
Competitors with duplicate sites for backlinks
Hello all, In the last few months, my company has seen some keywords we historically rank well for fall off the first page, and there are a couple competitors that have appeared that use backlinks from seemingly the same site. For fairness, our site has slow page load speeds that we are working on changing, as well as not being mobile friendly yet. The sites that are ranking are mobile friendly and load fast, but we have heaps of other words still ranking well, and I'm more curious about this methodology. For example, these two pages: http://whiteboards.com.au/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JustinBSLW
http://www.glasswhiteboards.com.au/ In OSE, glasswhiteboards has the majority of links from whiteboards, and the content between the sites is the same. My page has higher domain authority & page authority, but less backlinks. However, if you take away the backlinks from the duplicate site, they are the same. Isn't this type of content supposed to be flagged? My question is about whether this kind of similar site on different domains is a good idea to build links, as all my research shows that it's poor in the long run, but it seems to be working with these guys. Another group of sites that has been killing us uses this same method, with multiple sites that look the same that all link to each other to build up backlinks. These sites do have different content. It seems instead of building different categories within their own site, they have purchased multiple domains that act as their categories. Here's just a few: http://www.lockablenoticeboards.com.au/
http://www.snapperframes.com/
http://www.snapperdisplay.com.au/
http://www.light-box.com.au/
http://www.a-frame-signs.com.au/
http://www.posterhangers.com.au/0 -
Can the disavow tool INCREASE rankings?
Hi Mozzers, I have a new client who has some bad links in their profile that are spammy and should be disavowed. They rank on the first page for some longer tail keywords. However, we're aiming at shorter, well-known keywords where they aren't ranking. Will the disavow tool, alone, have the ability to increase rankings (assuming on-site / off-site signals are better than competition)? Thanks, Cole
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
Inbound Links Inquiry for a New Site
For a site that is only one to two months old, what is considered a natural amount of inbound links if you're site offers very valuable information, and you have done a marketing push to get the word out about your blog? Even if you are receiving backlinks from authority websites with high DA, does Google get suspicious if there are too many inbound links during the first few months of a sites existence? I know there are some sites that blow up very fast and receive thousands of backlinks very quickly, so I'm curious to know if Google puts these kind of sites on a watchlist or something of that nature. Or is this simply a good problem to have?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Do some sites get preference over others by Google just because? Grandfathered theory
So I have a theory that Google "grandfathers" in a handful of old websites from every niche and that no matter what the site does, it will always get the authority to rank high for the relevant keywords in the niche. I have a website in the crafts/cards/printables niche. One of my competitors is http://printable-cards.gotfreecards.com/ This site ranks for everything... http://www.semrush.com/info/gotfreecards.com+(by+organic) Yet, when I go to visit their site, I notice duplicate content all over the place (extremely thin content, if anything at all for some pages that rank for highly searched keywords), I see paginated pages that should be getting noindexed, bad URL structure and I see an overall unfriendly user experience. Also, the backlink profile isn't very impressive, as most of the good links are coming from their other site, www.got-free-ecards.com. Can someone tell me why this site is ranking for what it is other than the fact that it's around 5 years old and potentially has some type of preference from Google?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Can anyone explain these crazy SERPS?
do a UK based search for 'short term loans' on google. there are 7 sites on page 1 without any page or domain authority, several of them registered to a 'jeremy hughes', who I am guessing does not really exist. this is a very competitive term and they just shouldn't be making it onto page 1. im thinking this must be some clever 301 redirecting, as I cant see any backlinks to any of these sites in opensiteexplorer. any ideas how these sites are pulling this off?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | lethal0r0 -
Multiple doamin with same content?
I have multiple websites with same content such as http://www.example.com http://www.example.org and so on. My primary url is http://www.infoniagara.com and I also placed a 301 on .org. Is that enough to keep away my exampl.org site from indexing on google and other search engines? the eaxmple.org also has lots of link to my old html pages (now removed). Should i change that links too? or will 301 redirection solve all such issues (page not found/crawl error) of my old webpages? i would welcome good seo practices regarding maintaining multiple domains thanks and regards
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | VipinLouka780 -
Thinking of redirecting *all* mobile traffic to another site (via an advertiser) - safe to do?
Hi, I am thinking of redirecting all mobile (iphone, cell phone, etc) to an advertiser (so completely different content than my site). Is there any risk of getting banned from google (etc) for doing this? (this is for an adult site)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dmn020