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
-
Site Footer Links Used for Keyword Spam
I was on the phone with a proposed web relaunch firm for one of my clients listening to them talk about their deep SEO knowledge. I cannot believe that this wouldn’t be considered black-hat or at least very Spammy in which case a client could be in trouble. On this vendor’s site I notice that they stack the footer site map with about 50 links that are basically keywords they are trying to rank for. But here’s the kicker shown by way of example from one of the themes in the footer: 9 footer links:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RosemaryB
Top PR Firms
Best PR Firms
Leading PR Firms
CyberSecurity PR Firms
Cyber Security PR Firms
Technology PR Firms
PR Firm
Government PR Firms
Public Sector PR Firms Each link goes to a unique URL that is basically a knock-off of the homepage with a few words or at the most one sentences swapped out to include this footer link keyword phrase, sometimes there is a different title attribute but generally they are a close match to each other. The canonical for each page links back to itself. I simply can’t believe Google doesn’t consider this Spammy. Interested in your view.
Rosemary0 -
Am I over "Optimising My Site" or following "Best Practice"
Hi We're developing our site an wanted to ask if we are "over optimising" or following best practice. Maybe you have some recommendations. I've provided 4 examples below. Eventually we'll use Moz on page grader but as a new start up, I'd appreciate your help. Thank you, Faye. 1. URL: http://www.thewoodgalleries.co.uk/engineered-wood/browns/cipressa/ PAGE TITLE: Cipressa | Engineered Brown Wood | The Wood Galleries H1: Cipressa – Engineered Brown Wood KEYWORD: Engineered Brown Wood META: Buy Cipressa Brown Engineered Wood, available at The Wood Galleries, London. Provides an Exceptional Foundation for Elegant Décor & Extravagant Furnishings. IMAGE TAG: Brown Engineered Flooring KEYWORD IN BODY CONTENT: YES (1) 2. URL: http://www.thewoodgalleries.co.uk/engineered-wood/beiges/mauro/ H1: Mauro | Beige Engineered Wood | The Wood Galleries PAGE TITLE: Mauro – Beige Engineered Wood KEYWORD: Beige Engineered Wood META: Buy Mauro Beige Engineered Wood Flooring, available at The Wood Galleries, London. Designed to deliver Rich, Dark Undertones with Light hues of Muted Brown. IMG TAG: Beige Wood Flooring KEYWORD IN BODY CONTENT: YES (2) **3. URL: http://www.thewoodgalleries.co.uk/engineered-wood/beiges/vela-oak/ ** H1: Vela – Beige Engineered Oak PAGE TITLE: Vela | Beige Engineered Oak | The Wood Galleries KEYWORD: Beige Engineered Oak META: Buy Vela Beige Engineered Oak Wood, available at The Wood Galleries, London. Crafted from the most widely respected hardwoods in the world. IMG TAG: Engineered Oak Flooring KEYWORD IN BODY CONTENT: YES (1) 4. URL: http://www.thewoodgalleries.co.uk/engineered-wood/darks-blacks/ciro-rustic/ H1: Ciro – Engineered Rustic Wood PAGE TITLE: Ciro | Engineered Rustic Wood | The Wood Galleries KEYWORD: Engineered Rustic Wood META: Buy Ciro Engineered Rustic Wood, at The Wood Galleries, London. Its stylishly classic oak look exudes a sense of luxury that is simply undeniable. IMG TAG: Dark Wood Flooring, The Wood Galleries KEY WORD IN BODY CONTENT: YES (2)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Faye2340 -
SEO for Career sites and sup-pages
For main job categories: We manage several career pages for several clients but the competition for the main keywords (even several long tail) is from big names like Indeed and similar job boards?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | rflores
What would you recommend? For job posts: Since the job posts that our clients post are short lived (80% live less than a month) would it still be incorrect to purchase backlinks? or is it always a big no Thanks for your help. And if a similar question has been asked I would appreciate if you could point me to it. I could not find one.0 -
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 -
Can a hidden menu damage a website page?
Website (A) - has a landing page offering courses Website (B) - ( A different organisation) has a link to Website A. The goal landing page when you click on he link takes you to Website A's Courses page which is already a popular page with visitors who search for or come directly into Website A. Owners of Website A want to ADD an Extra Menu Item to the MENU BAR on their Courses page to offer some specific courses to visitors who come from Website (B) to Website (A) - BUT the additional MENU ITEM is ONLY TO BE DISPLAYED if you come from having clicked on the link at Website (B). This link both parties are intending to track However, if you come to the Courses landing page on Website (A) directly from a search engine or directly typing in the URL address of the landing page - you will not see this EXTRA Menu Item with its link to courses, it only appears should you visit Website (A) having come from Website (B). The above approach is making me twitch as to what the programmer wants to do as to me this looks like a form of 'cloaking'. What I am not understanding that Website (A) URL ADDRESS landing page is demonstrating outwardly to Google a Menu Bar that appears normal, but I come to the same URL ADDRESS from Website (B) and I end up seeing an ADDITIONAL MENU ITEM How will Google look at this LANDING PAGE? Surely it must see the CODING INSTRUCTIONS sitting there behind this page to assist it in serving up in effect TWO VERSIONS of the page when actually the URL itself does not change. What should I advise the developer as I don't want the landing page of Website (A) which is doing fine right now, end up with some sort of penalty from the search engines through this exercise. Many thanks in advance of answers from the community.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ICTADVIS0 -
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!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Dirving4Success0 -
Penalty for all new sites on a domain?
Hi @all, a friend has an interesting problem. He got a manuel link penalty in the end of 2011...it is an old domain with domainpop >5000 but with a lot bad links (wigdet and banners and other seo domains, but nothing like scrapebox etc)...he lost most of the traffic a few days after the notification in WMT (unnatural links) and an other time after the first pinguin update in april´12. In the end of 2012 after deleting (or nofollowing) and disavow a lot of links google lifted the manuel penalty (WMT notification). But nothing happened after lifting, the rankings didn´t improve (after 4 months already!). Almost all money keywords aren´t in the top 100, no traffic increases and he has good content on this domain. We built a hand of new trust links to test some sites but nothing improved. We did in february a test and build a completely new site on this domain, it´s in the menu and got some internal links from content...We did it, because some sites which weren´t optimized before the penalty (no external backlinks) are still ranking on the first google site for small keywords. After a few days the new site started to rank with our keyword between 40-45. That was ok and as we expected. This site was ranking constantly there for almost 6 weeks and now its gone since ten days. We didn´t change anything. It´s the same phenomena like the old sites on this domain...the site doesnt even rank for the title! Could it still be an manuel penalty for the hole domain or what kind of reasons are possible? Looking forward for your ideas and hope you unterstand the problem! 😉 Thanks!!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TheLastSeo0 -
Methods for getting links to my site indexed?
What are the best practices for getting links to my site indexed in search engines. We have been creating content and acquiring backlinks for the last few months. They are not being found in the back link checkers or in the Open Site Explorer. What are the tricks of the trade for imporiving the time and indexing of these links? I have read about some RSS methods using wordpress sites but that seems a little shady and i am sure google is looking for that now. Look forward to your advice.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | devonkrusich0