Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
-
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
-
Hi,
I have to agree with Devanur-Rafi. If both of the sites are serving the exact content, although Google have the power to do whatever they want, they'll most likely take the rel=canonical into consideration and display the page the tag is pointing to over the second site.
So, yes it is a dream to display both site with the same content in the search result and by using the canonical tag, Google won't penalize both sites and display the preferred site.
That's my 2 cents.
Thank you!
-
Hi William, thanks for sharing your experience here. My experience has been totally different from that of your's.
Here is what Dr.Pete has to say..
Taken from: http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions
2) Can I Use Rel=Canonical Cross-domain?
Yes – in late 2009, Google announced support for cross-domain use of rel=canonical. This is typically for syndicated content, when you’re concerned about duplication and only want one version of the content to be eligible for ranking.
(3) Should I Use Rel=Canonical Cross-Domain?
That’s a tougher question. First off, Google may choose to ignore cross-domain use of rel=canonical if the pages seem too different or it appears manipulative. The ideal use of cross-domain rel=canonical would be a situation where multiple sites owned by the same entity share content, and that content is useful to the users of each individual site. In that case, you probably wouldn’t want to use 301-redirects (it could confuse users and harm the individual brands), but you may want to avoid duplicate content issues and control which property Google displays in search results. I would not typically use rel=canonical cross-domain just to consolidate PageRank.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Its true they are a strong hint but when the domains are not the same, the canonical tag will not work as well as you would think.
I've attempted this personally and it didn't work that well.
-
Except for very exceptional cases, Google considers and respects the rel=canonical implementation and its a strong hint for them.
Here you go for more:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
The canonical tags as mentioned by Kingof5 is directional. Google can still do whatever it wants.
Preferably you should canonical the duplicate pages to the original but that may cause one to not be indexed. That still may help as the authority from the other site will be forwarded (theoretically) to your canonical page.
But yes, it is a dream.
-
There are no absolutes with canonicals. Google treats them as suggestions, not rules.
-
Hi, with rel=canonical in place, there is no way that both the pages from the two sites appearing and ranking in the search results. Only the canonical or the preferred page will be indexed and can rank in Google.
You should be thinking along the lines to make the content on both the sites unique. Though these two sites operate and target the same niche, you can definitely make the content unique from each other.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
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 - working with CMS constraints
Hi, We use an industry-specific CMS and I'm struggling to figure out how we can fix duplicate content issues. Thankfully, the vendor has agreed to work on 301 vs 302 redirects. However, they aren't currently able to give us the ability to add rel=canonical tags to page headers (we've put it in their "suggestion box" which tends to take a long time, if ever, to materialize). My understanding is that the tag will not be recognized if it's in the body code, correct? (aka the part of the page we can edit from the CMS) Is there anything else I can do?
Technical SEO | | combska0 -
Content relaunch without content duplication
We write great Content for blog and websites (or at least we try), especially blogs. Sometimes few of them may NOT get good responses/reach. It could be the content which is not interesting, or the title, or bad timing or even the language used. My question for the discussion is, what will you do if you find the content worth audience's attention missed it during its original launch. Is that fine to make the text and context better and relaunch it ? For example: 1. Rechristening the blog - Change Title to make it attractive
Technical SEO | | macronimous
2. Add images
3. Check spelling
4. Do necessary rewrite, spell check
5. Change the timeline by adding more recent statistics, references to recent writeups (external and internal blogs for example), change anything that seems outdated Also, change title and set rel=cannoical / 301 permanent URLs. Will the above make the blog new? Any ideas and tips to do? Basically we like to refurbish (:-)) content that didn't succeed in the past and relaunch it to try again. If we do so will there be any issues with Google bots? (I hope redirection would solve this, But still I want to make sure) Thanks,0 -
Partially duplicated content on separate pages
TL;DR: I am writing copy for some web pages. I am duplicating some bits of copy exactly on separate web pages. And in other cases I am using the same bits of copy with slight alterations. Is this bad for SEO? Details: We sell about 10 different courses. Each has a separate page. I'm currently writing copy for those pages. Some of the details identical for each course. So I can duplicate the content and it will be 100% applicable. For example, when we talk about where we can run courses (we go to a company and run it on their premises) – that's applicable to every course. Other bits are applicable with minor alterations. So where we talk about how we'll tailor the course, I will say for example: "We will the tailor the course to the {technical documents|customer letters|reports} your company writes." Or where we have testimonials, the headline reads "Improving {customer writing|reports|technical documents} in every sector and industry". There is original content on each page. The duplicate stuff may seem spammy, but the alternative is me finding alternative re-wordings for exactly the same information. This is tedious and time-consuming and bizarre given that the user won't notice any difference. Do I need to go ahead and re-write these bits ten slightly different ways anyway?
Technical SEO | | JacobFunnell0 -
Tired of finding solution for duplicate contents.
Just my site was scanned by seomoz and seen lots of duplicate content and titles found. Well I am tired of finding solutions of duplicate content for a shopping site product category page. You can see the screenshot below. http://i.imgur.com/TXPretv.png You can see below in every link its showing "items_per_page=64, 128 etc.". This happened in every category in which I was created. I am already using Canonical add-on to avoid this problem but still it's there. You can check my domain here - http://www.plugnbuy.com/computer-software/pc-security/antivirus-internet-security/ and see if the add-on working correct. I recently submitted my sitemap to GWT, so that's why it's not showing me any report regarding duplicate issues. Please help ME
Technical SEO | | chandubaba0 -
Duplicate Content - That Old Chestnut!!!
Hi Guys, Hope all is well, I have a question if I may? I have several articles which we have written and I want to try and find out the best way to post these but I have a number of concerns. I am hoping to use the content in an attempt to increase the Kudos of our site by providing quality content and hopefully receiving decent back links. 1. In terms of duplicate content should I only post it on one place or should I post the article in several places? Also where would you say the top 5 or 10 places would be? These are articles on XML, Social Media & Back Links. 2. Can I post the article on another blog or article directory and post it on my websites blog or is this a bad idea? A million thanks for any guidance. Kind Regards, C
Technical SEO | | fenwaymedia0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
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 -
Duplicate content?
I have a question regarding a warning that I got on one of my websites, it says Duplicate content. I'm canonical url:s and is also using blocking Google out from pages that you are warning me about. The pages are not indexed by Google, why do I get the warnings? Thanks for great seotools! 3M5AY.png
Technical SEO | | bnbjbbkb0