I've copied a content from a government site as it is necessary. Should I add a canonical or just a reference link?
-
Thanks!
-
You may find this helpful - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy3_Rjc0Tso
I suppose you could get around it by creating it in an image or a way that Google bot wouldn't see is as duplicate content as much but its iffy.
Alternatively don't copy the content just reference it in a link then you don't have the content problem but the users can still see the content.
-
Then you'd want to avoid the canonical, but it's unlikely that the page will rank well if you have copied it from a reliable resource like a government website. Google tends to try and filter copies like this, although sometimes you see the same thing ranking over and over again on different sites because those duplicated resources are legitimately the only relevant results for a user's query. When Google does filter duplicate results, it will try to pick the most authoritative resource to rank, discarding the rest. In a case like this, it'll pick the government website 99.9% of the time and discard copies.
If you really want that page to rank, you'd also want to avoid linking to the original source as well, as linking was a good way of specifying the source before canonicalisation. I wouldn't say that it's a good idea, though - there's no point adding duplicate content that lacks canonicalisation to your website when you don't need to, even if the content is a good resource.
-
What if I still want the page to rank in Google since it's a resource though it's a duplicate content?
-
The link might be enough but I am not sure what a Googler would say to the question. They might advise you to add a canonical tag due to the entire page being a duplicate. Using the canonical certainly can't hurt your site at all, besides the fact that that page won't rank (which isn't an issue). The rest of the site remains totally unaffected.
-
Yes, I copied an entire page for a legitimate reason. Is it fine if I'll just add a link below the copied content for example "Original source: [url]"?
-
Depending on how extensive your quoting of the government content is, you might just be able to link, or you might be better off canonicalising. A simple quote on an otherwise unique page is not reason to canonicalise, just as if you had quoted from a newspaper website in an article about a subject. There is no way you'd need to canonicalise your own article to that subject.
An entire page, lifted and republished for legitimate reasons, you could canonicalise to avoid any duplication confusion (even though a link was the proper way to go about identifying the original source of the content in the past).
-
Both do the same really with the exception of the user can see one more than the other. I would recommend the canonical which should help avoid duplicate content issues as the content is already there and I don't foresee the user needing a link.
in short- canonical it
more info - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
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
-
Canonical URL's searchable in Google?
Hi - we have a newly built site using Drupal, and Drupal likes to create canonical tags on pretty much everything, from their /node/ url's to the URL Alias we've indicated. Now, when I pull a moz crawl report, I get a huge list of all the /node/ plus other URL's. That's beside the point though... Question: when I directly enter one of the /node/ url's into a google search, a result is found. Clicking on it redirects to the new URL, but should Google even be finding these non-canonical URL's?? I don't feel like I've seen this before.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jenny10 -
Does Disavowing Links Negate Anchor Text, or Just Negates Link Juice
I'm not so sure that disavowing links also discounts the anchor texts from those links. Because nofollow links absolutely still pass anchor text values. And disavowing links is supposed to be akin to nofollowing the links. I wonder because there's a potential client I'm working on an RFP for and they have tons of spammy directory links all using keyword rich anchor texts and they lost 98% of their traffic in Pengiun 1.0 and haven't recovered. I want to know what I'm getting into. And if I just disavow those links, I'm thinking that it won't help the anchor text ratio issues. Can anyone confirm?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MiguelSalcido0 -
My site has a loft of leftover content that's irrelevant to the main business -- what should I do with it?
Hi Moz! I'm working on a site that has thousands of pages of content that are not relevant to the business anymore since it took a different direction. Some of these pages still get a lot of traffic. What should I do with them? 404? Keep them? Redirect? Are these pages hurting rankings for the target terms? Thanks for reading!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DA20130 -
Redirecting one site to another for link juice
I have two sites with same theme - buying cars. I am going remove one of the sites from being crawled permenantly (ie junkthecars.com) and point domian via 301, to another similar theme site (sellthecars.com). The purpose is to simply pass the SEO link juice from one site to the other as we retire junkthecars.com.... Is a forwarding of the domain OK and the best way for the search engines to increase the rank of sellthecars.com (we hate to wast the link work done on Junkthecars.com)? What dangers should I look for that could hurt sellthecars.com if we do the redirect at a simple TLD?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bestone0 -
301 canonical'd pages?
I have an ecommerce site with many different URLs with the same product. Let's say the product is a hat. It's in: a a) mysite.com/products/hat b) mysite.com/collections/head-ware/hat c) mysite.com/collections/stuff-to-wear-on-your-head/hat Right now, A is the canonical page for B and C. I want to clean up my site, so that every product only has ONE unique URL, which is linked to from all the collections. So B and C URL will be broken. Is it necessary that I 301 them if they were already canonical'd? Based on the number of products I have, I would have to 301 1000+ URLs. I'm just trying to figure out what I need to do to avoid getting penalized. thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | birchlore0 -
How can I remove duplicate content & titles from my site?
Without knowing I created multiple URLs to the same page destinations on my website. My ranking is poor and I need to fix this problem quickly. My web host doesn't understand the problem!!! How can I use canonical tags? Can somebody help, please.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZoeAlexander0 -
New links not showing in site explorer ?
I have built links to my site this past month that I know are live and in place and some do follow and some no follow ... Are the no follow links just not going to show up in my site explorer data ? And the others - why would they not be showing up yet ? SeoMoz updated thier link data aug 1st , my site has been crawled since then , but this new work I have done for link building have not shown up - None of them ? Its like I did not do any work ? how long could it take for them to show up and affect my site trust ect ? Also is there anything I vould be doing to speed the process up of having the new links found ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jlane90 -
Big Site Wide Link
Hi Guys, I've noticed that Google is starting to de-value site-wide links... Our previous SEO agency sourced us a site wide link on a big website and at the moment within Google Webmaster Tools its showing 749,726 links from this 1 source. Do you think this is too many? Could this be being flagged by Google? Here is the site: http://tinyurl.com/7bttw3b Cheers, Scott
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottBaxterWW0