An article we wrote was published on the Daily Business Review, we'd like to post it on our site. What is the proper way?
-
Part 1
We wrote an article and submitted it to the Daily Business Review. They published the article on their website.We want to also post the article on our website for our users but we want to make sure we are doing this properly. We don't want to be penalized for duplicating content. Is this the correct way to handle this scenario written below?
- We added a rel="canonical" to the blog post (on our website). The rel="canonical" is set to the Daily Business Review URL where the article was originally published.
- At the end of the blog post we wrote. "This article was originally posted on The Daily Business Review." and we link to the original post on the Daily Business Review.
Should we be setting the blog post (on our website) to be a "noindex" or rel="canonical" ?
Part 2 Our company was mentioned in a number of articles. We DID NOT write those articles, we were only mentioned. We have also posted those same articles on our website (verbatim from the original article). We want to show our users that we have been mentioned in highly credited articles. All of these articles were posted on our website and are set to be a "noindex". Is that the correct thing to do? Should we be using a rel="canonical" instead and pointing to the original article URL?
Thanks in advance MOZ community for your assistance! We tried to do the leg work of our own research for the answers but couldn't find the exact same scenario that we are encountering**.**
-
Whether or not you're allowed to copy and paste the article verbatim is something you'll have to determine from the site you copied from, but even noindex wouldn't address the problem of plagiarism if that's what you're worried about as the article would still be on your site. Basically what you're doing is the reverse of what's in the Google guide on Canonical:
_Content you provide on that blog for syndication to other sites is replicated in part or in full on those domains. _
http://news.example.com/green-dresses-for-every-day-155672.html (syndicated post)http://blog.example.com/dresses/green-dresses-are-awesome/3245/ (original post)
So in this case the News site (The Daily Business Review) is the source of the article, and you're one of the sites syndicating what they wrote so you point back to them as canonical. Still the questions you bring up are part of the reason why several sites--HuffPo, The Verge, SlashDot, etc--write their own take on a source article instead of reprinting verbatim when linking back. It's more of the annotation model I mentioned above.
-
Setting SEO aside for the moment, in both situations, make sure you have permission to reprint the articles on your site.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond!
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the blog posts that WERE NOT written by us and only mentioned our firm should be set to a rel="canonical" instead of a "noindex" since we reposted them on our own site? Is setting the copied article to be "noindex" technically the incorrect thing to do? We thought that since we copied the article verbatim and it wasn't our original work that Google shouldn't index this page on our website.
-
Hi Pete. Using rel=canonical would be a better implementation as your site showing up for a search on these articles is perfectly acceptable since they're about your site. There are also several other design ways in which you can link back to the original published article...
- Annotation. Instead of republishing the entire article you can quote bits from it and highlight what service/product/thing your company does in relation to the quote. It could perhaps be an expansion like, "We also make this in custom colors..." a clarification, "This is now a permanent service..." or any other applicable detail really.
- Screen cap. Some sites churn through articles so an archived screen grab of the article is nice to show the press you got. Photos are especially handy for when you show up in print.
- A brand scroll. Lots of sites add the logos of well know brands that have written about them titled something like, "What people are saying" and then showing the logo of various sites: the verge, wired, tech crunch, etc. and linking to the article via the logo.
So I'd get rid of the noindex tag. Me finding your site as a result next to the Daily Business Review site would make my user experience better as the search is returning the correlation even before I click through to read the sources.
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
-
What's the best way to pass link juice to a page on another domain?
I'm working with a non-profit, and their donation form software forces them to host their donation pages on a different domain. I want to attempt to get their donation page to appear in their sitelinks in Google (under the main website's entry), but it seems like the organization's donation forms are at a disadvantage because they're not actually hosted on that site. I know that no matter what I do, there's no way to "force" a sitelink to appear the way I want it, but... I was trying to think if there's a way I can work around this. Do you think 1) creating a url like orgname.org/donate and having that be a 301 redirect to the donation form, and 2) using the /donate redirect all over the site (instead of linking directly to the form) would help? Are there alternatives other folks recommend?
Technical SEO | | clefevre0 -
What's Moz's Strategy behind their blog main categories?
I've only just noticed that the Moz' blog categories have been moved within a pull down menu. See it underneath : 'Explore Posts by Category' on any blog page. This means that the whole list of categories under that pull-down is not crawlable by bots, and therefore no link-juice flows down onto those category pages. I imagine that the main drive behind that move is to sculpt page rank so that the business/money pages or areas of the website get greater link equity as opposed to just wasting it all throwing it down to the many categories ? it'd be good to hear about more from Rand or anyone in his team as to how they came onto engineering this and why. One of the things I wonder is: with the sheer amount of content that Moz produces, is it possible to contemplate an effective technical architecture such as that? I know they do a great job at interlinking content from one post onto another, so effectively one can argue that that kind of supersedes the need for hierarchical page rank distribution via categories... but I wonder : "is it working better this way vs having crawlable blog category links on the blog section? have they performed tests" some insights or further info on this from Moz would be very welcome. thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | carralon
David0 -
Are image pages considered 'thin' content pages?
I am currently doing a site audit. The total number of pages on the website are around 400... 187 of them are image pages and coming up as 'zero' word count in Screaming Frog report. I needed to know if they will be considered 'thin' content by search engines? Should I include them as an issue? An answer would be most appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MTalhaImtiaz0 -
Site Blacklisted
Good morning. Just done my WMT ritual morning check and one of my sites has been blacklisted for malware. It's a wordpress site - I've run various scans, e.g. http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/scanner/ and also installed wordfence and scanned with that and wordfence produced some offending files which I have now deleted. I've also installed website defender in the hope that it wont happen again. I'm pretty good with staying on top of updates and rarely let a few days pass without upgrading new version of wordpress or plugins etc. I've also checked my users to make sure no new admins or anything and also changes passwords. I've asked for a review from Google and just wondered how long these reviews take? Also, has anybody got any advice, is there anything else I should be doing? Thanks
Technical SEO | | littlesthobo0 -
'No Follow' and 'Do Follow' links when using WordPress plugins
Hi all I hope someone can help me out with the following question in regards to 'no follow' and 'do follow' links in combination with WordPress plugins. Some plugins that deal with links i.e. link masking or SEO plugins do give you the option to 'not follow' links. Can someone speak from experience that this does actually work?? It's really quite stupid, but only occurred to me that when using the FireFox add on 'NoDoFollow' as well as looking at the SEOmoz link profile of course, 95% of my links are actually marked as FOLLOW, while the opposite should be the case. For example I mark about 90% of outgoing links as no follow within a link masking plugin. Well, why would WordPress plugins give you the option to mark links as no follow in the first place when they do in fact appear as follow for search engines and SEOmoz? Is this a WordPress thing or whatnot? Maybe they are in fact no follow, and the information supplied by SEO tools comes from the basic HTML structure analysis. I don't know... This really got me worried. Hope someone can shed a light. All the best and many thanks for your answers!
Technical SEO | | Hermski0 -
My site goes from ranking at #7 to #18 back and forth, daily
I am using a anonymous browser to check this, or different computers. Each day it changes from #7 on page one, to #18 on page two. This has been going on daily for two weeks. Anyone know why would this happen? thanks
Technical SEO | | vansy0 -
Can we use our existing site content on new site?
We added 1000s of pages unique content on our site and soon after google release penguin and we loose our ranking for major keywords and after months of efforts we decided to start a new site. If we use all the existing site content on new domain does google going to penalized the site for duplicate content or it will be treated as unique? Thanks
Technical SEO | | mozfreak0 -
Are lots of links from an external site to non-existant pages on my site harmful?
Google Webmaster Tools is reporting a heck of a lot of 404s which are due to an external site linking incorrectly to my site. The site itself has scraped content from elsewhere and has created 100's of malformed URLs. Since it unlikely I will have any joy having these linked removed by the creator of the site, I'd like to know how much damage this could be doing, and if so, is there is anything I can do to minimise the impact? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Nobody15569050351140