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 for users to upload their images to my wordpress site to promote UGC
I have looked at lots of different plugins and wanted a recommendation for an easy way for patients of ours to upload pictures of them out partying and having fun and looking beautiful so future users can see the final results instead of sometimes gory or difficult to understand before and after images. I'd like to give them the opportunity to write captions (like facebook or insta posts and would offer them incentives to do so. I don't want it to be too complicated for them or have too many steps or barriers but I do want it to look nice and slick and modern. Also do you think this would have a positive impact on SEO? I was also thinking of a Q&A app where dentists could get Q&A emails and respond - i've been doing AMA sessions and they've been really successful and I would like to bring it into out site and make it native. Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | Smileworks_Liverpool1 -
Staging site and "live" site have both been indexed by Google
While creating a site we forgot to password protect the staging site while it was being built. Now that the site has been moved to the new domain, it has come to my attention that both the staging site (site.staging.com) and the "live" site (site.com) are both being indexed. What is the best way to solve this problem? I was thinking about adding a 301 redirect from the staging site to the live site via HTACCESS. Any recommendations?
Technical SEO | | melen0 -
Correct linking to the /index of a site and subfolders: what's the best practice? link to: domain.com/ or domain.com/index.html ?
Dear all, starting with my .htaccess file: RewriteEngine On
Technical SEO | | inlinear
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.inlinear.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://inlinear.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://inlinear.com/ [R=301,L] 1. I redirect all URL-requests with www. to the non www-version...
2. all requests with "index.html" will be redirected to "domain.com/" My questions are: A) When linking from a page to my frontpage (home) the best practice is?: "http://domain.com/" the best and NOT: "http://domain.com/index.php" B) When linking to the index of a subfolder "http://domain.com/products/index.php" I should link also to: "http://domain.com/products/" and not put also the index.php..., right? C) When I define the canonical ULR, should I also define it just: "http://domain.com/products/" or in this case I should link to the definite file: "http://domain.com/products**/index.php**" Is A) B) the best practice? and C) ? Thanks for all replies! 🙂
Holger0 -
Consistent top 10 in G image search - but a different 'stolen' version every time!
I have a photo that was uploaded back in 2005. It is an aerial shot and has received a fair bit of traffic over the years. I'm pretty sure it was ranked #1 in Google Images for the town name for a while. Now, however, it never ranks. Well actually it does. But every single time it is a version on a different website that is being used without permission.
Technical SEO | | Cornwall
And I'm not talking about one website. Every time I fill out a DMCA and have the image removed only to see a completely different website featuring in the top 10. This has happened 5 times so far and I'm just about to fill out another DMCA request. What is going on? Surely Google in its infinite wisdom is smart enough to check the timestamp or date cues on page to figure out which is the original. These other sites are often complete unknowns compared to my site which is a 12yr old authority site on the subject.
Don't get it!0 -
Wordpress & use of 'www' vs not for webmaster tools - explanation needed
I am having a hard time understanding the issue of canonization of site pages, specifically in regards to the 'www' or 'non-www' versions of a site. And specifically in regards to wordpress. I can see that it doesn't matter whether you type in 'www' or not in the url for a wordpress site, what is going on in the back end that allows this? When I link up to google webmaster tools, should i use www or not? thanks for any help d
Technical SEO | | dnaynay0 -
How do you balance site speed with rich media like videos?
Google says to make your pages as useful as possible, but it considers site speed into its ranking algorithm. How do you balance adding rich media like embedding useful YouTube videos with keeping your page load times low?
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs1 -
Is it a good idea to make 301 from a site which you know google has banned certain keywords for to a new site with similar content
Here is a short question re. 301. I read Dovers article on how to move an old domain to a new one. Say you have been a little inexperienced regarding linkbuilding and used some cheap service in the past and you have steadily seen that certain keywords have been depreciating in the SERP - however the PR is still 3 for the domain - now the qustion is should you rediect with a 301 in .htaccess to a new domain when you know that google does not like certain keywords with respect to the old site. Will the doom and gloom carry over to the new site?
Technical SEO | | Kofoed0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0