Will our website traffic be adversely affected by Google by allowiing other sites to post our content on their sites?
-
Hi,
We're a radio station posting original content each day.
We belong to a sector of similar radio stations. It's been proposed that we all contribute content to this group
so any radio station can grab this content and post it on their own websites.As the site with the most content and web traffic, could this potentially harm us?
-
Thanks EGOL for taking the time to give me your thoughts. I've got some things to think about before jumping in.
-
We're a radio station posting original content each day.
Nice work! You are making a big investment to make this happen. I hope that you are getting a lot of traffic from search out of this and that people visit your site daily to read your new content.
It's been proposed that we all contribute content to this group so any radio station can grab this content and post it on their own websites.
Those weasels who proposed this want to ride your train. I bet the ones who propose this run the laziest stations on the planet. Tell them to get off of their lazy duffs and write their own content.
As the site with the most content and web traffic, could this potentially harm us?
In reality it has a greater chance of tanking your competitors because they could be viewed as the republisher - because your site is probably stronger and may be credited by google as the original publishing source. BUT, that can not be guaranteed.
If you think that there is little overlap of direct traffic, meaning people who visit your site are unlikely to visit their site, you could consider this....
For a monthly fee, you would allow them to publish a certain number of your articles on their site but the requirement is that they have rel=canonical properly installed on every one of your articles. That would generate income for you and the article would be attributed to your site, thus protecting you and them from Panda problems and duplicate content filtering.
Or, with rel=canonical installed on every page, you could allow them to use a limited number of articles and you get the ad revenue. I think that there are some ways to do this that will be to your advantage, but I would not do it without contracts and regular inspections of how things are implemented.
-
I'm not sure this would help the other radio stations and as others have suggested will damage you. I would fight the proposal as much as possible. It won't benefit either party.
I appreciate though that you may be tasked with making the best of a bad situation. Patrick has come up with some great suggestions.
Good luck whatever you end up doing
-
Thanks Stramark,
There's a desire to help other radio station websites, so a content pool was suggested.
We'd be participating to help the sector rather than ourselves. But, I don't want to be disadvantaged in the process. -
Yes! Google would punish you (or do not give you credit for the links) if you would overdo it.
Matt Cutts explained that using pr articles, press releases and blog spinning in order to get more (or to much) links was not allowed and a nofollow should be added to the links.
Also excessive use of linking from widgets can be a reason for penalty. The question is: what is excessive?!
Google is all about unique content. So no excessive content spinning.
-
Thanks Patrick.
Option B would be a prerequisite for us. Are you aware of any penalties that Google and other search engines might impose?
-
Hi there
What I would do is ask the other station sites to either:
A. Place a canonical tag to your website in the content they use
B. Place a link to your site on their site as the origin for the content - preferably nofollow if multiple sites use your contentIs it imperative that to be a part of this group that other station websites can take your content? Your content makes your site unique - I would protect that as much as you can and not allow websites to just take it. Not ideal at all for you.
Let me know if you have any questions! Good luck!
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 are the best Guest posts?
Hi, we have been working on improving the SEO for our website www.caffeinemarketing.co.uk and we are looking to guest blog on some sites. Are there any that you would recommend. What kind of volume of posts do we need to make a significant difference to rankings?
Link Building | | Caffeine_Marketing0 -
HTTPS websites in Directories
Hi Everyone, Whilst trying to submit some client sites to directories we have been struggling to post any of our clients sites that use the HTTPS protocol. When trying to submit they usually come up with an error stating that the website could not be found etc. It doesn't accept it if I remove the HTTPS or replace it with the HTTP version either. Any ideas, or has anyone else had any issues with this? Couldn't find much information about it online anywhere. Thanks 🙂
Link Building | | O2C0 -
Should I disavow spammy links that are showing in Open Site Explorer but not showing in Google Webmaster Tools?
Howdy Mozzers, After carrying out a backlink audit for a client, Open Site Explorer shows a range of outrageously spammy links for guys wanting a bit of assistance in the bedroom area, and so on. Hopping over to Google Webmaster Tools, there is no reported trace of said spammy links (for either of the www/non-www versions of the site). There are also no manual webspam actions found on the www/non-www Google Webmaster Tools accounts for this website. So my question is: do I carry out a pre-emptive strike and go down the disavow process of requesting removal from the spammy sites, and then submit a disavow request to Google after allowing a suitable period of time for the junky/compromised website to (not) respond? Or do I just leave it alone? Thanks in advance for your wise words of wisdom and pearls of clarity.
Link Building | | wh-seo0 -
Google Link Disavow and sites with extremely heavy but poor link metrics
Need help/opinions from the SEO's out there. I am working with a site that in the past hired an SEO company out of India. Over the course of their time together, this company submitted the clients url to tens of thousands of link exchanges and directories. Around the time of Penguin, the owners told me their inquiries dried up. Literally that same week they had a new website launched (designed by a local competitor) that really butchered the site. They were convinced the reduction in traffic/inquiries was due to the new site but I am convinced otherwise (suspect Penguin). Not only does the site need to be re-structured but their link portfolio needs to be diversified. Now on the plus side, the company caters and sponsors a number of events that earns them organic, relevant links. These are overshadowed by the tons of poor, irrelevant ones though. I read a few posts recently on the Google Link Disavow tool and to proceed slowly due to the unknown nature surrounding it. I have a good idea of what links are problematic and which ones are well served. However, the number of problematic links in my estimation is quite high (thousands). I am very hesitant to dive into Google Disavow and submit such a large number of requests. What are your thoughts? How would you proceed?
Link Building | | mattylac1 -
Blog traffic / link ratio? (Esimated of how much traffic will result in a link)
Hi, Was wondering if people could please tell me some estimates of how much traffic is likely to gain links to a blog post? For example 1,000 hits = 1 link, Hence 10,000 hits = 10 links to a blog post? I understand there is no magic ratio I just want to know what people have achieved. I’m after averages not just a one off really successful blog post too. Please specify the topic you achieve this in e.g. SEO, photography, business, heath... etc.
Link Building | | charles10 -
Do affiliate links count for Google?
Hi, I have been reading about affiliate links - links with a tracking code in the URL (i.e.: www.xxx.com/?aff=123456) and I can't find a definitive answer. Does Google count them as natural links or maybe they do not even pass any link juice? And if they don't, what if I get a natural link from a website (without tracking code) and later that website becomes my affiliate? Would the first link still count? I guess that there can't be any certainty about all this, but I would love to know your expert opinions 🙂 Thanks!
Link Building | | jorgediaz0 -
Do http:// links to a http://www. site count the same to Google?
In terms of links to one's site helping your position on Google, if your site defaults to http://www.example.com (automatically adds "www." even if it isn't typed), does Google count links that appear as http://example.com (without the www.) with the same "weight"? Thanks.
Link Building | | celife0 -
Site content creation
I have a new customer that wants to build a comprehensive website to provide dental health information. However, he's a busy dentist and can't develop all the content himself. He particularly likes what mercola.com (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/current.aspx or http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/default.aspx) is doing to provide content from other sources. At first I thought this could be a good thing and that we could setup some Google Alerts that would alert us to new content related to specific topic areas and then post excerpts and links to the original source of the content. But now I'm concerned that we'll get penalized for this. Can you give me some advice on how to go about getting new/fresh content on a new website that doesn't require someone to write it all themselves? Thank you!
Link Building | | ChristiMcGinley0