Duplicating content from manufacturer for client site and using canonical reference.
-
We manage content for many clients in the same industry, and many of them wish to keep their customers on their individualized websites (understandably). In order to do this, we have duplicated content in part from the manufacturers' pages for several "models" on the client's sites. We have put in a Canonical reference at the start of the content directing back to the manufacturer's page where we duplicated some of the content. We have only done a handful of pages while we figure out the canonical reference potential issue.
So, my questions are:
- Is this necessary?
- Does this hurt, help or not do anything SEO-wise for our ranking of the site?
Thanks!
-
Thank you all for your information. It is very insightful and will help us move towards the correct decisions.
-
Hello,
Laura and EGOL really nailed it as usually they both do!
By using Canonical you have basically told the search engines hey this content all belongs to X.
What I would suggest is use the manufacturers description in conjunction with the sites or owners own description. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a manufactures description but you have to own it, which means unique content for every client for every product. Amazon for example uses manufacturers descriptions but they also usually add a slew of other things to a page to make it theirs, Manufacture Description / Amazon Description / Technical Information / User Reviews / User Questions / User Images / Shipping Information.
And here is the crux of the matter, people don't want to buy things from companies who know nothing about what they are selling. If a site can't add some sort of information or opinion about what the product is and why it is worth buying, they honestly have no business trying to sell such a product.
Just my thoughts along with the other 2 great answers,
Don
-
If I was the manufacturer, I would be jumping for joy. Every page on your client's sites with rel=canonical on it is passing the SEO value of the page to my website. This is going to make me buckets of money and make my website really hard to beat. I might send each of your clients a fruit cake!
Your clients need to know that writing original and substantive content for each product description is the minimum investment needed to be visible in the SERPs. What you have done will prevent them from getting a Panda problem because of duplicate content or keep the client pages from being filtered out of the SERPs, however, it will not make them any money.
Your options are.....
-
Get a cheap writer to compose minimal content (if they don't cheat and copy/paste or spin the content from another website). This might bring in a tiny amount of traffic - but if the content is really thin you will have a Panda problem for a low-quality page.
-
Get a better writer to write average-qualilty, better-than-minimal content. This will avoid Panda problems and rank better than choice #1.
-
Get a decent writer to write substantive, quality content. This will avoid Panda problems and rank better than choice #2.
-
Get a good writer and a photographer to prepare superior content with a few generous-size attractive photos with nice captions. This will rank better than #3 and pull in traffic for more long-tail keywords that appear in the product description and captions.
Even with #4, rankings will be largely determined by the quality of the optimization efforts that you put into your pages, the authority of your domain and the linkage going into each product page. Doing #4 for a weak website is probably a waste of money, but if your website is of average authority in your niche then #4 could be a good investment. If you have a strong site in your niche then #4 will be a kickass investment.
We do #4 on almost all of our product pages. Money maker products get better than #4 often with video. Best products have articles on separate pages that explain how to use the product, how to fix it, how to select, how to enjoy, etc.
Your reward is usually proportional to your attack, again, as long as your domain has enough authority to take advantage of the content investment.
But... most websites only make money for the hosting company and the developer, because the investments are inadequate to become competitive (or the wrong investments are made).
-
-
Adding a cross-domain canonical tag like this is fine assuming you are doing it for customer service (and the manufacturer doesn't mind you copying content from their site). You won't see any SEO benefit from the content on those pages because they are unlikely to be indexed. On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt your site either.
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 on URL trailing slash
Hello, Some time ago, we accidentally made changes to our site which modified the way urls in links are generated. At once, trailing slashes were added to many urls (only in links). Links that used to send to
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yacpro13
example.com/webpage.html Were now linking to
example.com/webpage.html/ Urls in the xml sitemap remained unchanged (no trailing slash). We started noticing duplicate content (because our site renders the same page with or without the trailing shash). We corrected the problematic php url function so that now, all links on the site link to a url without trailing slash. However, Google had time to index these pages. Is implementing 301 redirects required in this case?1 -
301 and Canonical - is using both counterproductive
A site lost a great deal of traffic in July, which appears to be from an algorithmic penalty, and hasn't recovered yet. It appears several updates were made to their system just before the drop in organic results. One of the issues noticed was that both uppercase and lowercase urls existed. Example urls are: www.domain.com/product123
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK717
www.domain.com/Product123 To clean this up, a 301 redirect was implemented a few months ago. Another issue found was that many product related urls had a parameter added to the url for a tracking purpose. To clean this up, the tracking parameters were removed from the system and a canonical tag was implemented as these pages were also found in Google's index. The tag forced a page such as www.domain.com/product123?ref=topnav to be picked up as www.domain.com/product123. So now, there is a 301 to address the upper and lowercase urls and a canonical tag to address the parameters from creating more unnecessary urls. A few questions here: -Is this redunant and can cause confusion to the serps to have both a canonical and 301 redirect on the same page? -Both the 301 and canonical tag were implemented several months ago, yet Google's index is still showing them. Do these have to be manually removed with GWT individually since they are not in a subfolder or directory? Looking forward to your opinions.0 -
Use of Rel=Canonical
I have been pondering whether I am using this tag correctly or not. We have a custom solution which lays out products in the typical eCommerce style with plenty of tick box filters to further narrow down the view. When I last researched this it seemed like a good idea to implement rel=canonical to point all sub section pages at a 'view-all' page which returns all the products unfiltered for that given section. Normally pages are restricted down to 9 results per page with interface options to increase that. This combined with all the filters we offer creates many millions of possible page permutations and hence the need for the Canonical tag. I am concerned because our view-all pages get large, returning all of that section's product into one place.If I pointed the view-all page at say the first page of x results would that defeat the object of the view-all suggestion that Google made a few years back as it would require further crawling to get at all the data? Alternatively as these pages are just product listings, would NoIndex be a better route to go given that its unlikely they will get much love in Google anyway?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | motiv80 -
Is an RSS feed considered duplicate content?
I have a large client with satellite sites. The large site produces many news articles and they want to put an RSS feed on the satellite sites that will display the articles from the large site. My question is, will the rss feeds on the satellite sites be considered duplicate content? If yes, do you have a suggestion to utilize the data from the large site without being penalized? If no, do you have suggestions on what tags should be used on the satellite pages? EX: wrapped in tags? THANKS for the help. Darlene
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXeSEO0 -
Can I use rel=canonical and then remove it?
Hi all! I run a ticketing site and I am considering using rel=canonical temporary. In Europe, when someone is looking for tickets for a soccer game, they look for them differently if the game is played in one city or in another city. I.e.: "liverpool arsenal tickets" - game played in the 1st leg in 2012 "arsenal liverpool tickets - game played in the 2nd leg in 2013 We have two different events, with two different unique texts but sometimes Google chooses the one in 2013 one before the closest one, especially for queries without dates or years. I don't want to remove the second game from our site - exceptionally some people can broswer our website and buy tickets with months in advance. So I am considering place a rel=canonical in the game played in 2013 poiting to the game played in a few weeks. After that, I would remove it. Would that make any sense? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jorgediaz0 -
Rel=Canonical - needed if part duplication?
Hi Im looking at a site with multiple products available in multiple languages. Some of the languages are not complete, so where the product description is not available in that language the new page, with its own url in the other languages may take the English version. However, this description is perhaps 200 words long only, and after the description are a host of other products displays within that category. So say for example we were selling glasses, there is a 200 word description about glasses (this is the part that is being copied across the languages) and then 10 products underneath that are translated. So the pages are somewhat different but this 200 word description is copied thru different versions of our site. Currently, the english version is not rel=canonical, would it be better to add the english version where we lack a description and do the canonical option or in fact better to leave it blank until we have a translated description? As its only part of the onpage wording, would this 200 word subsection cause us duplication issues?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | xoffie0 -
Which duplicate content should I remove?
I have duplicate content and am trying to figure out which URL to remove. What should I take into consideration? Authority? How close to the root the page is? How clear the path is? Would appreciate your help! Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ocularis0 -
Avoiding duplicate content on an ecommerce site
Hi all, I have an ecommerce site which has a standard block of text on 98% of the product pages. The site also has a blog. Because these cause duplicate content and duplicate title issues respectively, how can I ever get around this? Would having the standard text on the product pages displayed as an image help? And how can I stop the blog being listed as duplicate titles without a nofollow? We already have the canonical attribute applied to some areas where this is appropriate e.g. blog and product categories. Thanks for your help 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CMoore850