Letting Others Use Our Content: Risk-Free Attribution Methods
-
Hello Moz!
A massive site that you've all heard of is looking to syndicate some of our original editorial content. This content is our bread and butter, and is one of the primary reasons why people use our site.
Note that this site is not a competitor of ours - we're in different verticals.
If this massive site were to use the content straight up, I'm fairly confident that they'd begin to outrank us for related terms pretty quickly due to their monstrous domain authority.
This is complex because they'd like to use bits and pieces of the content interspersed with their own content, so they can't just implement a cross-domain canonical. It'd also be difficult to load the content in an iframe with noindex,nofollow header tags since their own content (which they want indexed) will be mixed up with ours.
They're also not open to including a link back to the product pages where the corresponding reviews live on our site.
Are there other courses of action that could be proposed that would protect our valuable content?
Is there any evidence that using schema.org (Review and Organization schemas) pointing back to our review page URLs would provide attribution and prevent them from outranking us for associated terms?
-
Logan, I found your replies very helpful. We have allowed a site to replicate some of our pages / content on their site and have the rel canonical tag in place pointing back to us. However, Google has indexed the pages on the partner's site as well. Is this common or has something gone wrong? the partner temporarily had an original source tag pointing to their page as well as the canonical pointing to us. We caught this issue a few weeks ago and had the original source tag removed. GSC sees the rel canonical tag for our site. But I am concerned our site could be getting hurt for dupe content issues and the partner site may out rank us as their site is much stronger. Any insight would be greatly appreciated
-
"Why did this offer come my way?"
When someone asks to use your content, that is what you should be asking yourself.
When someone asks to use my content, my answer is always a fast. NO! Even if the Pope is asking, the answer will be NO.
-
This is exactly my concern. Our site is massive in it's own industry, but this other site is a top player across many industries - surely we'd be impacted by such an implementation without some steps taken to confirm attribution.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
-
Google claims that they are good at identifying the originator of the content. I know for a fact that they are overrating their ability on this.
Publish an article first on a weak site, allow it to be crawled and remain for six months. Then, put that same article on a powerful site. The powerful site will generally outrank the other site for the primary keywords of the article or the weak site will go into the supplemental results. Others have given me articles with the request that I publish them. After I published them they regretted that they were on my site.
Take pieces of an article from a strong site and republish them verbatim on a large number of weak sites. The traffic to the article on the strong site will often drop because the weak sites outrank it for long-tail keywords. I have multiple articles that were ranking well for valuable keywords. Then hundreds of mashup sites grabbed pieces of the article and published them verbatim. My article tanked in the SERPs. A couple years later the mashups fell from the SERPs and my article moved back up to the first page.
-
But, I would not agree with their site being the one to take the damage. YOU will lose a lot of long-tail keyword traffic because now your words are on their site and their site is powerful.
Typically, the first one that's crawled will be considered the originator of the content--then if a site uses that content it will be the one who is damaged (if that's the case). I was under the impression that your content was indexed first--and the other site will be using your content. At least that's the way I understood it.
So, if your content hasn't already been indexed then you may lose in this.
-
This is complex because they'd like to use bits and pieces of the content interspersed with their own content, so they can't just implement a cross-domain canonical. It'd also be difficult to load the content in an iframe with noindex,nofollow header tags since their own content (which they want indexed) will be mixed up with ours.
Be careful. This is walking past the alligator ambush. I agree with Eric about the rel=canonical. But, I would not agree with their site being the one to take the damage. YOU will lose a lot of long-tail keyword traffic because now your words are on their site and their site is powerful.
They're also not open to linking back to our content.
It these guys walked into my office with their proposal they might not make it to the exit alive.
My only offer would be for them to buy me out completely. That deal would require massive severances for my employees and a great price for me.
-
You're in the driver's seat here. _You _have the content _they _want. If you lay down your requirements and they don't want to play, then don't give them permission to use your content. It's really that simple. You're gaining nothing here with their rules, and they gain a lot. You should both be winning in this situation.
-
Thank you for chiming in Eric!
There pages already rank extraordinarily well. #1 for almost every related term that they have products for, across the board.
They're also not open to linking back to our content.
-
In an ideal situation, the canonical tag is preferred. Since you mentioned that it's not the full content, and you can't implement it, then there may be limited options. We haven't seen any evidence that pointing back to your review page URLs would prevent them from outranking you--but it's not likely. If there are links there, then you'd get some link juice passed on.
Most likely, though, if that content is already indexed on your site then it's going to be seen as duplicate content on their site--and would only really hurt their site, in that those pages may not rank.
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
-
Directory with Duplicate content? what to do?
Moz keeps finding loads of pages with duplicate content on my website. The problem is its a directory page to different locations. E.g if we were a clothes shop we would be listing our locations: www.sitename.com/locations/london www.sitename.com/locations/rome www.sitename.com/locations/germany The content on these pages is all the same, except for an embedded google map that shows the location of the place. The problem is that google thinks all these pages are duplicated content. Should i set a canonical link on every single page saying that www.sitename.com/locations/london is the main page? I don't know if i can use canonical links because the page content isn't identical because of the embedded map. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchlondon0 -
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!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moz1admin1 -
Page structure and how to optimize old content
SITE STRUCTURE I am trying to optimize the structure of our site Dreamestatehuahin.com. Getting a visible sitemap of my page make me realized it was not a pyramid as I expected it to be but instead very flat. I Would be happy for some advise on how to structure my site in future aswell how to optimize certain place on the page that i think need a change. 1: structure on posts. Maybe I misunderstand how post works in wordpress or something happen with my theme. When I look at my page sitemap my page is VERY flat because permalinks setting I chose the setting as post name (recommended in most articles). http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/sample-post What I actually believed was that post name was place after /blog/ like: http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/blog/sample-post I would be a good idea to do like this right? Should I add some SEO text on the top of my blog page before the actually posts. Or would this be a bad idea due to pagination causing double content? Could one do 4 blogs in one site and replace the name “blog” in the url with a keywords http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/real-estate-announcement/sample-post http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/hua-hin-attractions/sample-post 2) Pages Based on property type From our top menu, i have made links under for sael using wordpress property types http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/villa/ http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/hot-deals/ http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/condominium/ Earlier I found that these pages created duplictaon of titles due to pagenation so I deleted the h1 What would you do with these pages. Should I optimize them with a text and h1. maybe it is possible to add some title and text content for the top of the first page only (the one page that are linked to our top menu) http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/villa and not to page 2, 3, 4….. http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/villa/page/2/ b) Also maybe I should rename the property types WOuld it make sence to change name of the property types from etc villa to villas for sale or even better villas for sale hua hin Then the above urls will look like this instead: http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-type/villas-for-sale/ Or Maybe renaming a property type would result in many 404 errors and not be worth the effort? 3) LINKING + REPOSTING OUR “PROPERTY” PAGES AND DO A 301 REDIRECT? a) Would It be good idea to link back from all properties description to one of our 5 optimized landingpages (for the keyword home/house/condo/villa) for sale in Hua Hin? http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property-hua-hin/ http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/house-for-sale-hua-hin/ b) Also so far we haven’t been really good about optimizing each property (no keywords, optimized titles or descriptions) etc. http://www.dreamestatehuahin.com/property/baan-suksamran/ I wonder if it would be worth the effort to optimize content of each of the old properties )photos-text) on our page? Or maybe post the old properties again in a new optimized version and do a 301 redirect from the old post?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nm19770 -
Updating existing content - good or bad?
Hi All, There are many situations where I encounter the need (or the wish) to update existing content. Here are few reasons: Some update turned up on the subject that does not justify a new posy / article but rather just adding two lines. The article was simply poorly written yet the page has PR as it is a good subject and is online for quite some time (alternatively I can create a new and improved article and 301 the old one to the new). Improving titles and sub titles of old existing articles. I would love to hear your thoughts on each of the reasons... Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet1 -
How to Fix Duplicate Page Content?
Our latest SEOmoz crawl reports 1138 instances of "duplicate page content." I have long been aware that our duplicate page content is likely a major reason Google has de-valued our Web store. Our duplicate page content is the result of the following: 1. We sell audio books and use the publisher's description (narrative) of the title. Google is likely recognizing the publisher as the owner / author of the description and our description as duplicate content. 2. Many audio book titles are published in more than one format (abridged, unabridged CD, and/or unabridged MP3) by the same publisher so the basic description on our site would be the same at our Web store for each format = more duplicate content at our Web store. Here's are two examples (one abridged, one unabridged) of one title at our Web store. Kill Shot - abridged Kill Shot - unabridged How much would the body content of one of the above pages have to change so that a SEOmoz crawl does NOT say the content is duplicate?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
Content Landing Page
Hey Mozzers, I wanted to get some opinions on here. I'm going to be building out the content on my site a lot of the next couple of months, and have recently started thinking about creating a content landing page. For those not familiar with the concept it's the idea of building this page that basically just pulls together all the content you've written on a specific subject & serves as hopefully a link magnet & destination for people interested in the topic. So my question is this, I am just outlining all of the different posts & areas that I want to cover on specific topics & it is a lot. I'm talking ~20 posts on each subject. Do you think that would be too much content to try & get on one page? Should I break it down to a more finite 5-7 links to high quality articles per page, or create basically this monster guide that links to all these different articles I'll create. Looking forward to getting your opinion, Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | chris.kent0 -
Original Site content was used for submission to article directories
I had a communication problem with my writer and she used original unspun content and posted it to Unique Article Wizard. So all UAW does is take each paragraph and mix them up. So I searched a sentence on my site where the content came from and got back a bunch of returns for that sentence. My site wasn't the first result returned. I"m wondering how bad that is going to be for me. The links from UAW are going back to an anchor layer that then links back to this site. Can anyone tell me if I need to rewrite the content on the original site? That is the only way I can think to make that not an issue. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mtking.us_gmail.com0 -
Content Focus
I have a particular Page which shows primary contact details as well as "additional" contact details for the client. GIven I do not believe I want Google to misinterpret the focus of the page from the primary contact details which of the following three options would be best? Place the "additional" contact details (w/maps) in Javascript, Ajax or similar to suppress them from being crawled. Leave "additional" contact details alone but emphasize the Primary contact details by placing the Primary contact details in Rich Snippets/Microformats. Do nothing and allow Google to Crawl the pages with all contact details Thanks, Phil
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AU-SEO0