One more question about rel=canonical
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around rel=canonical and its importance. Thanks to the community, I've been able to understand most of it. Still, I have a couple of very specific questions:
- I share certain blog posts on the Huffington Post. Here's an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cedric-lizotte/munich-travel-guide_b_13438956.html - Of course I post these on my blog as well. Here: http://www.continentscondiments.com/things-munich-classics/ - Obviously the HuffPo has a huge DA, and I'll never match it. However the original post is mine, on my blog, and not on the HuffPo. They wont - obviously - add a rel=canonical just for me and for the sake of it, they have a million other things to do.
QUESTION: Should I add a rel=canonical to my own site pointing to the post on the HuffPost? What would be the advantage? Should I just leave this alone?
- I share blog posts on Go4TravelBlog too. Example: http://www.go4travelblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-munich/ - but, once again, the original post is on one of my blogs. In this case, it's on another blog of mine: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/dallmayr-restaurant-in-munich/
QUESTION: Well it's pretty much the same! Should I beg Go4TravelBlog to add a rel=canonical pointing to mine? If they refuse, what do I do? Would it be better to add a rel=canonical from my site to theirs, or do I fight it out and have a rel=canonical pointing to my own post? Why?
Thanks a million for your help!
-
Unfortunately I don't do very mainstream stuff, which means that my content isn't very shareable. On top of that, I don't write provocative pieces, which means that they aren't commented on a lot. I know how to do those things and I did them for past employers, but I've chosen personally not to do so because I find them toxic. This also means that my readership, at least on my blog, is very low. Of course I could go back to my old ways - I did here with a lot of success: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/food-bloggers-post-negative-reviews-comped-meals-thoughts-strange-industry/ - but I don't like the vicious arguments that ensue on social media.
Can I take a look at your blog? Maybe I could pick up a few ideas!
And, once again, I haven't made any money from having a blog. I got, what, $15 from Google once? That's about it!
-
It is important not to get carried away with "publishing articles on other sites for links' especially if those links are in highly optimized anchor text. A couple posts on HP with a link or two is OK, but if you are doing this alot and Google is still doing the old style Penguin penalties, it can kill the value of your domain permanently.
In the topic area of my business, I don't publish anything on other websites. I want to spend all of my writing time building the value of my brand. I feel that if I am a worthy author, my readers will share my work for me and my need to promote it will be zero to minimal. This has always worked well with the audiences that I write form.
-
Yes, and yes. And also consider Egol's comments.
-
EGOL, thanks for your thoughts.
I'm a freelance writer. I've never made a penny with my blog and probably never will. It's a business card more than anything.
Try to get them to give you rel=canonical. If they will do that then publishing on their site is building value for your business. If they will not do that then it tells you something important about them. They are 100% for themselves and are all about having other people carry them around in a sedan chair.
Yes, I agree with you fully that they want free content to carry their brand. That's the whole premise of their business and that's why they have so many problems with disgruntled employees. That being said, if you take a look at the link I shared, you can see that every paragraph or so links directly to one of my blog posts. What I shared on their website is more or less a recap of all of my own blog posts for this specific city.
On top of that, well, there's no better business card, as a writer, than a series of posts of the Huff Post linking towards my stuff!
Thanks again for your thoughts, I'll keep everything in mind, of course.
-
Hm. So that probably means that I don't have any sort of possibility towards modifying the rel=canonical on the HuffPost. Right? Can you think of any other way? I only have access to the body.
This means that I should simply ignore and keep going. Right?
And if I can get go4TravelBlog (or any other place where my content is published) to add a rel=canonical pointing towards my version of it, I'd be golden. Right?
Thanks again!
-
I totally agree with Adriaan's comments.
I'll add a few thoughts about publishing philosophy....
Keep in mind the amount of time that you spent on creating content that you give away AND the value that the content can bring if it is unique to your website and not available anywhere else on the web.
If your goal is to "get your message out" then by all means get it published in as many places as you can. If your goal is to "build value for your business" then you have to think about things carefully.
If you can write an article in a short amount of time and give it to HP and in return get a link and a brand mention then it might be worth letting them use it. If I was going to do this, I would publish it first on my own site and make sure that it is indexed and then give it to HP for publication there.
Pay attention to where you copy of the article ranks in the search engines. If HP is always outranking you for your own content that makes them a much less attractive place to publish your content. If that is happening and they will not give you rel=canonical, then I would probably stop giving them my content. Giving them my content under those conditions is not "building value for my business".
Try to get them to give you rel=canonical. If they will do that then publishing on their site is building value for your business. If they will not do that then it tells you something important about them. They are 100% for themselves and are all about having other people carry them around in a sedan chair.
All of the above was written about content that you can generate easily and with minimal cost. In situations where you have a real masterpiece, then there is a stronger case for keeping it only on your own site and spending your efforts on "promoting" it in other locations but not giving the content away.
So, before you give away content, think about the many options that you have and choose the one that "gets your word out" or "builds your business" to a maximum degree. There is no "one size fits all".
-
I'm afraid not, Google is very clear on this matter: _When we encounter a rel=canonical designation in the , it’s disregarded. _https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html
-
Thanks for this answer.
Of course I can't go play around in HuffPost's headers. What I can do, though, is change the body, which includes the code and the href's. Would a rel=canonical in the body still work? How would I go about implementing it?
-
Placing a rel=canonical on your own blogposts to HuffPost is essentially telling Google that you're not unique enough to be indexed and that you want all ranking juice to flow to HP. Which isn't the case I guess. I would leave it alone. Nevertheless it will be very hard to outrank HP in this case.
This is what Yoast tells us about cross domain canonicals: _"You might have the same piece of content on several domains. For instance, SearchEngineJournal regularly republishes articles from Yoast.com (with explicit permission). Look at every one of those articles, and you’ll see a rel=canonical link point right back at our original article. This means all the links pointing at their version of the article count towards the ranking of our canonical version. They get to use our content to please their audience; we get a clear benefit from it too. Everybody wins." _(https://yoast.com/rel-canonical/#cross-domain-canonical)
So IF you can get HP to put a canonical to your own blog, this would be highly favorable for your own ranking. You could use the 'everybody wins' argument to try to get this working.
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
-
How should one approach pagination on website
This is my first post here so forgive me if I made any mistake while posting it. Say I have one category called News on my website, it gets frequently updated with new posts everyday. So the thing is one article that is sitting on first page of the category, will eventually move down to 2nd page, and then 3rd and then 4th and so on. Now bots will see this article on first page, then index this on second page also and then on third also and so on and this goes on for rest of the articles as well. Will this raise a duplicate flag for the website. How should one approach this problem. I would really not want to use noindex tag here as I do want such pages to get indexed but without getting the duplicate content issue.
On-Page Optimization | | thetelescope1 -
Url permalink structure question!
Hello! I just read the "15 SEO Best Practices for Structuring URLs" but I have still a question: My A version bellow "20 accessoires" has no meaning in french. If I add "voyage" (version B), then is it considered as spammy? I mean the "voyage" keyword repetition? A) http://www.lytchee.com/preparer-son-voyage/20-accessoires/ B) http://www.lytchee.com/preparer-son-voyage/20-accessoires-voyage Thanks for advices! Sylvain
On-Page Optimization | | lytcheetv0 -
Which is better? One dynamically optimised page, or lots of optimised pages?
For the purpose of simplicity, we have 5 main categories in the site - let's call them A, B, C, D, E. Each of these categories have sub-category pages e.g. A1, A2, A3. The main area of the site consists of these category and sub-category pages. But as each product comes in different woods, it's useful for customers to see all the product that come in a particular wood, e.g. walnut. So many years ago we created 'woods' pages. These pages replicate the categories & sub-categories but only show what is available in that particular wood. And of course - they're optimised much better for that wood. All well and good, until recently, these specialist page seem to have dropped through the floor in Google. Could be temporary, I don't know, and it's only a fortnight - but I'm worried. Now, because the site is dynamic, we could do things differently. We could still have landing pages for each wood, but of spinning off to their own optimised specific wood sub-category page, they could instead link to the primary sub-category page with a ?search filter in the URL. This way, the customer is still getting to see what they want. Which is better? One page per sub-category? Dynamically filtered by search. Or lots of specific sub-category pages? I guess at the heart of this question is? Does having lots of specific sub-category pages lead to a large overlap of duplicate content, and is it better keeping that authority juice on a single page? Even if the URL changes (with a query in the URL) to enable whatever filtering we need to do.
On-Page Optimization | | pulcinella2uk0 -
Canonical URL, cornerstone page and categories
If I want to have a cornerstone "page", can I substitute an actual page with a category archive of posts "page" (that contains many posts containing the target key phrase)? This way, if I make blog posts about a certain topic/ key phrase (example "beach weddings") and add a canonical URL of the category archive page to the individual posts, am I right then to assume google will see the archive page as the cornerstone page (and thereby won't see the individual posts with the same key phrase as competing)?
On-Page Optimization | | stephanwb0 -
Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.
Please clarify: In the page optimization tool, seomoz recommends using the canonical url tag on the unique page itself. Is it the same canonical url tag used when want juice to go to the original page? Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today. Please give example.
On-Page Optimization | | AllIsWell0 -
E commerce Website canonical and duplicate content isssue
i have a ecomerce site , i am just wondering if any one could help me answer this the more info page can be access will google consider it as duplicate and if it does then how to best use the canonical tag http://domain.com/product-page http://domain.com/product-page/ http://domain.com/product-Page http://domain.com/product-Page/ also in zencart when link product it create duplicate page content how to tackle it? many thanks
On-Page Optimization | | conversiontactics0 -
Help with Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Whenever i enable Canonical URL through the 3DCart Control panel I get this Critical Factor error when running the on page report card: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://rcnitroshop.com/Nitro-Monster-Truck"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> </dl> Now if I disable Canonical URL then run the on page report card again the critical error goes away but I get this Optional Factor error instead: Canonical URL Tag Usage Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>0</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.</dd> </dl> So basically I disabled it because obviously a Critical error is much worse then an optional error. Is there a way I can get rid of both errors?
On-Page Optimization | | bilsonx0