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
-
Question on site structure
My client is a nationwide company. They provide building maintenance services in 7 different cities. In each city they provide a different range of services. They currently have a single service page for each service and no mention on that page of the cities they offer the service. The service pages are getting no SERP visibility. We are running Paid Search and recommending SEO. I'm wondering whether it would be beneficial to build out specific service pages for each city so the content is more relevant to both users and search engines. What is best practice in this situation? Client wants to dominate SERPs in each market for the services they offer.
On-Page Optimization | | SEOinSunnyNelson0 -
Question about Homepage Title
Hi there, I recently made a change to the title URL for my site, and it changed how Google displayed my sitemap. Before it showed the most common sites, and now it simply links to 4 of them below the domain URL without descriptions. I have attached images below which shows my problem. I hope this is the right section for this question. Thanks! 5ypdnY2 4u2HAia
On-Page Optimization | | One20 -
Ecommerce Canonical Question
Hi all, first question (eek) Could I pick the brains of fellow users around an issue we are having with canonical urls on a magento website. At the moment we do not have these enabled as it seems to break our indexing. Cut a long story short, we have thousands of products but haven't rewritten many of the descriptions from the manufacturers yet and so have noindexed all the product pages (freeing them as we go). The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site The goal, for now, is to pull in traffic via the filtering options we have on the site. For example, if you go to Dresses, there then are several filtering options which would allow you to choose a colour, shape and material - if you wished to filter that precisely. These filtering options are all crawlable and so we would then have a page that google could index for, for example, Green Lace Maxi Dress. All good there, few people search for specific products and a lot search for types of products so we are covered. To get back to the issue at hand. If we enable the canonical option on our magento plugin it will stop us from being able to target these terms. Whereas the filtering option would create domain.com/dress/green/maxi/lace with the page title of Green Lace Maxi Dress, if we enable the canonical part of the seo plugin the canonical link which would be added to the page would be - instantly removing our ability to rank for longer tail dress related searches (we are not going to compete with the big players on the premium terms, yet!). There are alternative plugins we can buy for magento to add the correct tag, however, if every page's canonical just points back it itself like this, is there really much point spending nearly $1000 on the 4 licences we would need to cover our range of sites. Is it really necessary, in this case, that we have a canonical for the product filtering? Sorry for the long post, hope it made sense. Thanks for any assistance.
On-Page Optimization | | DSCarl0 -
Is it safe to use Microformats and Schema.org on one page?
I'm running a news blog and I'm using schema.org/NewsArticle. I would like to know if I should add microformats on the article page too or just use the schema? If I add both, will it effect my sites SEO/ranking? Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | hakhan2010 -
Should a keyword be optimized on One page only?
I have a niche website that focusses on selling pizza delivery bags, the search keywords that are used by users are about 7 and their are another 15 long tail keywords. The question is do i optimize every keyword per one page only? i have a blog on the website www.prodelpizzabags.com/blog/ if i write a blog post that would "compete" internally with another keyword, what should i do, what are the best practices I would be thankful for any insights regarding keyword/page optimization
On-Page Optimization | | akramsabra0 -
I have a question about having to much content on a single page. Please help :)
I am working on a music related site. We are building a feature in our system to allow people to write information about songs on their playlist. So when a song is currently being played a user can read some cool facts or information about the song. http://imgur.com/5jFumPW ( screenshot). Some playlists have over 100 songs and could be completely random in genre and artist. I am wondering if some of these playlists have over 5,000 words of content if that is going to hurt us? We will be very strict about making sure its non spammy and good content. Also for the titles of the content is it bad to have over 100 h3 tags on one page? Just want to make sure we are on the right track. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | mikecrib10 -
Author snippet image in results, question!
Hi, Quick question really, I can see how a Google+ profile picture showing up in the results can increase CTR and even trust but would this be a no no for a normal website? I mean if you had a website which offered personal training, so a brand rather than an individual would you not use this snippet? I've seen some website, even ecommerce sites using this tag to just increase their CTR.
On-Page Optimization | | Bondara0 -
How to add canonical tag
Hi, I read through many of the forum questions dealing with the overly dynamic URLS and I think I understand. Please let me know if I know what I am talking about: If SEO moz is saying I have 20 pages (mostly search and home/index pages) with overly dynamic urls, I would go to the that particular page and add the following code between the head tag: This code would cause Google to go to this page instead of the following duplicate index pages: 1. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=0a83aa7119cf3d80a1d018634ec4ec94&p 2. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=18b220fc62628b013a51c6f26209df50&p There are a total of about 8 of these index pages. The problem is that I can't figure out where I would access each of these duplicate pages to add the canonical tag. There is only one home page with coding. As far as the search pages are concerned, I would not want Google to follow those pages would I? If that is the case, what would be the best code to add between the tags? For instance here are a couple of the overly-dynamic URL pages for the search pages: 1. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=all&search_str= 2. http://www.about-sports-collectibles.com/index.php?pcsid=50354d5791e627dc2be6c86528154a5e&p=catalog&mode=search I hope I am not overwhelming anyone with my questions. I really am trying to get a handle on how Ll this stuff works. Thanks so much the help. Don
On-Page Optimization | | ge01734001