Thanks a lot for your reply Stephan!

I would be super intertesting to read a little more around the subject. Do you have any studies or cases you might refer me to which describe the flow of link equity to "page C" from "Page A"?

Many thanks

Hi Mozzers,

I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question:

• How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A?

I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not.

I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs  links.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Hi Carl,

There is no SEO advatage to using one of the (not-so) new TLDs. Theoretically there is no SEO dis-advantage either.

John Mueller made Google's position on this quite clear back in the day-
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2015/07/googles-handling-of-new-top-level.html

Essentially, John states that new TLDs are like old TLDs- they are simply TLDs. Having keywords in the TLD presents no advantage. Having place names in the TLD give nos geographic emphasis.

Personally, I feel there is a bit of a UX issue with these new TLDs in the sense that users are not accustomed to them, and as a result don't feel to comfortable using them. From that point of view I think they represent a significant disadvantage. If I were to see a www.example.clothing printed on a business card, I think I would have to do a double-take before understanding it is a website, and I work in the industry. Maybe thats just me...

Hope that helps!

Hi Tertiary Education,

From the way you describe it your pages are being considered duplicate content becuase they are so very similiar, that is to say that they are near-duplicates if not actual duplicates.

It sounds like the content on those pages is somewhat thin- is there anything else on the page apart from the map? If the answer is "no", or "not much", then consider padding them out with (quality) content that serves your audience. I think this is what Patrick is referring to with his suggestions (forgive me if I am mis-interpreting you Patrick!), and I think he is absolutely right. Other things to consider as creating unique title and descriptions for each page (I mention it in case you have over looked it).

By adding valuable differentiated, content to those pages you will be differentiating one from the other as well as providing value to your users. As Moz sees these changes it should stop flagging them as duplicates, and as google re-indexes the pages it will begin to appreciate the differences between them and gradually index them as non-duplicate content.

Hope that helps