Canonical tags and Syndicated Content
-
-
Good point. If a new domain is able to rank as well as the old site before the 301 redirects are put in place, that's very compelling evidence.
-
I agree with Kurt - in lieu of de-listing or redirects, rel=canonical is about your only option. It's possible it won't be enough, but it's the best you've got by a long shot, given the restrictions.
-
I haven't seen all the numbers, but I know people at major newspapers using cross-domain canonical, and they'd drop it in a heartbeat if it didn't pass the majority of link equity.
I think the domain move case is more compelling, because now you've got a completely new domain that you can show ranking in place of the old, stronger domain, without redirects in place. At that point, it's unlikely just a fluke.
-
Cool. I hadn't heard of using canonical tags to move sites. That's quite helpful.
I'm curious about the idea that the canonical tag passes link authority or PageRank. Is it possible that these tests people have done just look like that's what's happening? Here's what I mean. Let's say I write an article that gets reproduced on another site and Google is ranking the other site in the top ten for some keyword. Then I get the other site to put a canonical tag on their page and in a few days my site is ranking for that keyword. Now, does that indicate that any link authority was passed or does it indicate that Google would have ranked either site in the top ten for that keyword, but they had to decide on one or the other because they are duplicate. So, the canonical tag just caused Google to change it's mind about which site it would rank. In other words, could it be that both pages are authoritative enough to rank and the canonical tag is just telling Google which of the two should rank?
Has anyone done tests where one site had content for a while that didn't rank and then another more authoritative site re-published the content and ranked for it and then the authoritative site put a canonical tag to the original site and now that original site was able to rank well for the keyword? And when they did this, they would have to not have put a link to the original content only using the canonical.
-
Dave,
What you're describing is exactly what the canonical tag is for, reproducing content on pages, but giving credit to the original. Anyway, if 301's wouldn't work, what else would you do?
-
She essentially said that canonicals for moving a site was one of the intended uses. In her talk she gave the example of having an Exercise Blog and taking over Matt Cutts' Exercise blog... and how in that instance canonicals are a good way to notify the search engines that you would like your main site to start ranking for the instances where the secondary site would come up. (Plus the bits about good for the user experience) Then you would canonical all relevant pages as necessary, move any content that you would like to appear on the main site, and throw up a message on the secondary site with a link stating you're moving to the new URL. Then after a while you would 301 everything over.
I have actually given that advice to people regularly and (so far) no one has come back screaming at me that I ruined their site.
-
That actually makes much more sense than the way I've had people try to explain it to me
I didn't realize a Googler had actually condoned it (although sometimes I find Maile's messages a bit mixed).
-
I have done these and I agree completely.
Also, the bit about Canonicals to move a site and then 301 later was actually talked about at SMX by Maile Ohye of Google as a legitimate and good use for situations such as buying or taking over someone else's site as a means to pass link equity while also giving users a better experience by letting them know you are transitioning... giving them time to change their bookmarks instead of potentially causing them to bounce by sending them somewhere they didn't intend to go.
(though don't quote me on her saying anything about "link juice" or "link equity" specifically... it was about a year ago and its been ages since I've listened to my personal recordings of the session [and actually, i'm not sure I was even actually allowed to record while Google and Bing reps were speaking... but oh well])
-
So, I can tell you from conversations with SEOs that some have used rel=canonical successfully to pass link-juice. In some cases, I even know people who use it to move sites, and then 301 later, and claim success with this method. Unfortunately, almost none of those case studies are published.
Generally speaking, I still don't think it's a great way to move a resource, and tend toward 301s for that purpose, but all the data I've seen suggests that rel=canonical tends to consolidate link juice. There are exceptions, of course, such as when Google doesn't honor the tag (they don't see it as a duplicate, for example, and think you're trying to game the system), but that's true of 301s as well.
Rand did a Whiteboard Friday a couple of years ago talking about link-equity and cross-domain canonical:
http://moz.com/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday
I know he's actually a big believer that rel=canonical passes link equity, as or more strongly in some cases than 301-redirects (again, it's pretty situational).
-
My understanding is that canonical tag only establishes the original location of content. It has nothing to do with PageRank. I've not seen anything from Google that would indicate that adding a canonical tag to a page will pass all it's authority to the canonical URL.
-
Hiya,I wouldn't look at it as a link juice argument as its really aimed at telling the search engine which concepts the original (which can be helpful if e.g you have multiple products etc.). What it can do is help build you up as an authority. Regards to auther credit it depends if they used the rel="author" tag (telling Google who the auther is).
Look at it another way you would use the tags for duplicate content, do you think a search engine would highly rank duplicate content? It would link one copy of the relevant result and you can use the tag to tell it "this is the original content" (i.e the most relevant).
You may find the following helpful : https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139394
as well a similar topic was posted only an hour ago http://moz.com/community/q/canonical-tag-refers-to-itself
I hope this has helped a bit for your question, good luck!
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
-
Content in Accordion doesn't rank as well as Content in Text box?
Does content rank better in a full view text layout, rather than in a clickable accordion? I read somewhere because users need to click into an accordion it may not rank as well, as it may be considered hidden on the page - is this true? accordion example: see features: https://www.workday.com/en-us/applications/student.html
Technical SEO | | DigitalCRO1 -
I have a Category and Tag In My Blogs
I have use category and Tags in my blogs. Now i have an problem with blog URL and Tags URL. My blog URLs is also show in Tags page and both the content is same. For Example: My Blog URL is: https://www.example.com/advice-how-to-do-batting And Tag Page URL is : https://www.example.com/advice-batting in that - https://www.example.com/advice-how-to-do-batting The URLs contain same content. No should i write two different meta title and description for above two URLs pages. As there might more blog added under Tags pages with different topics and title. Request on Thought Please.
Technical SEO | | ProcessSEO0 -
What about Panoramic content ?
Hello everyone ,, We have a website include a panoramic images for many pages this panorama is really unique and we did a hard work to collect it , we thought that will be very useful for our target audience !! We have tried to search about how to make a panoramic content working and support the SEO , Unfortunately NO result and NO information yet, _Could you help us in that filed _ _Thanks _
Technical SEO | | Visual-ex0 -
Is this duplicate content?
All the pages have same information but content is little bit different, is this low quality and considered as duplicate content? I only trying to make services pages for each city, any other way for doing this. http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-pennsylvania/
Technical SEO | | JordanBrown
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-new-york/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-new-jersey/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-connecticut/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-maryland/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-massachusetts/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-philadelphia/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-new-york-city/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-baltimore/
http://www.progressivehealthofpa.com/brain-injury-rehabilitation-boston/0 -
Content on top-level-domain vs. content on subpage
Hello Seomoz community, I just built a new website, mainly for a single affiliate programm and it ranks really well at google. Unfortunately the merchant doesn’t like the name of my domain, that’s why I was thrown out of the affiliate program. So suppose the merchant is a computer monitor manufacturer and his name is “Digit”. The name of my domain is something like monitorsdigital.com at the moment. (It’s just an example, I don’t own this URL). The structure of my website is: 1 homepage with much content on it + a blog. The last 5 blog entries are displayed on the homepage. Because I got kicked out of the affiliate program I want to permanent redirect monitorsdigital.com to another domain. But what should the new website look like? I have two possibilities: Copy the whole monitorsdigital website to a new domain, called something like supermonitors.com. Integrate the monitorsdigital website into my existing website about different monitor manufacturers. E.g.: allmonitors.com/digit-monitors.html (that url is permitted by the merchant) What do you think is the better way? I just got the impression, that it seems to be a little easier to rank high with a top-level-domain (www.supermonitors.com) than with a subpage (www.allmonitors.com/digit-monitors.html). However the subpage can benefit from the domain authority, that was generated by other subpages. Thanks for your help and best regards MGMT
Technical SEO | | MGMT0 -
"Standout" tag and "Original content" tags - what's the latest?
In November 2010 Google introduced the "standout tag" http://support.google.com/news/publisher/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=191283 I can't find any articles/blog posts/etc in google after that date, but its use was suggested in a google forum today to help with original content issues. Has anyone used them? Does anyone know what's the latest with them? Are they worth trying for SEO? Is there a possible SEO penalty for using them? Thanks, Jean
Technical SEO | | JeanYates0 -
Canonical URL Issue
Hi Everyone, I'm fairly new here and I've been browsing around for a good answer for an issue that is driving me nuts here. I tried to put the canonical url for my website and on the first 5 or 6 pages I added the following script SEOMoz reported that there was a problem with it. I spoke to another friend and he said that it looks like it's right and there is nothing wrong but still I get the same error. For the URL http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html I used the following: <link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.cacaniqueis.com.br/video-caca-niqueis.html" /> Is there anything wrong with it? Many thanks in advance for the attention to my question.. 🙂 Alex
Technical SEO | | influxmedia0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi - We are due to launch a .com version of our site, with the ability to put prices into local currency, whereas our .co.uk site will be solely £. If the content on both the .com and .co.uk sites is the same (at product level mainly), will we be penalised? What is the best way to get around this?
Technical SEO | | swgolf1230