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
-
Does "google selected canonical" pass link juice the same as "user selected canonical"?
We are in a bit of a tricky situation since a key top-level page with lots of external links has been selected as a duplicate by Google. We do not have any canonical tag in place. Now this is fine if Google passes the link juice towards the page they have selected as canonical (an identical top-level page)- does anyone know the answer to this question? Due to various reasons, we can't put a canonical tag ourselves at this moment in time. So my question is, does a Google selected canonical work the same way and pass link juice as a user selected canonical? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Lewald10 -
Regarding Schema Tag
Hi, I have found out more errors related to schema tag when using this tag on this page. Please tell me which types of schema need to implement on this URL. https://www.giftalove.com/delhi
Technical SEO | | Packersmove0 -
Please take a look at my canonical tag - is it written right?
Hi there! I just changed the preferred domain settings from http://example.com to http://www.example.com and received a recommended action from Google: "Ensure that you specify the new host as canonical in all page links or sitemaps." Could you please let me know if "the new host" is equal to "canonical" and if I have to include this tag into every page of my website ? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | kirupa0 -
Duplicate content and rel canonicals?
Hi. I have a question relating to 2 sites that I manage with regards to duplicate content. These are 2 separate companies but the content is off a data base from the one(in other words the same). In terms of the rel canonical, how would we do this so that google does not penalise either site but can also have the content to crawl for both or is this just a dream?
Technical SEO | | ProsperoDigital0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Logos and H1 Tags
Would you ever wrap a Logo in an H1 tag? The logo is an image, but is in an area that would cause it to make the most sense when forming my page into a proper hierarchy format. Thanks in advance for any help!
Technical SEO | | smilingbunny0 -
Tags and Duplicate Content
Just wondering - for a lot of our sites we use tags as a way of re-grouping articles / news / blogs so all of the info on say 'government grants' can be found on one page. These /tag pages often come up with duplicate content errors, is it a big issue, how can we minimnise that?
Technical SEO | | salemtas0 -
Should rel canonical tags include the root domain
It does sound like a silly question but bear with me a little... I recently installed on my Joomla website a module that automatically creates rel canonical tags for pages that contain lists that can be sorted by different criteria: (price, alphabetic order, etc...) I know that a proper canonical tag should look like this: However, the module I'm using creates the following structure Will this work? I mean, will it be "understood" by the bots? To see what the module actually does, you can visit the following link http://www.quipeutlefaire.fr/fr/index.php?sort=price&sort_direction=desc&limit=10&limitstart=0&option=com_auctions&category=240 In the source code you will see that the canonical tag is Which is the original "unsorted" page. Thanks in advance for your help
Technical SEO | | QPLF0