I'm thinking I might need to canonicalize back to the home site and combine some content, what do you think?
-
I have a site that is mostly just podcasts with transcripts, and it has both audio and video versions of the podcasts. I also have a blog that I contribute to that links back to the video/transcript page of these podcasts. So this blog I contribute to has the exact same content (the podcast; both audio and video but no transcript) and then an audio and video version of this podcast. Each post of the podcast has different content on it that is technically unique but I'm not sure it's unique enough.
So my question is, should I canonicalize the posts on this blog back to the original video/transcript page of the podcast and then combine the video with the audio posts.
Thanks!
-
If you combine them, you'll also need to rel=canonical or 301-redirect the audio pages to the video pages (or vise-versa). To avoid chaining your canonicals, the blog posts should all go back to whichever version (audio/video) you choose as the canonical.
It depends on usage, but I'm guessing the videos have higher engagement than the audio? You could just build a longish page that looks like:
[Video]
[Audio]
[Description]
[Transcript]Transcripts add a lot of SEO power to a page, potentially, and getting that content right on the main video page could help quite a bit, if you can keep it user-friendly.
-
Okay thanks, I'll discuss this with others at my organization. I think we will combine the video and audio posts into one and then rel=canonical the patheos blog posts to the original website.
Any other ideas or suggestions?
This has been great feedback thank you!
-
You have to understand that "unique" is relative. Yes, each of these pages have some unique content and legitimately target different things. In Google's eyes, though, they have virtually the same title tag, are on the same subject, share common header elements, text, and keywords, and could be seen as near-duplicates. The audio page especially appears thin, since Google can't weigh in the value of the actual audio itself.
Personally, I'd combine the audio/video on one page, for starters. I just don't see clear value in the separation, either for search or users. As for the transcripts, that page is essentially richer. It's the video + the transcript. From a business/organizational standpoint, I'm not really clear on what the two sites are trying to accomplish, but you are potentially diluting your ranking ability. Two sites are harder to market and promote than one - that's a reality that goes far beyond SEO.
I see that the two sites have very different purposes, but if it were me, I would probably focus the ranking power of these videos/podcasts on just one page, and use cross-domain canonicals. This is as much a business decision as an SEO decision, so I can only give you my opinions, but the four copies probably are hurting you in the long run.
-
Yes definitely. We are talking about dozens podcasts so far...
this is the video version of this podcast from the blog:
and this links back to the video and transcript post on the website
this is the audio version of this podcast from the blog:
and this links back to the video and transcript post on the website also.
video and transcript version of this podcast on the website:
http://ibelievepodcast.com/1452/die-without-knowing-christ-video-transcript
audio version of this podcast on the website:
http://ibelievepodcast.com/1455/die-without-knowing-christ-audio
as you can see there a total of four posts for each podcast.
-
If the intent of the blog on patheos is for people to stumble across that content, or to fuel a feed for users/subscribers on that site (as opposed to having higher search visibility than the actual podcast site), then you can go ahead and direct the canonical to the original podcast pages. Or, simply leave things as they are (so long as it's not creating thin/duplicate content issues).
If your patheos blog ranks higher in search results because it's part of a larger blog network, then you definitely won't want to change the canonical, because you'll want the blog to maintain it's juice.
Have you looked at your referral traffic data lately? How much traffic is the blog driving to the site? Enough to make it worth all the extra effort?
-
Any chance you could share one pair of URLs that you worry might seem like duplicates? Unfortunately, it's hard to tell out of context. How many podcasts/videos are we talking about - dozens, hundreds, thousands?
-
The website is the original source and the more important entity, so the goal is to bring people there. The blog that we manage is on a larger site called patheos.com, a religious website.
I'm not 100% sure if it's creating a "duplicate" content problem but I am feeling like there might be a uniqueness problem.
Both pages (the website and blog) exist in order to help promote the podcast with the blog posts linking back to their respective full transcript posts on the website.
So I'm thinking the other issue might be that the content on the blog if not duplicate, then is considered "thin". It is wordpress based and the content it includes is made up of posts, and there is one for each of the video and audio versions of the cast. The video version includes the video and and then a few short paragraphs talking about the topic at hand being discussed in the podcast. And the audio version is just one paragraph or so about the topic along with the audio. Technically unique from the video, but obviously short, and is generally targeting the same thing.
The website is also wordpress based and has a post for each of the video and audio versions of the cast as well. The video post just has the video and then the verbatim transcript, like Moz's whiteboard fridays! And then the audio version includes a short paragraph or so on the topic, again technically different or unique from the video transcript and also different from the other audio post on the blog but also "thin". Sorry if this is confusing...
Thanks so much for your responses so far, I greatly appreciate it!
-
I tend to agree with Karin. On the one hand - yes, this could be seen as duplicate/thin content, especially at large scale. On the other hand, I'm not clear on what your goal is or which set of pages is more important. Think about the business case and where you want to bring users, not just the SEO aspect. Why do both of these pages exist, and what are you trying to achieve?
-
What's the more valuable goal for your traffic: to have people find the blog or the main site? If you point the canonical tags from the blog to the site, then you'll reduce the chances of anyone ever finding the blog in a search, which would waste the extra effort of adding unique content about the podcasts (unless you have a devoted readership who is going from the podcast page to the corresponding blog post in order to see what extra insights you've added).
Is it creating any duplicate content issues to have the posts in both places? If so, that would be a good reason to redirect the canonical refs (or discontinue the blog altogether).
-
I believe best practice is to always canonicalize to the original content. However, the mix of the original content within those blog pages is tricky because I'm sure a lot has to do with how much content is duped.
Have you tried running any reports for duplicate content issues? I know Moz has some great tools and one of my favorites is Screaming Frog Spider. Have you also looked at your GWT to see what if any issues Google may have?
Duplicate content can be bad, but there are a few cases with transcriptions that we've recently discovered where penalties are non-existent. One of the recent lessons we learned was from a similar thread about video transcriptions. Phil in the post submitted some good links and research to back it all up.
Here's the link to that discussion: http://moz.com/community/q/video-seo-youtube-transcriptions-dupe-content
I hope this points you in the right direction!
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
-
What was the Google 'update' on 31st March?
Hi all. I looked back and saw that there was an update shown in 'Search Analytics' in Webmaster Tools a few weeks before the Mobile algorithm update. Not been able to find any mention of it and what it did so thought I'd check in here. ps. Also, this is a 90 day stretch and shows that our rankings have taken a hit since the mobile algorithm update. Interesting stuff (see image below) 4rJMU9e.jpg?1
Technical SEO | | RobFD0 -
An article we wrote was published on the Daily Business Review, we'd like to post it on our site. What is the proper way?
Part 1
Technical SEO | | peteboyd
We wrote an article and submitted it to the Daily Business Review. They published the article on their website. We want to also post the article on our website for our users but we want to make sure we are doing this properly. We don't want to be penalized for duplicating content. Is this the correct way to handle this scenario written below? We added a rel="canonical" to the blog post (on our website). The rel="canonical" is set to the Daily Business Review URL where the article was originally published. At the end of the blog post we wrote. "This article was originally posted on The Daily Business Review." and we link to the original post on the Daily Business Review. Should we be setting the blog post (on our website) to be a "noindex" or rel="canonical" ? Part 2 Our company was mentioned in a number of articles. We DID NOT write those articles, we were only mentioned. We have also posted those same articles on our website (verbatim from the original article). We want to show our users that we have been mentioned in highly credited articles. All of these articles were posted on our website and are set to be a "noindex". Is that the correct thing to do? Should we be using a rel="canonical" instead and pointing to the original article URL? Thanks in advance MOZ community for your assistance! We tried to do the leg work of our own research for the answers but couldn't find the exact same scenario that we are encountering**.**0 -
Database driven content producing false duplicate content errors
How do I stop the Moz crawler from creating false duplicate content errors. I have yet to submit my website to google crawler because I am waiting to fix all my site optimization issues. Example: contactus.aspx?propid=200, contactus.aspx?propid=201.... these are the same pages but with some old url parameters stuck on them. How do I get Moz and Google not to consider these duplicates. I have looked at http://moz.com/learn/seo/duplicate-content with respect to Rel="canonical" and I think I am just confused. Nick
Technical SEO | | nickcargill0 -
Should you use the canonicalization tag when the content isn't exactly a duplicate?
We have a site that pull data from different sources with unique urls onto a main page and we are thinking about using the canonicalization tag to keep those source pages from being indexed and to give any authority to the main page. But this isn’t really what canonicalization is supposed to be used for so I’m unsure of if this is the right move.
Technical SEO | | Fuel
To give some more detail: We manage a site that has pages for individual golf courses. On the golf course page in addition to other general information we have sections on that page that show “related articles” and “course reviews”.
We may only show 4 or 5 on each of those courses pages per page, but we have hundreds of related articles and reviews for each course. So below “related articles” on the course page we have a link to “see more articles” that would take the user to a new page that is simply a aggregate page that houses all the article or review content related to that course.
Since we would rather have the overall course page rank in SERPs rather than the page that lists these articles, we are considering canonicalizing the aggregate news page up to the course page.
But, as I said earlier, this isn’t really what the canonicalization tag is intended for so I’m hesitant.
Has anyone else run across something like this before? What do you think?0 -
How to redirect home.co.uk to home.co.uk/
Hi, We recently moved to shopify and noticed that our home page is now .co.uk/ (with backslash) instead of .co.uk As both are returning 200 ok I am concerned that this could cause a duplicate content issue. Could anyone please advice on the best way to fix this? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | devoted2vintage0 -
132 pages reported as having Duplicate Page Content but I'm not sure where to go to fix the problems?
I am seeing “Duplicate Page Content” coming up in our
Technical SEO | | danatanseo
reports on SEOMOZ.org Here’s an example: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/williams-sound-ppa-r35-e http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/aphex-230-master-voice-channel-processor http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/AT-AE4100.prod These three pages are for completely unrelated products.
They are returning “200” status codes, but are being identified as having
duplicate page content. It appears these are all going to the home page, but it’s
an odd version of the home page because there’s no title. I would understand if these pages 301-redirected to the home page if they were obsolete products, but it's not a 301-redirect. The referring page is
listed as: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/cd-duplicators None of the 3 links in question appear anywhere on that page. It's puzzling. We have 132 of these. Can anyone help me figure out
why this is happening and how best to fix it? Thanks!0 -
Adding more content to an old site
We have a site which was de-moted from PR4 to PR3 with the latest Google update. We have not done any SEO for a long time for the site and the content is the same with over 100 page. My question is, in order to update the site, which is the best to do it, do we: 1. re-introduced new content to replace old once 2. re-write old content 3. Add new pages Many thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | seomagnet0 -
Handling '?' in URLs.
Adios! (or something), I've noticed in my SEOMoz campaign that I am getting duplicate content warnings for URLs with extensions. For example: /login.php?action=lostpassword /login.php?action=register etc. What is the best way to deal with these type of URLs to avoid duplicate content penelties in search engines? Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | craigycraig0