Letting Others Use Our Content: Risk-Free Attribution Methods
-
Hello Moz!
A massive site that you've all heard of is looking to syndicate some of our original editorial content. This content is our bread and butter, and is one of the primary reasons why people use our site.
Note that this site is not a competitor of ours - we're in different verticals.
If this massive site were to use the content straight up, I'm fairly confident that they'd begin to outrank us for related terms pretty quickly due to their monstrous domain authority.
This is complex because they'd like to use bits and pieces of the content interspersed with their own content, so they can't just implement a cross-domain canonical. It'd also be difficult to load the content in an iframe with noindex,nofollow header tags since their own content (which they want indexed) will be mixed up with ours.
They're also not open to including a link back to the product pages where the corresponding reviews live on our site.
Are there other courses of action that could be proposed that would protect our valuable content?
Is there any evidence that using schema.org (Review and Organization schemas) pointing back to our review page URLs would provide attribution and prevent them from outranking us for associated terms?
-
Logan, I found your replies very helpful. We have allowed a site to replicate some of our pages / content on their site and have the rel canonical tag in place pointing back to us. However, Google has indexed the pages on the partner's site as well. Is this common or has something gone wrong? the partner temporarily had an original source tag pointing to their page as well as the canonical pointing to us. We caught this issue a few weeks ago and had the original source tag removed. GSC sees the rel canonical tag for our site. But I am concerned our site could be getting hurt for dupe content issues and the partner site may out rank us as their site is much stronger. Any insight would be greatly appreciated
-
"Why did this offer come my way?"
When someone asks to use your content, that is what you should be asking yourself.
When someone asks to use my content, my answer is always a fast. NO! Even if the Pope is asking, the answer will be NO.
-
This is exactly my concern. Our site is massive in it's own industry, but this other site is a top player across many industries - surely we'd be impacted by such an implementation without some steps taken to confirm attribution.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
-
Google claims that they are good at identifying the originator of the content. I know for a fact that they are overrating their ability on this.
Publish an article first on a weak site, allow it to be crawled and remain for six months. Then, put that same article on a powerful site. The powerful site will generally outrank the other site for the primary keywords of the article or the weak site will go into the supplemental results. Others have given me articles with the request that I publish them. After I published them they regretted that they were on my site.
Take pieces of an article from a strong site and republish them verbatim on a large number of weak sites. The traffic to the article on the strong site will often drop because the weak sites outrank it for long-tail keywords. I have multiple articles that were ranking well for valuable keywords. Then hundreds of mashup sites grabbed pieces of the article and published them verbatim. My article tanked in the SERPs. A couple years later the mashups fell from the SERPs and my article moved back up to the first page.
-
But, I would not agree with their site being the one to take the damage. YOU will lose a lot of long-tail keyword traffic because now your words are on their site and their site is powerful.
Typically, the first one that's crawled will be considered the originator of the content--then if a site uses that content it will be the one who is damaged (if that's the case). I was under the impression that your content was indexed first--and the other site will be using your content. At least that's the way I understood it.
So, if your content hasn't already been indexed then you may lose in this.
-
This is complex because they'd like to use bits and pieces of the content interspersed with their own content, so they can't just implement a cross-domain canonical. It'd also be difficult to load the content in an iframe with noindex,nofollow header tags since their own content (which they want indexed) will be mixed up with ours.
Be careful. This is walking past the alligator ambush. I agree with Eric about the rel=canonical. But, I would not agree with their site being the one to take the damage. YOU will lose a lot of long-tail keyword traffic because now your words are on their site and their site is powerful.
They're also not open to linking back to our content.
It these guys walked into my office with their proposal they might not make it to the exit alive.
My only offer would be for them to buy me out completely. That deal would require massive severances for my employees and a great price for me.
-
You're in the driver's seat here. _You _have the content _they _want. If you lay down your requirements and they don't want to play, then don't give them permission to use your content. It's really that simple. You're gaining nothing here with their rules, and they gain a lot. You should both be winning in this situation.
-
Thank you for chiming in Eric!
There pages already rank extraordinarily well. #1 for almost every related term that they have products for, across the board.
They're also not open to linking back to our content.
-
In an ideal situation, the canonical tag is preferred. Since you mentioned that it's not the full content, and you can't implement it, then there may be limited options. We haven't seen any evidence that pointing back to your review page URLs would prevent them from outranking you--but it's not likely. If there are links there, then you'd get some link juice passed on.
Most likely, though, if that content is already indexed on your site then it's going to be seen as duplicate content on their site--and would only really hurt their site, in that those pages may not rank.
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
-
From menu to dropdown menu: Is there a risk?
Good day!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AxialDev
We are thinking about replacing a traditional menu on an e-commerce website with a Shop button like on Amazon, with a dropdown and expandable sub-menus. Current menu: Category 1 | Category 2 | Category 3 | ... New menu: Shop | Search bar The Shop menu would expand on mouse hover. When clicked, it would link to a directory like on Amazon: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/site-directory/. Is there anything we should be worried about (ex. link juice, engagement) or considerations to think about (CSS-based vs JS)? Thanks for your time!
Ben0 -
Galleries and duplicate content
Hi! I am now studing a website, and I have detected that they are maybe generating duplicate content because of image galleries. When they want to show details of some of their products, they link to a gallery url
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite
something like this www.domain.com/en/gallery/slide/101 where you can find the logotype, a full image and a small description. There is a next and a prev button over the slider. The next goes to the next picture www.domain.com/en/gallery/slide/102 and so on. But the next picture is in a different URL!!!! The problem is that they are generating lots of urls with very thin content inside.
The pictures have very good resolution, and they are perfect for google images searchers, so we don't want to use the noindex tag. I thought that maybe it would be best to work with a single url with the whole gallery inside it (for example, the 6 pictures working with a slideshow in the same url ), but as the pictures are very big, the page weight would be greater than 7 Mb. If we keep the pictures working that way (different urls per picture), we will be generating duplicate content each time they want to create a gallery. What is your recommendation? Thank you!0 -
What is considered duplicate content?
Hi, We are working on a product page for bespoke camper vans: http://www.broadlane.co.uk/campervans/vw-campers/bespoke-campers . At the moment there is only one page but we are planning add similar pages for other brands of camper vans. Each page will receive its specifically targeted content however the 'Model choice' cart at the bottom (giving you the choice to select the internal structure of the van) will remain the same across all pages. Will this be considered as duplicate content? And if this is a case, what would be the ideal solution to limit penalty risk: A rel canonical tag seems wrong for this, as there is no original item as such. Would an iFrame around the 'model choice' enable us to isolate the content from being indexed at the same time than the page? Thanks, Celine
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | A_Q0 -
Opinions on Boilerplate Content
Howdy, Ideally, uniqueness for every page's title, description, and content is desired. But when a site is very, very large, it becomes impossible. I don't believe our site can avoid boilerplate content for title tags or meta-descriptions. We will, however, markup the pages with proper microdata so Google can use this information as they please. What I am curious about is boilerplate content repeated throughout the site for the purpose of helping the user, as well as to tell Google what the page is about (rankings). For instance, this page and this page offer the same type of services, but in different areas. Both pages (and millions of others) offer the exact same paragraph on each page. The information is helpful to the user, but it's definitely duplicate content. All they've changed is the city name. I'm curious, what's making this obvious duplicate content issue okay? The additional unique content throughout (in the form of different businesses), the small, yet obvious differences in on-site content (title tags clearly represent different locations), or just the fact that the site is HUGELY authorative and gets away with it? I'm very curious to hear your opinions on this practice, potential ways to avoid it, and whether or not it's a passable practice for large, but new sites. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kirmeliux0 -
Noindex Valuable duplicate content?
How could duplicate content be valuable and why question no indexing it? My new client has a clever african safari route builder that you can use to plan your safari. The result is 100's of pages that have different routes. Each page inevitably has overlapping content / destination descriptions. see link examples. To the point - I think it is foolish to noindex something like this. But is Google's algo sophisticated enough to not get triggered by something like this? http://isafari.nathab.com/routes/ultimate-tanzania-kenya-uganda-safari-july-november
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rich_Coffman
http://isafari.nathab.com/routes/ultimate-tanzania-kenya-uganda-safari-december-june0 -
Interlinking from unique content page to limited content page
I have a page (page 1) with a lot of unique content which may rank for "Example for sale". On this page I Interlink to a page (page 2) with very limited unique content, but a page I believe is better for the user with anchor "See all Example for sale". In other words, the 1st page is more like a guide with items for sale mixed, whereas the 2nd page is purely a "for sale" page with almost no unique content, but very engaging for users. Questions: Is it risky that I interlink with "Example for sale" to a page with limited unique content, as I risk not being able to rank for either of these 2 pages Would it make sense to "no index, follow" page 2 as there is limited unique content, and is actually a page that exist across the web on other websites in different formats (it is real estate MLS listings), but I can still keep the "Example for sale" link leading to page 2 without risking losing ranking of page 1 for "Example for sale"keyword phrase I am basically trying to work out best solution to rank for "Keyword for sale" and dilemma is page 2 is best for users, but is not a very unique page and page 2 is very unique and OK for users but mixed up writing, pictures and more with properties for sale.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Do I need to use canonicals if I will be using 301's?
I just took a job about three months and one of the first things I wanted to do was restructure the site. The current structure is solution based but I am moving it toward a product focus. The problem I'm having is the CMS I'm using isn't the greatest (and yes I've brought this up to my CMS provider). It creates multiple URL's for the same page. For example, these two urls are the same page: (note: these aren't the actual urls, I just made them up for demonstration purposes) http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Omnipress
http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/bossman.cmsx (I know this is terrible, and once our contract is up we'll be looking at a different provider) So clearly I need to set up canonical tags for the last two pages that look like this: http://www.omnipress.com/boss-man" /> With the new site restructure, do I need to put a canonical tag on the second page to tell the search engine that it's the same as the first, since I'll be changing the category it's in? For Example: http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/ will become http://www.website.com/home/MEET-OUR-TEAM/team-leaders/boss-man My overall question is, do I need to spend the time to run through our entire site and do canonical tags AND 301 redirects to the new page, or can I just simply redirect both of them to the new page? I hope this makes sense. Your help is greatly appreciated!!0 -
Using abbreviations in URL - Matching Keyword
We have a website that uses /us/, /ca/, /va/, etc for URLs of the different U.S. states. How much better is it (or is it at all better) to use /california/ or /virginia/ instead in our URLs to rank for searches that include the name of those states?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Heydarian0