Is Publishing Content from a Book to your Site Considered Duplicate Content?
-
It is a book we don't own, either. Would you need to somehow find the original and rel=canonical it? Or is this just all around bad to do? Thanks.
-
Are you the only one with permission to publish the content? If not, and there are others, you will need to canonical to where the publisher/owner of the content has the content up. If you are the only approved publisher on the web, you can make others canonical to you, but it'll be a battle.
-
We do have permission.
-
Why are you publishing the whole book if it's not yours? If you are going to do that, I'd noindex the content since it's not yours and you don't have permission to publish it from the owner. Or I assume you don't.
-
Does anyone else have anymore insight into this?
-
It's the full book.
-
The answer to your question depends on how much additional content you're adding around the content taken from the book. If you're simply taking quotes from the book and doing additional analysis, it's unlikely to be considered duplicate content. Here's a great Whiteboard Friday about this very topic: http://moz.com/blog/how-unique-does-content-need-to-be-to-perform-well-in-search-engines-whiteboard-friday
-
Okay, makes sense, thank you. But what if it is just some other random site that has also published the books content (there are many that have published parts of this book) and none are the owner. Who do you canonicalize to, do you just pick one at random? That wouldn't seem to accomplish what Google is after by using the rel=canonical tag.
-
You can easily check to see if it's duplicate content with tools like Copyscape to see if it's published elsewhere. If it IS published elsewhere and you decide to also publish it, then a rel=canonical would be appropriate.
You will also want to get permission to publish anything that don't own the rights to from whoever does own the rights. This is probably the publisher, and you should communicate with them to get permission. You will also want to cite your source so that people know where this content came from, and who wrote it.
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
-
How to get readers to engage with content
Hi everyone! Over the last year and a half, we've ramped up our content generation and have now hit our stride with a steady stream of blogs and videos. Both qualitatively and quantitatively, we are seeing great results. The problem is that the qualitative feedback is always passive. When we see clients, partners, etc. in person, they tell us that they love the content, but no one ever leaves comments or uses the call to actions to submit their info. There are some social shares, but now that LinkedIn no longer has a counter, it's hard to tell how much. I'm looking for advice on strategies to get more active engagement with our content. The ideal outcome would be active conversations and lead generation. Thanks everyone!
Content Development | | Enertiv2 -
Do you think its better to have a published date AND a last updated date ? Does google even look if you updated but left the published date old
Do you think its better to have a published date AND a last updated date on Posts ? Does google even look if you updated but left the published date old I was thinking of adding a "last updated" field to my articles. But is it worth it? or should I just keep it uncluttered and leave only the last published date? I would think that Google would not notice if I updated a last updated meta field since their is a published date field already.
Content Development | | ianizaguirre1 -
Simple Blog Content Question
Which is better? To write my own blog post or, (with permission) use other high DA content on my blog. I'll probably do both, but I'm very curious as to what the search engines prefer or which is better for seo. Thanks in advance!
Content Development | | MissThumann0 -
Duplicate Content behind a Paywall
We have a website that is publicly visible. This website has content. We'd like to take that same content, put it on another website, behind a paywall. Since Google will not be able to crawl those pages behind the paywall is there any risk to ua doing this? Thanks! Mike
Content Development | | FOTF_DigitalMarketing0 -
Thumbs up or thumbs down to content rotators
Hi there - Our team is in the process of a website redesign. We're currently using a content rotator and are wondering if any folks have data to support whether this is actually a good practice despite it's popularity? Overall, I'm not impressed by the click throughs as a percentage of site traffic and most of our visitors are not repeat visitors so this may not really be necessary. Thoughts and experiences appreciated!
Content Development | | pasware0 -
Syndicating content with rel=author tag in it
If I have an article with my rel=author tag attached to it, and then I syndicate that article to another web site, should I keep the rel=author tag in that synbdicated article? Basically, what I'm worried about is that there will be 2 duplicate articles with my author tag on 2 different web sites. (I intend to put a canonical tag in the syndicated article so there is no duplicate content penalty) What is the best practice for this?
Content Development | | greggseo0 -
Does the duplicate content on the crawl errors report test content on external websites?
Hello, Can you tell me if this is just duplicate content within my site or if it also recognises duplicate content on external sites as well? Thanks
Content Development | | stuarta600 -
Define: Good Content
I am curious to hear what you guys consider to be the characteristics of good content and in which order if you have a preference. Here are a few I can think of: Informative (you can learn something new) Substantial (enough of it and thorough) Complete (doesn't give half-baked information or ideas) Unique (not regurgitated original content) Helpful (practical actionable information) Visual (content complemented by media) Referenced (claims made are substantiated through citations) Entertaining (or otherwise emotional, e.g. surprising, sad, shocking, controversial) Formatted (easy to read and follow) Timely (right content at the right time, applies for news) Professional (writing style, grammar, spelling and sentence structure) Can you add to this list?
Content Development | | Dan-Petrovic1