Duplicate Articles
-
We submit articles to a magazine which either get posted as text or in a flash container. Management would like to post it to our site as well. I'm sure this has been asked a million times but is this a bad thing to do? Do I need to a rel=canonical tag to the articles? Most of the articles posted to that other site do not contain a link back to our site.
-
The magazine has already given us the ok, like I said they're much more offline focused so it's more about what Google thinks. I think I agree about playing it safe with the canonical tag though. Thanks!
-
If it's really just for your own reference or limited use, I'd probably set up the cross-domain canonical and keep it off of Google's radar. Later, if you wanted to self-publish, you could remove that.
If it's just your site and theirs, it's probably not a high-risk situation. In some ways, it's more about the relationship. If your pages started ranking instead of theirs, I don't know if that goes against your general agreement with them. I'd probably play it safe for now.
-
Our site doesn't have the largest audience yet but management simply wants a place they can go or send clients to easily find everything in one place. The magazine is more for offline advertising but they post it online as well.
-
I'd just add to what Jason said, which I think is generally on-target. If the magazine really is the "source", then posting all those articles again on your site could look "thin" to both users and search engines. In general, you're not ranking for them now, so you probably won't lose out, from an SEO standpoint. There is some risk if you copy a lot of articles, though. You don't want to look like you're scraping your own content, in essence.
The cross-domain rel-canonical should remove the risk of any sort of search penalty or problems. So, again, it's a question of whether it provides value to your site.
At some point, you have to ask - would it make sense to only post them on your site? In other words, if you're building an audience, does it make sense to build it for someone else? Granted, that's a much larger business and marketing decision (far beyond SEO).
-
It's nots a "bad" thing to post the articles in two places, as this type of syndication is somewhat commonplace in the corporate world. Provided your site already as a lot of content and is generally good quality, there's no risk of a penalty for syndicating content.
However, I would encourage management to look at it from the user's perspective: If the user reads the article in the magazine, they're not going to find it very useful to see the same article again on your site. Conversely, if your website visitors aren't going to see the article in the magazine first, why send it to the magazine at all?
One solution is to quote a snippet of the original magazine article on your site, and then write a 200+ word summary or intro for the magazine article that perhaps summarizes the key points, introduces the article in a different way, etc., and then links to the magazine.
From a user's perspective, all the content you've published on your site and in the magazine is unique and potentially useful. From the SEO perspective, there's no possibility of an issue and - unlike syndication - you're adding a unique page of content to your site that is highly likely to be indexed and help you in the long run.
Syndication isn't bad, but you have to ask why you're doing it in the first place. It's often just as easy to create a short "What You'll Learn In This Article" intro on your site than it is to cut-and-paste.
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
-
Internal Links & Possible Duplicate Content
Hello, I have a website which from February 6 is keep losing positions. I have not received any manual actions in the Search Console. However I have read the following article a few weeks ago and it look a lot with my case: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-cut-down-on-similar-content-pages-25223.html I noticed that google has remove from indexing 44 out of the 182 pages of my website. The pages that have been removed can be considered as similar like the website that is mentioned in the article above. The problem is that there are about 100 pages that are similar to these. It is about pages that describe the cabins of various cruise ships, that contain one picture and one sentence of max 10 words. So, in terms of humans this is not duplicate content but what about the engine, having in mind that sometimes that little sentence can be the same? And let’s say that I remove all these pages and present the cabin details in one page, instead of 15 for example, dynamically and that reduces that size of the website from 180 pages to 50 or so, how will this affect the SEO concerning the internal links issue? Thank you for your help.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tz_Seo0 -
Duplicate product content - from a manufacturer website, to retailers
Hi Mozzers, We're working on a website for a manufacturer who allows retailers to reuse their product information. Now, this of course raises the issue of duplicate content. The manufacturer is the content owner and originator, but retailers will copy the information for their own site and not link back (permitted by the manufacturer) - the only reference to the manufacturer will be the brand name citation on the retailer website. How would you deal with the duplicate content issues that this may cause. Especially considering the domain authority for a lot of the retailer websites is better than the manufacturer site? Thanks!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | A_Q0 -
Is Syndicated (Duplicate) Content considered Fresh Content?
Hi all, I've been asking quite a bit of questions lately and sincerely appreciate your feedback. My co-workers & I have been discussing content as an avenue outside of SEO. There is a lot of syndicated content programs/plugins out there (in a lot of cases duplicate) - would this be considered fresh content on an individual domain? An example may clearly show what I'm after: domain1.com is a lawyer in Seattle.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ColeLusby
domain2.com is a lawyer in New York. Both need content on their website relating to being a lawyer for Google to understand what the domain is about. Fresh content is also a factor within Google's algorithm (source: http://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor). Therefore, fresh content is needed on their domain. But what if that content is duplicate, does it still hold the same value? Question: Is fresh content (adding new / updating existing content) still considered "fresh" even if it's duplicate (across multiple domains). Purpose: domain1.com may benefit from a resource for his/her local clientale as the same would domain2.com. And both customers would be reading the "duplicate content" for the first time. Therefore, both lawyers will be seen as an authority & improve their website to rank well. We weren't interested in ranking the individual article and are aware of canonical URLs. We aren't implementing this as a strategy - just as a means to really understand content marketing outside of SEO. Conclusion: IF duplicate content is still considered fresh content on an individual domain, then couldn't duplicate content (that obviously won't rank) still help SEO across a domain? This may sound controversial & I desire an open-ended discussion with linked sources / case studies. This conversation may tie into another Q&A I posted: http://moz.com/community/q/does-duplicate-content-actually-penalize-a-domain. TLDR version: Is duplicate content (same article across multiple domains) considered fresh content on an individual domain? Thanks so much, Cole0 -
On-site duplication working - not penalised - any ideas?
I've noticed a website that has been set up with many virtually identical pages. For example many of them have the same content (minimal text, three video clips) and only the town name varies. Surely this is something that Google would be against? However the site is consistently ranking near the top of Google page 1, e.g. http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-guildford.html for "magician Guildford", http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-ascot.html for "magician Ascot" and so on (even when searching without localisation or personalisation). For years I've heard SEO experts say that this sort of thing is frowned on and that they will get penalised, but it never seems to happen. I guess there must be some other reason that this site is ranked highly - any ideas? The content is massively duplicated and the blog hasn't been updated since 2012 but it is ranking above many established older sites that have lots of varied content, good quality backlinks and regular updates. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MagicianUK0 -
Spam report duplicate images
Should i do a spam report if a site competitor as copied my clinical cases images and placed as their own clinical cases. That site also does not have privacy policy or medical doctor on that images. My site: http://www.propdental.es/carillas-de-porcelana/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
How can do I report a multiple set of duplicated websites design to manipulate SERPs?
Ok, so within one of my client's sectors it has become clear that someone is trying to manipulate the SERPs by registering tons of domains that are all keyword targeted. All of the websites are simply duplications of one another and are merely setup to dominate the SERP listings - which, at the moment, it is beginning to do. None of the sites have any real authority (in some cases 1 PA and DA) and yet they're ranking above much more established websites. The only back links they have are from dodgy-looking forum ones. It's all a bit crazy and it shouldn't be happening. Anyway, all of the domains have been registered by the same person and within a two-month time period of each other. What do you guys think is the best step to take to report these particular websites to Google?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Webrevolve0 -
Difference between Syndication, Autoblogging, and Article Marketing
Rands slide deck titled 10 Steps to Effective SEO & Rankings from InfusionCon2011 on slide 82 recommends content syndication as a method for building traffic and links. How is this any different than article marketing? He gave an example of this using a screenshot of this search result for "headsmacking tip discussion." All of those sites that have republished SEOmoz's content are essentially autoblogs that post ONLY content generated by other people for the purpose of generating ad clicks from their organic traffic. We know that Google has clearly taken a position against these types of sites that offer no value. We hear Matt Cutts say to stay away from article marketing because you're just creating lots of duplicate content. Seems to me that "syndication" is just another form of article marketing that spreads duplicate content throughout the web. Can someone help me understand the difference? By the way, the most interesting one I saw in those results was the syndicated article on businessweek.com!.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | summitseo0