Canonical Link Quesiton
-
I wrote an article that is a page article, but would also be a very good blog post - So my question is two things:
1. If i post it as a static page and syndicate it as a blog post and have it as a canonical link to the page, google will read see the blog and read the page _url as the one with credit correct? In turn not dinging me for duplicate content.
2. Given if the above statement is correct, should I write the blog and put it on my static page referencing the blog or the way i have it as a static page with the blog using a canonical reference back to the page.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
-
Makes sense to me. You just need to make sure that you can handle talk about all these things and keep up with the publishing schedule. Stay focused on your most important categories.
-
One point to keep in mind is which of these versions would you like to come up in a web search as that is one that should be the primary source and have the canonical pointing at it.
-
Clever,
Thanks for that insight - It's like one of those things that almost seems so simple, but overlooked easily.
Regarding that - So I've been reshaping some services page that will split into defined pages for those services, since individually those services are specialized enough that the search value is worth it.
Would you suggest as i put these up start dropping them through blog paragraph/syndication to blog every other day or so - Till we get them all out?
-
Thanks,
I did do the canonical part from post referring to page, and it's part of a 'resource-center' but also made for a very good piece since it's a prep checklist that i put together for a client.
Otherwise i would have done the post linking, but that's something that will always be there and pretty much wont change. But the value of it regarding this industry/niche was just too good in my opinion to not put out in a blog. Just wanted to do it right.
I appreciate the help.
-
The canonical is sort of like a 301 redirect without actually redirecting the user reading the page. So yes, if you publish the article, let it get indexed by Google then publish it in the blog with a canonical back to the article page you should be set.
That said, I think the better approach would be to write a shorter snippet of the article and publish that on the blog and then just provide a regular link back to the article a "if you want more information, read the full article). If the blog is on a separate publishing network, you get the added benefit that you now have link (and you can optimize the anchor text) that points from "another site" aka the blog to your article. This helps the article to rank in the SERPS in the long run. You do not need to completely rewrite the article, just a short summary, do make sure it is not a carbon copy of your opening paragraph. This really gives you more bang for the buck as a part of this process.
I really only use the canonical for things like, the printer friendly version of a page pointing to the originals etc.
-
That all depends...
The canonical stuff is okay.
re the post, if this is a relatively static piece of content that you intend to have on your site for a long time in a prominent position, then have it as a page. If it is transient and you just want a page in a prominent navigation then have it as a post.
It sounds like you have a page and want to make it as a post so just make sure the post has a canonical pointing back to the page so you don't get 'dinged'.
You could always just have this as a post and then add a link to the post in your navigation and avoid the duplication altogether?
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
-
Surge in spammy links
Hi, Our website www.foodjet.com has recently seen a huge amount of spammy incoming links to non-exisiting URLS:
Technical SEO | | FoodJEtThey all target pages that lead to a 404 and which clearly do not exist on our website. Since they have started to appear our DA has plummeted. I have already disavowed some domains, but more re-appear just as fast. I have also checked if our site has been hacked, which does not seem to be the case. What am I missing? And/or what can I do?
0 -
Canonical Tags Before HTTPS MIgration
Hi Guys I previously asked a question that was helpfully answered on this forum, but I have just one last question to ask. I'm migrating a site tomorrow from http to https. My one question is that it was mentioned that I may need to "add canonical tags to the http pages, pointing to their https equivalent prior to putting the server level redirect in place. This is to ensure that you won't be causing yourself issues if the redirect fails for any reason." This is an e-commerce site with a number of links, is there a quick way of doing this? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | ruislip180 -
Spammy nofollow links
Hello, One of our clients - a cleaning business - has a heck of a lot of spammy nofollow links pointing to their site. The majority of the links are from comments or 'pingbacks', most with the anchor text 'cheap nfl jerseys' or 'cyber monday ugg boots'. After researching the subject of spammy nofollow links, it seems there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the negative affect these could have on your SEO efforts. So I guess my question to the community is: if your site was suddenly hit by a plethora of spammy nofollow links, what would you do and why? Cheers, Lewis
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
301 and 302 for same link
Just trying to find out if this may be the root of a slight traffic dip and also if we should be redirecting differently. We relaunched and did 301 redirects to the new site, initially. Then, we decided to change from http to https. Our HTTP status now looks like this when using the MozBar: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently – http://site.com/oldurl
Technical SEO | | MichaelEka
HTTP/1.1 302 Found – https://site.com/oldurl
HTTP/1.1 200 OK - https://site.com/new Should we be changing that 302 to a 301? Are we losing link equity due to this? Thanks.0 -
Outbound Links
I have a page on upstrap-pro.com that provides weights of cameras and lenses. The user/buyer of my on-slip camera straps needs to know the weight his camera and lens to determine the proper pad size... large to small. We have put together a long list of the most popular customer cameras. The way it was done (by my daughter) was to also provide a via a link to dpreview.com which is an excellent site for camera information including specifications etc. My personal feeling about this is mixed. I can do it by having it open dpreview.com in a new tab but then the user/customer could still get distracted and go down the rabbit hole. On the other hand dpreview is such a good site that if they are new to photography and don't know about it, they should. I don't get a dime from dpreview. If fact I doubt they would ever link back to me because they do not write about camera straps. I hear mixed things about outbound links. In this file there are quite a few outbound links to dpreview to keep it consistent. I could do a nofollow on all of them but I read that this is the easy way out. Google is jump ball and I have no clue what Cutts and his merry men are going to decide is cool or not cool. I'd like some thoughts or options... Thanks... A small part of the file below. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Wideangle prime lens Canon EF 22.8 oz 645 g Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
Technical SEO | | Asteg0 -
How do you perform your link audits?
What methods and tools do you guys use to perform link audits? Do you also use a traffic light system for links?
Technical SEO | | PurpleGriffon0 -
Canonical URLs and screen scraping
So a little question here. I was looking into a module to help implement canonical URLs on a certain CMS and I came a cross a snarky comment about relative vs. absolute URLs being used. This person was insistent that relative URLs are fine and absolute URLs are only for people who don't know what they are doing. My question is, if using relative URLs, doesn't it make it easier to have your content scraped? After all, if you do get your content scraped at least it would point back to your site if using absolute URLs, right? Am I missing something or is my thinking OK on this? Any feedback is much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | friendlymachine0 -
How do you find bad links to your site?
My website has around 900 incoming links and I have a Google 50 penalty that is sitewide. I have been doing research and from what I can see is that the 50 penalty is usually associated with scetchy links. The penalty started last year. I had about 40 related domains to my main site and each had a simple one page site with a link to the main site. (I know I screwed up) I cleaned up all of those links by removing them. The single page site still exist, but they have no links and several of them still rank very well. I also had an outside SEO person that bought a few links. I came clean with Google and told them everything. I gave them all of my sites and that the SEO person had bought links. I gave them full disclosure and removed everything. I have one site that I can't get the link removed from. I have contacted them numerous times to remove the link and I get no response. I am curious if anyone has had a simular experience and how they corrected the situation. Another issue is that my site is "thin" because its an ecommerce affiliate site and full of affiliate links. I work in the costume market. I'm also afraid that I have other bad links pointing to my site. Dooes anyone know of a tool to identify bad links that Google may be penalizing me for at this time. Here is Google's latest denial of my reconsideration request. Dear site owner or webmaster of XXXXXXXXX.com. We received a request from a site owner to reconsider XXXXXXXX.com for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from XXXXXXXXXX.com may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality
Technical SEO | | tadden0