How far can I push rel=canonical?
-
My plan: 3 sites with identical content, yet--wait for it--for every article whose topic is A, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site A. For every article whose topic is B, the pages on all three sites posting that article will have a rel=canonical tag pointing to Site B.
So Site A will have some articles about topics A, B, and C. And for pages with articles about A, the rel=canonical will point to the page it's on. Yet for pages with articles about B, the rel=canonical will point to the version of that article on site B. Etc.
I have my reasons for planning this, but you can see more or less that I want each site to rank for its niche, yet I want the users at each site to have access to the full spectrum of articles in the shared articles database without having to leave a given site.
These would be distinct brands with distinct Whois, directory listings, etc. etc.
The content is quality and unique to our company.
-
I think I'd start slowly in that case. Keep the relationship aspect in mind, too. Even if all three companies know the writer/client and are aware of the relationship, sooner or later one of these articles is going to take off. If one site gets the SEO credit and the other two sites aren't ranking, there may be friction. Even if the work is spread out evenly and all high-quality, you don't control (ultimately) what content finally sticks and is successful. I just think things could get weird all-around if you send every article three places and only one gets credit.
-
These are technically different companies with different products, all of which are in the securities industry. They are each founded by different groups of individuals, however my client is common among them and happens to be a fantastic writer. Many of the articles would add value to the readers of some of the other sites. I am hoping to develop a common command center so that in the editor for a given article he is able to just check off which of his sites the article will be published at, and which is to be considered canonical. So the sites will have different aesthetics and navigation, product pages, and other company-specific content, and not every article will show up on every site, however many will show up at multiple sites.
The idea of phasing in common articles with the cross-domain canonical strikes me as wise, and then just noindexing the non-canonical versions if I run into trouble.
-
Ah, understood. So, yes, in theory cross-domain canonical does handle this. I know major newspapers that use it for true syndication. There is risk, though, depending on the sites and content, and there is a chance Google will ignore it (moreso than in-domain canonical). So, I mostly wanted you to be aware of those risks.
META NOINDEX is safer, in some respects (Google is more likely to honor it), but if people start linking to multiple versions of the content, then you may lose the value of those inbound links on the NOINDEX'ed content. Since it's not showing up in search results, that's less likely (in other words, people are going to be most inclined to link to the canonical version), but it's a consideration.
It's really tough to give a recommendation without understanding the business model, but if you absolutely have to have separate sites and you feel that this content is valuable to the visitors of all three sites, then cross-domain canonical is an option. It's just not risk-free. Personally, I'd probably start with unique content across the three domains, then phase in the most useful pieces as duplicates with canonical. Measure and see how it goes. Don't launch 1,000 duplicates on three sites in one day.
-
Budget not an issue, although skilled labor is.
-
Very helpful, thank you!
There is in fact a legal reason why the sites must be distinct from each other and strong marketing reasons why we do need more than one site.
I should mention that although the pages hosting the shared articles will be 99% identical, each site will have other content distinct from the others.
I am open to dropping my idea to share an article database between the sites and just having unique content on each, although I have to wonder what the use of cross-domain canonical is, if not to support this kind of article syndication.
-
Completely agree with dr Peter. If you really need to separate those domains it should be a really good reason.
In my past I used to have many EMD domain to get easy traffic thanks to the domain name boost in serps and so those sites were ranking without many efforts, but after google heading more towards brands this kind of strategy is really time and money consuming.
It really depends on how much budget you may spend on those sites, but normally consolidating the value in one bigger site is the best way to build a brand and achieve links and ranks nowadays.
-
I tend to agree - you always run the risk with cross-domain canonical that Google might not honor it, and the you've got a major duplicate content problem on your hands.
I think there's a simpler reason, in most cases, though. Three unique sites/brands take 3X (or more, in practice) the time and energy to promote, build links to, build social accounts for, etc. That split effort, especially on the SEO side, can far outweigh the brand benefits, unless you have solid resources to invest (read that "$$$").
To be fair, I don't know your strategy/niche, but I've just found that to be true 95% of the time in these cases. Most of the time, I think building sub-brands on sub-folders within the main site and only having one of each product page is a better bet. The other advantage is that users can see the larger brand (it lends credibility) and can move between brands if one isn't a good match.
The exception would be if there's some clear legal or competitive reason the brands can't be publicly associated. In most cases, though, that's going to come with a lot of headaches.
-
Hi all, I think that your alternatives would be:
- one big site with all the thematics. In that way all users can access all content without leaving the site, no need for noindex no need for canonicals since you won't have dupe content
- three sites with specialized articles in each one. You may change slightly your design to give the user the feeling that the site is different but in the same network. Then you may interlink those sites as useful resources. Not optimal since they'll have a huge interlinking,
- as you said noindex the non canonical article. Remember that the noindex tag will prevent indexation not crawling because google will need to crawl your page to know that it should not index it. So you may add meta "noindex,nocache,follow" in the header and be sure that the juice is still flowing in your site.
-
Hmm, ok that's helpful.
The content would be identical with the possible exceptions of a very slightly different meta title and site footer.
What's my alternative to a setup like this? One site, one brand? Noindex the non-canonical article versions?
What I dislike about noindex is that it means inbound links to the non-canonical article versions bring me no benefit.
-
I believe you are playing with fire here... to me this looks like you are trying to manipulate search engines.
If you read the article About rel="canonical" on Google Webmasters Support, you will see they say rel="canonical" link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive
Also in the same article they specify that rel="canonical" should be used on pages with identical content. Are you sure in your case the pages have identical content (per total) or just identical articles?
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
-
Rel-canonical vs Href-lang use for an international website.
I have a multi-country website that uses country subfolders to separate countries. When I run a Moz scan, I am getting canonical related alerts (this is probably related to some of our US content being duplicated on the other country websites). Shouldn't I be using href-lang instead since I am telling search engines that a certain article in country B, is just a copy of the same article in country A?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marshdigitalmarketing0 -
Http to https Canonical Question
Hello Fellow Moz Friends I have recently went from http to https for the website. Do I keep my canonicals at http or make all https? Will this affect ranking signals? Anything I should be looking out for? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carwrapsolutions0 -
How I can improve my website On page and Off page
My Website is guitarcontrol.com, I have very strong competition in market. Please advice me the list of improvements on my websites. In regarding ON page, Linkbuiding and Social media. What I can do to improve my website ranking?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zoe.wilson170 -
Should we NOINDEX NOFOLLOW canonical pages?
Hi, I was window shopping at Gemvara and noticed something interesting... They rank very high for long-tail phrases such as "rose gold engagement rings" and in their pagination pages for that category not only they filled canonical to the main category page (which is logic) but also they "NOINDEX NOFOLLOW" the pages... Is that recommended? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Bad use of the Rel="canonical" tag
Google is currently ranking my category page instead of our homepage for our key term and we would rather have our homepage rank for the term. Would it be a bad idea to rel="canonical" our category page to our homepage? Our homepage is optimized to rank for the keyword and has more PR than our category page. However, I don't really know if this will have negative repercussions. Thanks, Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jason_3420 -
Trailing slash and rel="canonical"
Our website is in a directory format: http://www.website.com/website.asp Our homepage display URL is http://www.website.com which currently matches our to eliminate the possibility of duplicate content. However, I noticed that in the SERPs, google displays the homepage with a trailing slash http://www.website.com/ My question: should I change the rel="canonical" to have a trailing slash? I noticed one of our competitors uses the trailing slash in their rel="canonical" Do potential benefits outweigh the risks? I can PM further information if necessary. Thanks for the assistance in advance...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BethA0 -
How Can Low Quality Links Be Removed?
Let's say that in looking in OSE that you find an overall low quality link profile. Let's say that some of those links were acquired by using article marketing systems like UAW or SEO Link Vine, which were hard hit in Penguin. Let's also say that some keywords were targeted within blog networks that passed a lot of page rank to targeted pages. Let's say that at one point in time an offshore link building team was used and they posted low quality blog comments on pages with hundreds of outbound links. Let's say as a result of the drop in SERPS that you've finally been convinced that there must be a better way and in the process join SEO Moz - and now you want to clean up the low quality link profile. How does one go about removing links on such a diverse number of sites? Are there best practices for how to remove links you longer want pointed to your site? Or is it simply best to go on about the work of building a lot of quality links and let the past be in the past? Thanks for your input Mozzers...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sdennison0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0