301ing Pages & Moving Content To Many Other Domains
-
Recently started working with a large site that, for reasons way beyond organic search, wants to forward internal pages to a variety of external sites.
Some of these external sites that would receive the content from the old site are owned, admin'd and/or hosted by the old site, most are not. All of the sites receiving content would be a better topic fit for that content than the original site. The process is not all at once, but gradual over time. No internal links on the old site to the old page or the new site/url would exist post content move and 301ing. The forwarding is mostly to help Google realize the host site of this content is not hosting duplicate content, but is the one true copy. Also, to pick up external links to the old pages for the new host site.
It's a little like domain name change, but not really since the old site will continue to exist and the new sites are a variety of new/previously existing sites that may or may not share ownership/admin etc.
In most cases, we won't be able to change any external link pointing to the original site and will just be 301ing the old url to the contents new home on another site.
Since this is pretty unusual (like I wouldn't get up in the morning and choose to do this for the heck of it), here are my three questions:
-
Is there any organic search risk to the old site or the sites receiving the old content/301 in this maneuver?
-
Will the new sites pick up the link equity benefit on pages that had third party/followed links continuing to point to the old site but resolving via the 301 to this totally different domain?
-
Any other considerations?
Thanks! Best... Mike
-
-
This is a great metaphor:
"Finally, will moving all of this content damage Site A? Yes. This is cutting out body parts similar to arms and organs. When this content leaves the traffic flow into Site A will drop. The number of linking domains and pages will drop. The offer of this content to entertain existing visitors will be gone. The size of that loss will determine the impact. Rankings of remaining content might fall if the loss is great. If arms and legs or heart or brain are extracted then expect Site A to suffer. But if lesser things are lost then the damage will be lower but some damage will happen. Search engines and visitors will all notice. Enthusiastic visitors will find the content in its new home and they might move with it."
Will definitely be using this for future explanations!
-
Yes, thanks Dana!
Best... Mike
-
Hi Mike,
EGOL's answer is a good one. You should mark it so (hint, hint, nudge,nudge, know what I mean?)
Cheers,
Dana
-
Hi Egol,
Once again I am acquainted with why you are objectively ranked #1 in the Moz community. That was encyclopedic!
Yes, I should have mentioned that I understand site A losing externally linked content would hurt site A.
What I was really getting at, which you answered, is that it's no search crime against humanity to effectively part-out a site. It's not viewed by Google as "what the heck are you doing?" ... for all concerned.
Thank you for the insight.
Best... Mike
-
Will this help the sites that receive the content? Yes. They will acquire content that they can display to their visitors. That content should appear in the search engines and pull in traffic. The 301s will redirect links that might help rankings and deliver click-through traffic.
Will the content rank in the search engines as well on the new sites as it did on the old sites? Maybe better, maybe worse, probably not the same. When you move content from Site A to Site B, that content loses the domain authority that it enjoyed on Site A. If Site A is powerful, authoritative and topically relevant to the moved content and Site B is not, then lower rankings in the search engines for the content on Site B would be expected. If Site B is more powerful, authoritative and topically relevant then rankings might be higher there, Maybe. No guarantees.
The value of the redirected links is questionable. The links into the content on Site A that will be redirected. If they duplicate the domains or pages of the links already hitting Site B then the lift that they will give to Site B will be minimal. However, if they are all uniquely new to Site B then their lift should be positive.
Finally, will moving all of this content damage Site A? Yes. This is cutting out body parts similar to arms and organs. When this content leaves the traffic flow into Site A will drop. The number of linking domains and pages will drop. The offer of this content to entertain existing visitors will be gone. The size of that loss will determine the impact. Rankings of remaining content might fall if the loss is great. If arms and legs or heart or brain are extracted then expect Site A to suffer. But if lesser things are lost then the damage will be lower but some damage will happen. Search engines and visitors will all notice. Enthusiastic visitors will find the content in its new home and they might move with it.
Content moves from one site to another happen often. Sometimes the content is moved for strategic purposes, sometimes tactical purposes, sometimes it is sold for a nice price. There are many reasons. The alternative to the 301 is the rel=canonical. Each has its advantages, risks and shortcomings. The rel=canonical allows Site A to continue to use the content but any ranking value supposedly transfers to Site B. How much? Only the search engines know how they process that. My experience with rel=canonical is that it is valuable to consolidate the power of content that appears in multiple places on a single site. I don't see it sending a lot of value from one domain to another. Just an observation. I don't know of anyone who has written the results of carefully controlled experiments.
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
-
Possible duplicate content issues on same page with urls to multiple tabs?
Hello everyone! I'm first time here, and glad to be part of Moz community! Jumping right into the question I have. For a type of pages we have on our website, there are multiple tabs on each page. To give an example, let's say a page is for the information about a place called "Ladakh". Now the various urls that the page is accessible from, can take the form of: mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/ mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/photos/ mywanderlust.in/place/ladakh/places-to-visit/ and so on. To keep the UX smooth when the user switches from one tab to another, we load everything in advance with AJAX but it remains hidden till the user switches to the required tab. Now since the content is actually there in the html, does Google count it as duplicate content? I'm afraid this might be the case as when I Google for a text that's visible only on one of the tabs, I still see all tabs in Google results. I also see internal links on GSC to say a page mywanderlust.in/questions which is only supposed to be linked from one tab, but GSC telling internal links to this page (mywanderlust.in/questions) from all those 3 tabs. Also, Moz Pro crawl reports informed me about duplicate content issues, although surprisingly it says the issue exists only on a small fraction of our indexable pages. Is it hurting our SEO? Any suggestions on how we could handle the url structure better to make it optimal for indexing. FWIW, we're using a fully responsive design with the displayed content being exactly same for both desktop and mobile web. Thanks a ton in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | atulgoyal0 -
Duplicate Page Content
We have different plans that you can signup for - how can we rectify the duplicate page content and title issue here? Thanks. | http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=100 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | directiq
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=104 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=116 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=117 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=102 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=119 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=101 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=103 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=5 |0 -
Content From One Domain Mysteriously Indexing Under a Different Domain's URL
I've pulled out all the stops and so far this seems like a very technical issue with either Googlebot or our servers. I highly encourage and appreciate responses from those with knowledge of technical SEO/website problems. First some background info: Three websites, http://www.americanmuscle.com, m.americanmuscle.com and http://www.extremeterrain.com as well as all of their sub-domains could potentially be involved. AmericanMuscle sells Mustang parts, Extremeterrain is Jeep-only. Sometime recently, Google has been crawling our americanmuscle.com pages and serving them in the SERPs under an extremeterrain sub-domain, services.extremeterrain.com. You can see for yourself below. Total # of services.extremeterrain.com pages in Google's index: http://screencast.com/t/Dvqhk1TqBtoK When you click the cached version of there supposed pages, you see an americanmuscle page (some desktop, some mobile, none of which exist on extremeterrain.com😞 http://screencast.com/t/FkUgz8NGfFe All of these links give you a 404 when clicked... Many of these pages I've checked have cached multiple times while still being a 404 link--googlebot apparently has re-crawled many times so this is not a one-time fluke. The services. sub-domain serves both AM and XT and lives on the same server as our m.americanmuscle website, but answer to different ports. services.extremeterrain is never used to feed AM data, so why Google is associating the two is a mystery to me. the mobile americanmuscle website is set to only respond on a different port than services. and only responds to AM mobile sub-domains, not googlebot or any other user-agent. Any ideas? As one could imagine this is not an ideal scenario for either website.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
Previously owned domain & canonical
Hi, I've recently joined the business and as part of the cleanup process I got told that we owned this domain preferredsafaris.com with some very similar content to our main site southernafricatravel.com. We're no longer owns the preferredsafaris.com domain but looking at Google's cache for it we realised that the title, meta description & page shown when looking at the 'cached page' is for our current domain even though it is showing the 'correct' URL there. I imagine this might have something to do with canonical set on those pages but the weird thing is all those pages now render 404 & do not show a canonical in the source code. I have used Google Removal Tool https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals for all those URLs & Google says that it has removed them & yet they're still showing. What do you suggest? Any potential issue in regards to duplicate content here? Cheers, Julien
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SouthernAfricaTravel0 -
Automated Quality Content Acceptable Even Though Looks Similar Across Pages
I have some advanced statistics modules implemented on my website, which is very high level added value for users. However, wording is similar across 1000+ pages, with difference being the statistical findings.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi5
Page Ex 1: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/
Page Ex: 2: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/ As you can see same wording is used "Median Sales Price per Year", "$ Volume of Active Listings" etc etc....difference being the findings / results are obviously different. Questions: are search engines smart enough to realize the quality in this or do they see similar wording across 1000+ pages and p-otentially consider the pages low-quality content, because search engines are unable to identify the high level added value and complexity in pulling such quality data? If that may be the case, does that mean I ought to make the pages more "unique" by including a little piece of writing about each page to make them look more unique, even though it is not of value to users?0 -
Can I delay an AJAX call in order to hide specific on page content?
I am an SEO for a people search site. To avoid potential duplicate content issues for common people searches such as "John Smith" we are displaying the main "John Smith" result above the fold and add "other John Smith" search results inside an iframe. This way search engines don't see the same "other John Smith" search results on all other "John Smith" profile pages on our site and conclude that we have lots of duplicate content. We want to get away from using an iframe to solve potential duplicate content problem. Question: Can we display this duplicate "John Smith" content using a delayed AJAX call and robot.txt block the directory that contains the AJAX call?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEOAccount320 -
Google consolidating link juice on duplicate content pages
I've observed some strange findings on a website I am diagnosing and it has led me to a possible theory that seems to fly in the face of a lot of thinking: My theory is:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
When google see's several duplicate content pages on a website, and decides to just show one version of the page, it at the same time agrigates the link juice pointing to all the duplicate pages, and ranks the 1 duplicate content page it decides to show as if all the link juice pointing to the duplicate versions were pointing to the 1 version. EG
Link X -> Duplicate Page A
Link Y -> Duplicate Page B Google decides Duplicate Page A is the one that is most important and applies the following formula to decide its rank. Link X + Link Y (Minus some dampening factor) -> Page A I came up with the idea after I seem to have reverse engineered this - IE the website I was trying to sort out for a client had this duplicate content, issue, so we decided to put unique content on Page A and Page B (not just one page like this but many). Bizarrely after about a week, all the Page A's dropped in rankings - indicating a possibility that the old link consolidation, may have been re-correctly associated with the two pages, so now Page A would only be getting Link Value X. Has anyone got any test/analysis to support or refute this??0 -
Content that is split into 4 pages, should I consolidate?
I am working on improving a website that has each section split into four pages. For example, if Indonesia Vacation was a section, it would have its main page, www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation, and the about, fact sheet, and tips on three other pages www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-1 www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-2 www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-3 The pages share very similar title tags and I am worried it is hurting the main page for placement.. So to conserve link juice, would it make sense to have them all one page? There is not so much content that it would affect load time. My strategy would be to have all content available and part of the main page and 301 the three URL's back to the main page: www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MattAaron0