Can rel="canonical" refer to another website page?
-
I want to republish the post from another website with their permission and want to abide by Google guidelines. Google guidelines is clear when you are using the same content at different parts of the same site however not when using it on another site in a legitimate way. Is there some way to use rel="canonical" refer to another website page of you are reproducing the content from same page?
-
You can use it. Google supports cross domain rel="canonical" link element.
You can check out the Google official blog for this - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.in/2009/12/handling-legitimate-cross-domain.html.
Google content guidelines say "There are situations where it's not easily possible to set up redirects. This could be the case when you need to migrate to a new domain name using a web server that cannot create server-side redirects. In this case, you can use the
rel="canonical"
link element to specify the exact URL of the domain preferred for indexing. While therel="canonical"
link element is seen as a hint and not an absolute directive, we do try to follow it where possible."So you can use it without any harm to your site.
-
In theory the rel canonical should work if it points to your source's website where the article is found.
But it's odd to do it this way. In other word, you tell google: hey it's not my content, don't look or index this page, go straight to the other website.
Since you are allowed to use the content, can't you add your own comments or illustrate the post(s) so it makes the content unique again? You don't need zillions of changes to keep your content unique even if a good chunck is a copy.
This way you would keep everything in your own website, could be indexed by google and possible found.
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
-
Is it better to keep a glossary or terms on one page or break it up into multiple pages?
We have a very large glossary of over 1000 industry terms on our site with links to reference material, embedded video, etc. Is it better for SEO purposes to keep this on one page or should we break it up into multiple pages, a different page for each letter for example? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | KenW0 -
What does Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical mean?
I'm a newb and see this on my report and I don't understand what it means. Any help?
On-Page Optimization | | smartapps0 -
"irrelevant pages of a site"
Hi there! Some pages of my site like "contact" or "registration": Should they have a title and a description tag? They are pages that I don't want them to be shown in the SERPs....Could I be penalized by google If I don't do so? The SEOMOZ crawling tool warms me about this issue (to short titles, no meta-description tags....) Many thanks
On-Page Optimization | | juanmiguelcr0 -
301 to Intermediate Page then Rel=Canonical from Intermediate to target page
Hi I'm working on an eCommerce site and don't have direct access to the CMS. I had requested developers to provide me a facilty to 301 via htaccess however this is working slight differently. I need guidance from experts whether it's okay or not: Old Page: example.com/old Target New Page: example.com/new After Implementing the redirect, It redirects to an intermediate page or in other words, The same target URL with a question mark added: example.com/new? (notice the question mark in the new URL) This intermediate page has a canonical tag for the exact target URL. So, if I 301 redirect example.com/old to example.com/new? (Intermediate page) and If the intermediate page example.com/new? has a canonical tag for the exact target URL (example.com/new), Will I be able to pass the link juice and authority of old page to the new page?
On-Page Optimization | | Ankkesh0 -
With or without the "www." ?
Is there any benefit whatsoever to having the www. in the URL? My domain is quite long therefore I've not been using the www. however a few people have mentioned it's good practice to include it. The www. forwards to the main URL (non www.) and I've set my preferred domain name in webmaster tools to the non www. so I'm thinking that should all be ok. Just hoping I could get some of the experts views to make sure this is all ok. The site is a year old and I'm just starting to really get going on the link building so it's not too late to change if I'm wrong. If others link to my site and include the www. will the link juice be passed, as I suspect many will include it without any thought?
On-Page Optimization | | Optimise0 -
Website Content
Is it bad to have html pages on a blog? I converted a completely HTML site to wordpress, but havd hundreds of article pages that are still html.
On-Page Optimization | | azguy0 -
Canonical tag for home page
This question was asked before but I didn't see a clear answer to it. If I've got a site that has as it's home page: http://www.mysite.com/, and there are many references within the site back to the home page that point to /index.php, should I include a canonical tag in the index.php page like this: to avoid a duplicate content issue, and to have all juice from both links combined into one?
On-Page Optimization | | wcksmith0