An article we wrote was published on the Daily Business Review, we'd like to post it on our site. What is the proper way?
-
Part 1
We wrote an article and submitted it to the Daily Business Review. They published the article on their website.We want to also post the article on our website for our users but we want to make sure we are doing this properly. We don't want to be penalized for duplicating content. Is this the correct way to handle this scenario written below?
- We added a rel="canonical" to the blog post (on our website). The rel="canonical" is set to the Daily Business Review URL where the article was originally published.
- At the end of the blog post we wrote. "This article was originally posted on The Daily Business Review." and we link to the original post on the Daily Business Review.
Should we be setting the blog post (on our website) to be a "noindex" or rel="canonical" ?
Part 2 Our company was mentioned in a number of articles. We DID NOT write those articles, we were only mentioned. We have also posted those same articles on our website (verbatim from the original article). We want to show our users that we have been mentioned in highly credited articles. All of these articles were posted on our website and are set to be a "noindex". Is that the correct thing to do? Should we be using a rel="canonical" instead and pointing to the original article URL?
Thanks in advance MOZ community for your assistance! We tried to do the leg work of our own research for the answers but couldn't find the exact same scenario that we are encountering**.**
-
Whether or not you're allowed to copy and paste the article verbatim is something you'll have to determine from the site you copied from, but even noindex wouldn't address the problem of plagiarism if that's what you're worried about as the article would still be on your site. Basically what you're doing is the reverse of what's in the Google guide on Canonical:
_Content you provide on that blog for syndication to other sites is replicated in part or in full on those domains. _
http://news.example.com/green-dresses-for-every-day-155672.html (syndicated post)http://blog.example.com/dresses/green-dresses-are-awesome/3245/ (original post)
So in this case the News site (The Daily Business Review) is the source of the article, and you're one of the sites syndicating what they wrote so you point back to them as canonical. Still the questions you bring up are part of the reason why several sites--HuffPo, The Verge, SlashDot, etc--write their own take on a source article instead of reprinting verbatim when linking back. It's more of the annotation model I mentioned above.
-
Setting SEO aside for the moment, in both situations, make sure you have permission to reprint the articles on your site.
-
Hi Ryan,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond!
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the blog posts that WERE NOT written by us and only mentioned our firm should be set to a rel="canonical" instead of a "noindex" since we reposted them on our own site? Is setting the copied article to be "noindex" technically the incorrect thing to do? We thought that since we copied the article verbatim and it wasn't our original work that Google shouldn't index this page on our website.
-
Hi Pete. Using rel=canonical would be a better implementation as your site showing up for a search on these articles is perfectly acceptable since they're about your site. There are also several other design ways in which you can link back to the original published article...
- Annotation. Instead of republishing the entire article you can quote bits from it and highlight what service/product/thing your company does in relation to the quote. It could perhaps be an expansion like, "We also make this in custom colors..." a clarification, "This is now a permanent service..." or any other applicable detail really.
- Screen cap. Some sites churn through articles so an archived screen grab of the article is nice to show the press you got. Photos are especially handy for when you show up in print.
- A brand scroll. Lots of sites add the logos of well know brands that have written about them titled something like, "What people are saying" and then showing the logo of various sites: the verge, wired, tech crunch, etc. and linking to the article via the logo.
So I'd get rid of the noindex tag. Me finding your site as a result next to the Daily Business Review site would make my user experience better as the search is returning the correlation even before I click through to read the sources.
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
-
No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag
Pages on my site show No: 'noindex' detected in 'robots' meta tag. However, when I inspect the pages html, it does not show noindex. In fact, it shows index, follow. Majority of pages show the error and are not indexed by Google...Not sure why this is happening. The page below in search console shows the error above...
Technical SEO | | Sean_White_Consult0 -
Why are only PDFs on my client's site being indexed, and not actual pages?
My client has recently built a new site (we did not build this), which is a subdomain of their main site. The new site is: https://addstore.itelligencegroup.com/uk/en/. (Their main domain is: http://itelligencegroup.com/uk/) This new Addstore site has recently gone live (in the past week or so) and so far, Google appears to have indexed 56 pdf files that are on the site, but it hasn't indexed any of the actual web pages yet. I can't figure out why though. I've checked the robots.txt file for the site which appears to be fine: https://addstore.itelligencegroup.com/robots.txt. Does anyone have any ideas about this?
Technical SEO | | mfrgolfgti0 -
Tracing Redirects to a Site
I wonder if anyone has used any tools where you can trace the redirects pointing to a site? I know there are a number of tools out there that can be used to check where a URL redirects to, but I was wondering if anyone has used a tool where I could trace all redirects with the final URL? I am using this for competitor research so I don't have access to Analytics or Webmaster Tools.
Technical SEO | | BeattieGroup0 -
How to properly do reviews with Rich Text Snippets
I am trying to find out the best way to do this. Do you use hreview? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | netviper0 -
Can anyone review my site please?
just wandering if anyone can review my site and give me some feedback please much grateful I have just really trying to get clients don't have any yet and any help would be great. reseolve.com
Technical SEO | | ReSEOlve0 -
No Google cached snapshot image... 'Text-only version' working.
We are having an issue with Googles cached image snapshops... Here is an example: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IyvADsGi10gJ:shop.deliaonline.com/store/home-and-garden/kitchen/morphy-richards-48781-cooking/ean/5011832030948+&cd=308&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk I wondered if anyone knows or can see the cause of this problem? Thanks
Technical SEO | | pekler1 -
How do you balance site speed with rich media like videos?
Google says to make your pages as useful as possible, but it considers site speed into its ranking algorithm. How do you balance adding rich media like embedding useful YouTube videos with keeping your page load times low?
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs1 -
301 an old site to a newer site...
Hi First, to be upfront - these are not my websites, I'm asking because they are trying to compete in my niche. Here's the details, then the questions... There is a website that is a few months old with about 200 indexed pages and about 20 links, call this newsite.com There is a website that is a few years old with over 10,000 indexed pages and over 20,000 links, call this oldsite.com newsite.com acquired oldsite.com and set a 301 redirect so every page of oldsite.com is re-directed to the front page of newsite.com newsite.com & oldsite.com are on the same topic, the 301 occurred in the past week. Now, oldsite.com is out of the SERPs and newsite.com is pretty much ranking in the same spot (top 10) for the main term. Here are my questions; 1. The 10,000 pages on oldsite.com had plenty of internal links - they no longer exists, so I imagine when the dust settles - it will be like oldsite.com is a one page site that re-diretcts to newsite.com ... How long will a ranking boost last for? 2. With the re-direct setup to completely forget about the structure and content of oldsite.com, it's clear to me that it was setup to pass the 'Link Juice' from oldsite.com to newsite.com ... Do the major SE's see this as a form of SPAM (manipulating the rankings), or do they see it as a good way to combine two or more websites? 3. Does this work? Is everybody doing it? Should I be doing it? ... or are there better ways for me to combat this type of competition (eg we could make a lot of great content for the money spent buying oldsite.com - but we certainly wouldn't get such an immediate increase to traffic)?
Technical SEO | | RR5000