Value of an embedded site vs. a direct link?
-
We have a new site that is a great resource for a serious subject (suicide). I have been getting many requests from various communities and clinics about help on embedding our site in their websites.
Although I certainly don't want to keep this resource from being used as much as possible, I am curious about the SEO costs/benefit to having someone embed our site on their own website rather than provide a link to our website directly from theirs.
-
Dupe-content-wise, you should be fine. iFrames just make me itchy these days, and I've never thought they were good for users, but it shouldn't be a disaster for SEO. The biggest problem is probably just that you're not really getting any SEO value - it's really just direct traffic via a referring site. Granted, it's better than nothing, and I know from painful experience that sometimes you have to take what you can get in these situations.
-
It's old school IFraming. One group did it a few weeks back and I can see the page on their site that contains the iFrame listed as a referrer in my Google analytics.
I don't imagine it would cause a duplicate content issue since the pages are being read from my domain (through the iFrame) but I can't say that I am positive about that.
-
When you say "embed", do you know what they have in mind, specifically (that word means a couple of specific things depending on the context). If they're just looking to copy the content, then it's important that the link back to you and probably even use cross-domain canonical tags. Otherwise, they'll be competing with you for your own content. It's not just a matter of traffic, but Google could filter out your version of the page or even (at large scale) devalue your entire site. In other words, they could mistake you for the one copying the content, especially if the other sites are more authoritative.
If you're talking about old-school embedding, like wrapping up your content in an iFrame or something like that, I'd avoid it entirely. Those "solutions" are outdated and more trouble than they're worth.
It is common to "embed" some content, like infographics, but those embeds usually have a link back or some clear attribution. If you're just talking about using the content, then I think you're much better off just asking people to use snippets (like a paragraph or two) and then linking to the source.
If you've got a specific example of what someone has in mind, I'd be happy to dig deeper.
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
-
New SEO manager needs help! Currently only about 15% of our live sitemap (~4 million url e-commerce site) is actually indexed in Google. What are best practices sitemaps for big sites with a lot of changing content?
In Google Search console 4,218,017 URLs submitted 402,035 URLs indexed what is the best way to troubleshoot? What is best guidance for sitemap indexation of large sites with a lot of changing content? view?usp=sharing
Technical SEO | | Hamish_TM1 -
Can I redirect a link even if the link is still on the site
Hi Folks, I've got a client who has a duplicate content because they actually create duplicate content and store the same piece of content in 2 different places. When they generate this duplicate content, it creates a 2nd link on the site going to the duplicate content. Now they want the 2nd link to always redirect to the first link, but for architecture reasons, they can't remove the 2nd link from the site navigation. We can't use rel-canonical because they don't want visitors going to that 2nd page. Here is my question: Are there any adverse SEO implications to maintaining a link on a site that always redirects to a different page? I've already gone down the road of "don't deliberately create duplicate content" with the client. They've heard me, but won't change. So, what are your thoughts? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Rock330 -
I have 2 E-commerce sites - Can i cross link?
Good Morning Everyone, I have 2 e-commerce websites that are similar and sell the same products. The content (text/descriptions/titles) is different so the content is not duplicate. SITE A has a ton of blog posts with highly relevant information and we frequently update the blog with posts about the types of products we carry and how it can help people in their daily lives... SITE B has no blog posts, but the content on the blog from SITE A is extremely relevant and helpful to anyone using SITE B. My question is, do you think it is frowned upon if i were to add links on SITE B that point to specific posts on SITE A... For example, if you are browsing a category page on SITE B, i was thinking of adding links on the bottom that would say "For More Information, Please Check Out These Posts on our Blog" www.sitea.com/blog/relevantinfo1 www.sitea.com/blog/relevantinfo2 www.sitea.com/blog/relevantinfo3 I think this would seriously help our browsers and potential customers get all of the information that they need, but what do you think Google would think about this cross-linking and if it violates their guidelines? Thanks for any opinions and advice.
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
Google Links
I am assuming that the list presented by Google Webmaster tools (TRAFFIC | Links To Your Site) is the one that will actually be used by Google for indexing ? There seem to be quite a few links that there that should not be there. ie Assumed NOFOLLOW links. Am I working under an incorrect assumption that all links in webmaster tools are actually followed ?
Technical SEO | | blinkybill0 -
What i should do about bad links ?
Hi, my blog is http://www.dota2club.com/ and i have many bad links to my blog what i should do about that and how ? i started 10 days ago guest blogging but my bad links from before are hurting my blog. please help 🙂 thank you !!!
Technical SEO | | wolfinjo0 -
.me vs .com for new personal blog site
Hi guys, this is my first ever post on SEOMoz (woo!) I have researched and I did see someone else ask something similar but I still wasn't clear, so i hope this question is not considered a duplicate and can go on to help other people too Enough waffle For various reasons I am moving our company blog to startup a personal blog instead and I have bought a couple of appropriate domain names in a firstname/lastname format for the new blog, basically: myname.me and iammyname.com My question is, which would you consider 'better', if either, for SEO? (bonus point: are there any other non-SEO factors I should consider?) Obviously the second name is longer, but it is a .com and I hear all the time that .com is king and .me is waaaay behind Ultimately I want to rank #1 for my name If it was your site and your blog and you had my choices which one would you go for? Many thanks for your help. I'm looking forward to being part of the SEOMoz community and learning a lot from you guys, cheers, Nick
Technical SEO | | NickDavis0 -
Does the Referral Traffic from a Link Influence the SEO Value of that Link?
If a link exists, and nobody clicks on it, could it still be valuable for SEO? Say I have 1000 links on 500 sites with Domain Authority ranging from 35 to 80. Let's pretend that 900 of those links generate referral traffic. Let's assume that the remaining 100 links are spread between 10 domains of the 500, but nobody ever clicks on them. Are they still valuable? Should an SEO seek to earn more links like those, even though they don't earn referral traffic? Does Google take referral data into account in evaluating links? 5343313-zelda-rogers-albums-zelda-pictures-duh-what-else-would-they-be-picture3672t-link-looks-so-lonely.jpg Sad%20little%20link.jpg
Technical SEO | | glennfriesen1 -
404 vs. 200?
Is it better to have an error page return a 404 or 200? If I change it to 200, will I still be able to see reports of 404's and/ or broken links? Is there a valid SEO reason that Google would have for not wanting error pages to return 200? In other words, is there any SEO reason to absolutely change it to return a 404? I would rather let it return 200 if no priority reason to change. [title edited by staff to provide clarity]
Technical SEO | | cindyt-170380