Canonical Tags - Do they only apply to internal duplicate content?
-
Hi Moz,
I've had a complaint from a company who we use a feed from to populate a restaurants product list.They are upset that on our products pages we have canonical tags linking back to ourselves. These are in place as we have international versions of the site.
They believe because they are the original source of content we need to canonical back to them.
Can I please confirm that canonical tags are purely an internal duplicate content strategy. Canonical isn't telling google that from all the content on the web that this is the original source. It's just saying that from the content on our domains, this is the original one that should be ranked. Is that correct?
Furthermore, if we implemented a canonical tag linking to Best Restaurants it would de-index all of our restaurants listings and pages and pass the authority of these pages to their site. Is this correct?
Thanks!
-
Quite a guide about canonicals from Google
And this one is a new guide from Yoast for canonicals which is pretty impressive.
Take a look.
Hope that helps.
-
They believe because they are the original source of content we need to canonical back to them.
If they own the content, then it is their right to request this. In my opinion, it is your ethical duty to comply if you want to use this content. This requirement "should" be indicated as a condition of use at the location where you access the feed. It may not be required of them to state it. It would be a requirement of you to get permission.
It's just saying that from the content on our domains, this is the original one that should be ranked. Is that correct?
There are such things as cross-domain rel=canonical. Joost de Valk just published a new guide to rel=canonical. Joost is a really smart guy and he uses cross-domain rel=canonical a lot when his content is published on other websites.
Furthermore, if we implemented a canonical tag linking to Best Restaurants it would de-index all of our restaurants listings and pages and pass the authority of these pages to their site. Is this correct?
Yes, you are correct. If you use rel=canonical and point it back to their domain then your pages will fall from the SERPs. If you use their content, that is the price that they expect and have demanded.
If these people are a supplier of yours, it is best business practice to cultivate perfect relationships with them as they can cut you off as a reseller at whim, or take other actions against you or your website. If they contact you and ask or tell you to implement the rel=canonical and you don't comply they could file DMCA complaints against you with Google, other search engines, your hosting company and any other location where their intellectual property is being used. When DMCA complaints are filed Google usually removes the infringing pages from the search index within a few days. I filed them against over 100 domains last year and Google, Adsense, Wordpress, YouTube, Blogspot, and other places where content is posted took fast action on most of them - often in under 48 hours.
Best competitive practice for you would be to write unique content. Even if this other company allows you to use their content then it will be in the index (not necessarily the SERPs) and your site could suffer from publishing the duplication. It is best competitive practice to have unique content on every one of your pages because Google hates dupe content in their SERPs and demotes or filters sites that have it. In most (but not all) instances they know who owns the content and who is the copycat.
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
-
Issue with duplicate content
Hello guys, i have a question about duplicate content. Recently I noticed that MOZ's system reports a lot of duplicate content on one of my sites. I'm a little confused what i should do with that because this content is created automatically. All the duplicate content comes from subdomain of my site where we actually share cool images with people. This subdomain is actually pointing to our Tumblr blog where people re-blog our posts and images a lot. I'm really confused how all this duplicate content is created and what i should do to prevent it. Please tell me whether i need to "noindex", "nofollow" that subdomain or you can suggest something better to resolve that issue. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | odmsoft0 -
Duplicate Content Issues
We have some "?src=" tag in some URL's which are treated as duplicate content in the crawl diagnostics errors? For example, xyz.com?src=abc and xyz.com?src=def are considered to be duplicate content url's. My objective is to make my campaign free of these crawl errors. First of all i would like to know why these url's are considered to have duplicate content. And what's the best solution to get rid of this?
Technical SEO | | RodrigoVaca0 -
Duplicate Content: Canonicalization vs. Redirects
Hi all, I have a client that I recently started working with whose site was built with the following structure: domain.com
Technical SEO | | marisolmarketing
domain.com/default.asp Essentially, there is a /default.asp version of every single page on the site. That said, I'm trying to figure out the easiest/most efficient way to fix all the /default.asp pages...whether that be 301 redirecting them to the .com version, adding a canonical tag to every .asp page, or simply NOINDEXing the .asp pages. I've seen a few other questions on here that are similar, but none that really say which would be the easiest way to accomplish this without going through every single page... Thanks in advance!0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi, I'm working on a site and I'm having some issues with its structure causing duplicate content. The first issue is that the search pages will show up as duplicates.
Technical SEO | | OOMDODigital
A search for new inventory may be new.aspx
The duplicate may be something like new.aspx=page1, or something like that and so on. The second issue is with inventory. When new inventory gets put into the stock of the store, a new page for that item will be populated with duplicate content. There appears to be no canonical source for that page. How can I fix both of these? Thanks!0 -
Showing duplicate content when I have canonical url set, why?
Just inspecting my sites report and I see that I have a lot of duplicate content issues, not sure why these two pages here http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch http://www.thecheapplace.com/wholesale-products/small-wholesale-patches-1/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch are showing as duplicate content when both pages have a clearly defined canonical url of http://www.thecheapplace.com/Are-you-into-casual-sex-patch Any answer would be appreciated, thank you
Technical SEO | | erhansimavi0 -
Duplicate Content - Just how killer is it?
Yesterday I received my ranking report and was extremely disappointed that my high-priority pages dropped in rank for a second week in a row for my targeted keywords. This is after running them through the gradecard and getting As for each of them on the keywords I wanted. I looked at my google webmaster tools and saw new duplicate content pages listed, which were the ones I had just modified to get my keyword targeting better. In my hastiness to work on getting the keyword usage up, I neglected to prevent these descriptions from coming up when viewing the page with filter parameters, sort parameters and page parameters... so google saw these descriptions as duplicate content (since myurl.html and myurl.html?filter=blah are seen as different). So my question: is this the likely culprit for some pretty drastic hits to ranking? I've fixed this now, but are there any ways to prevent this in the future? (I know _of _canonical tags, but have never used them, and am not sure if this applies in this situation) Thanks! EDIT: One thing I forgot to ask as well: has anyone inflicted this upon themselves? And how long did it take you to recover?
Technical SEO | | Ask_MMM0 -
Best practice canonical tags
I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE BESTPRACTICE IS WHEN USING CANONICAL TAGS: or 2:
Technical SEO | | NEWCRAFT0 -
Using the Canonical Tag
Hi, I have an issue that can be solve with a canonical tag, but I am not sure yet, we are developing a page full of statistics, like this: www.url.com/stats/ But filled with hundreds of stats, so users can come and select only the stats they want to see and share with their friends, so it becomes like a new page with their slected stats: www.url.com/stats/?id=mystats The problems I see on this is: All pages will be have a part of the content from the main page 1) and many of them will be exactly the same, so: duplicate content. My idea was to add the canonical tag of "www.url.com/stats/" to all pages, similar as how Rand does it here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps But I am not sure of this solution because the content is not exactly the same, page 2) will only have a part of the content that page 1) has, and in some cases just a very small part. Is the canonical tag useful in this case? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | andresgmontero0