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
-
Shall we add engaging and useful FAQ content in all our pages or rather not because of duplication and reduction of unique content?
We are considering to add at the end of alll our 1500 product pages answers to the 9 most frequently asked questions. These questions and answers will be 90% identical for all our products and personalizing them more is not an option and not so necessary since most questions are related to the process of reserving the product. We are convinced this will increase engagement of users with the page, time on page and it will be genuinely useful for the visitor as most visitors will not visit the seperate FAQ page. Also it will add more related keywords/topics to the page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse
On the downside it will reduce the percentage of unique content per page and adds duplication. Any thoughts about wether in terms of google rankings we should go ahead and benefits in form of engagement may outweight downside of duplication of content?0 -
Dynamic Pages with No Results Causing Thin Content
Hi Mozers, We have dynamic listing pages that pull in clinical trial results for specific disease types. Sometimes diseases have clinical trials and sometimes they don't. This means that sometimes the page will have zero results and sometimes it will return results. We have a sizable number of these so that when there are zero results, these pages look like thin content. What is the recommended method of dealing with this? Is there a way of doing a conditional noindex where the page is indexed if results are pulled in and and not indexed when the page returns zero results? If we can do this, should we? Will it confuse Google and send negative signals? Any guidance/thoughts are much appreciated! Yael
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yaelslater0 -
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 -
Imange name and html page name same are count spammy contents ?
Imange name and html page name same is count spammy contents ex. watertreatment - plan.jpg watertreatment - plan.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Poojath0 -
Unpaid Followed Links & Canonical Links from Syndicated Content
I have a user of our syndicated content linking to our detailed source content. The content is being used across a set of related sites and driving good quality traffic. The issue is how they link and what it looks like. We have tens of thousands of new links showing up from more than a dozen domains, hundreds of sub-domains, but all coming from the same IP. The growth rate is exponential. The implementation was supposed to have canonical tags so Google could properly interpret the owner and not have duplicate syndicated content potentially outranking the source. The canonical are links are missing and the links to us are followed. While the links are not paid for, it looks bad to me. I have asked the vendor to no-follow the links and implement the agreed upon canonical tag. We have no warnings from Google, but I want to head that off and do the right thing. Is this the right approach? What would do and what would you you do while waiting on the site owner to make the fixes to reduce the possibility of penguin/google concerns? Blair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlairKuhnen0 -
Can too many "noindex" pages compared to "index" pages be a problem?
Hello, I have a question for you: our website virtualsheetmusic.com includes thousands of product pages, and due to Panda penalties in the past, we have no-indexed most of the product pages hoping in a sort of recovery (not yet seen though!). So, currently we have about 4,000 "index" page compared to about 80,000 "noindex" pages. Now, we plan to add additional 100,000 new product pages from a new publisher to offer our customers more music choice, and these new pages will still be marked as "noindex, follow". At the end of the integration process, we will end up having something like 180,000 "noindex, follow" pages compared to about 4,000 "index, follow" pages. Here is my question: can this huge discrepancy between 180,000 "noindex" pages and 4,000 "index" pages be a problem? Can this kind of scenario have or cause any negative effect on our current natural SEs profile? or is this something that doesn't actually matter? Any thoughts on this issue are very welcome. Thank you! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
NOINDEX listing pages: Page 2, Page 3... etc?
Would it be beneficial to NOINDEX category listing pages except for the first page. For example on this site: http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/101/fsx-missions/ Has lots of pages such as Page 2, Page 3, Page 4... etc: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aflyawaysimulation.com+fsx+missions Would there be any SEO benefit of NOINDEX on these pages? Of course, FOLLOW is default, so links would still be followed and juice applied. Your thoughts and suggestions are much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640 -
Will an active forum on our domain help with rankings by fresh content?
We have a very large ecommerce store with little fresh content being added, accept through a web blog on the sub domain. We are thinking of moving over our blog that is on another domain entirely and has a lot of active users. But first I want to make sure it will actually help the domains rankjings, and second i'm concerned about the duplicate content on the old forum if we move it to the main domain. Should we just copy over all the content, 301 the old forum URL's to the new ones? Thanks much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iAnalyst.com0