: Using rel=canonical with syndication I work at a site which allows syndication of content (via API's and data dumps). We are finding that a number of sites which republish our content are appearing
I work at a site which allows syndication of content (via API's and data dumps). We are finding that a number of sites which republish our content are appearing higher in Google search results, even though we're the original publisher. This is frustrating.
We are considering making rel=canonical part of our attribution requirements. Google says it's legitimate to use it across domains, and in syndication scenarios.
Have you done this, and does Google consider the canonical URL in search rankings? Will it help us in reducing such SERP "spam"?
More posts by @Mendez628
3 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
Adding another answer because I got a definitive response from Matt Cutts on this:
rel=canonical does work across domains, but it acts basically like a 301 [redirect], so the target site's pages would go straight to your site in Google. Any site using your content would basically be wiped out of the search engines.
Like Matt says the best way to think of rel=canonical is as a 301 permanent redirect.
Thus, requiring cross-domain rel=canonical as a set of attribution terms would be like asking them to 301 redirect to you! Ouch. :P
Knowing this, it is clear that rel=canonical is intended only for use on sites you personally have control over -- like when you move domains and you need one domain's content to replace the other.
Jeff is 100% correct in everything he said.
Another issue with requesting a syndication site to use <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/foo"> is that it tells Google that the syndication page should get no Page Rank and example.com/foo should instead get all of it.
That creates two major issues.
The syndication page would not show up at all on Google searches because it has no page rank. The syndication site would not be the least bit happy about this. Making it unlikely that they would be willing to make the change if they even could.
It might not affect your site the way you like because you effectively aren't getting linked to from the Syndication site. I would wonder how Google would handle this. It is true they allow for cross site rel="canonical" but I believe the purpose of that is for site migration and for having multiple sites under one host with the same content to have one defacto page versus a bunch of similar/same pages.
My research indicated that requiring a link back -- and that the link NOT be nofollowed -- was by far the most important criteria.
If the "syndicating" site does not attribute the content with links back to the original that are valid for search engines to follow, search engines have a much harder time tracing where the content originated, and must apply complex "find duplicate text content across the whole of the internet" heuristics.
I'm not sure any more than that is necessary.
Related Matt Cutts video
Matt said that it would be a good idea to use rel="canonical" to point back to the page where the article originated - just as he has often suggested that syndicated articles include conventional links (ie. an <a>nchor tag) pointing back to the original article.
Bear in mind that canonical isn't just slapping rel="canonical" on an <a> tag; it's more like this:
<html>
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/foo">
</head>
...
So it requires a different sort of work, you have to modify each page header. I'm not sure many of these "syndicators" will have that level of control versus a simple link (sans nofollow!) back to the source.
Terms of Use Create Support ticket Your support tickets Stock Market News! © vmapp.org2024 All Rights reserved.