Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Content Issue On Powered Domain Vs Vertical Industry Website


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#16 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:22 PM

 
No! They need to change their business strategy to NOT expect, need or want traffic from search engine results.
 
It is NOT a sensible strategy to rely on getting business and earnings from a source that is not within your control, may or may not send converting traffic, or may simply stop sending traffic one day with no warning, no right of appeal and no indication of why it has dried up.

Yes that's true. But its pretty tough to convince to management team that as a business strategy you can not create multiple identical domain or add same service section to multiple website. They always see as a business point of view & reducing resources on it. On the other side as we are getting million of traffic from all domains even from search engine. So they think that is there any strategy for duplicate content. 
 
 

You could put a robots meta tag with content of "noindex, follow" instead of "noindex, nofollow." That way, search engines will crawl those pages and discover links on them, but won't add them to the index.
 
The rel-canonical method would involve putting a tag on the duplicate pages indicating that the one page you want indexed is the canonical version of that content. The tag would also go on the page you want index, so it would be declaring itself to be canonical as well. The advantage to doing it that way is that Google may view the duplicates as a group, so that if anyone links to one of those page it will count, at least in part, as a link to the canonical page. I can't guarantee it will accomplish that, but people whose knowledge of these things I trust have told me it works. I've just never seen clear evidence of it working, since you can't really demonstrate that a link to a non-canonical page actually provides a boost to the canonical one.
 
I can pretty much guarantee you'll avoid duplicate content issues with either of those methods.

 
 
Yes, even I am also following strictly search engine algo as a part of duplicate content but I need some strong statement to convince management team about duplicate content issue across all domains. That's why I came to this forum & want some strong words from any expert like you :) At last one quick question: I am little confused that can we apply canonical tag to cross domain ? Suppose we have three different identical domain & can we add canonical tag to one potential domain? like 1. site.com 2. abc.com, 3. domain.com 
 
 
 

#17 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,628 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:46 PM

Yes, you can do cross-domain canonicals, but it's page to page rather than site to site. A page on one site points to the canonical page on the other site. For example, if site.com, domain.com and abc.com all contain page.htm, containing the same content, and you want the version on site.com to be treated as canonical then each of those three pages should contain the following tag in the <head>:

 

<link rel="canonical" href="http://site.com/page.htm"/>


#18 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:59 PM

 
 

<link rel="canonical" href="http://site.com/page.htm"/>
 

 


So like /page.htm describes any internal page or index.htm?



#19 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,628 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

Yes, it's just an example of a file name. And I should add that the duplicate pages don't necessarily have to have the same file name. The point is that if two or more pages have the same content, then one page should be set up as the canonical version, and all of the pages should have the tag I noted above, with the URL at the end of the tag being that of the canonical page.



#20 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Yes, it's just an example of a file name. And I should add that the duplicate pages don't necessarily have to have the same file name. The point is that if two or more pages have the same content, then one page should be set up as the canonical version, and all of the pages should have the tag I noted above, with the URL at the end of the tag being that of the canonical page.

Sorry i don't understand exactly. My question is rel canonical can add to entire domain as my three domain are identical. Or I have to add this tag to each page of all three website. Like i should only add <link rel="canonical" href="http://site.com"/> on all three domain? 



#21 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,107 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:15 AM

My question is rel canonical can add to entire domain as my three domain are identical.//

 

It can, but you should "permanently" redirect the mirrors to one domain name to make the "suggestion" of redirect into a directive or a command

 

Read through this document.

 

Or exclude the other hostnames with robots.txt, even if the other hostnames are aliased there are ways and means of delivering different robots.txt instructions for different domain names on the one server.


  • mansipadhya likes this

#22 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,628 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:35 AM

Sorry i don't understand exactly. My question is rel canonical can add to entire domain as my three domain are identical. Or I have to add this tag to each page of all three website. Like i should only add <link rel="canonical" href="http://site.com"/> on all three domain?

The methods being suggested by Chris will send a stronger signal than rel-canonical (in my opinion), but there are potential advantages to doing this with rel-canonical as well. If you choose to do so, it's not site to site -- not in the sense you're describing it. You can't say that site.com is a canonical domain. It's done at the document level. The non-canonical page uses the tag to point to the page that contains the canonical version of the same content.

 

It is site to site in the sense that a page on one site can point to a canonical page on another site. But it has to be a specific page, not just the domain itself.


  • mansipadhya likes this

#23 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:37 PM

Yes that's what I want to make sure about canonical. Thanks. so it also can not work at folder or directory level? Like www.site.com/folder/ so all pages which are under this folder can be canonical? Canonical tag work for only specific page to page?



#24 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,628 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

Right, only from page to page, even if those pages are on different domains.

 

If you don't want to edit all those pages, you could go with the robots.txt method. There, you can block entire directories, but that's arguably a very different signal. You'd be telling search engine spiders they're not allowed to look at anything in those folders rather than telling them that one page is a copy of another, and you have a preference as to which one should count.


  • mansipadhya likes this

#25 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,107 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

Search engines deal with individual URLs NOT entire sites.

 

 

Links are from URL to URL.

 

They show URLs in the results.

 

They index URLs.



#26 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:16 PM

Okay guys now all clear. Thanks very much. :)

 

There is one argument in general. Based on this conversation is this a good time to add noindex or blocked any duplicate content for well running website? As we didn't get any warning through webmaster regarding bad practices. At the moment, our all publication getting huge traffic from search engine but still they all have one portion of duplicate content. But our target to get more traffic & high ranking from SEs than our competitors.   


Edited by mansipadhya, 24 January 2013 - 07:17 PM.


#27 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,107 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:16 PM

And how would you know how much traffic your competitors are getting to be able to make such a comparison?


  • mansipadhya likes this

#28 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

And how would you know how much traffic your competitors are getting to be able to make such a comparison?

Our competitors are on higher raking than us. 



#29 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,107 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:45 PM

Doesn't mean that anyone clicks through to their URL.

 

AND

 

They only 'rank' higher in YOUR results, your URL might be higher in the results they see, assuming they even bother looking.



#30 mansipadhya

mansipadhya

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

Yes! but my question is our advertisers paying lot of money to put ads on our all pubs. And our all pubs are getting good traffic from search engine so is this a good seo strategy or right time to block those portion of duplicate content at the moment?


Edited by mansipadhya, 26 January 2013 - 08:07 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!