Cross Domain Canonicalization

[chriskriag]

Hello Everyone,

I am working on a website which has duplicate content of another website. Say for example. I have website A which has content from website B. Both are completely different domains and Website A is owned by me and website B isn't owned by me.

Now to avoid duplication, I updated canonical tag on Website A internal page which has copied content from websiteB page like this

<link rel="canonical" href="http://websiteB.com/abc123.html/" />

Even after updating the canonical tag, Google isn't indexing websiteA webpages. I still find websiteA webpage which has duplicate content from website B. How to tackle this now? Why google didn't consider this Cross domain canonicalization?

[aakk9999]

How long has it been since you have implemented rel canonical?
Has the page on domain A been crawled since?

[Kratos]

Matt Cutts has said that cross-domain can. is fine. However, I have a feeling that a site that has already being tagged by Google as a duplicate-page site (i.e. spam or thin content) "may" experience other results compared to a completely new site or a site that used the tag right from the beginning.

I agree with aakk999, how long was this done? Google can take a very long time to recrawl and re-index, especially if the site has few external links pointed to it and lots of pages (as happens with sites that just post duplicated content from feeds).

Keep us update. This could be interesting.

[chriskriag]

Hello AAkk999

I implemented the tag on 8Feb and now it's been more than a month. I wanna know why. Does implement canonical tag on site A point to site B will deindex site A webpage? If yes, then How long this may take for Google to consider the canonical request?

[topr8]

you do know that:

http://websiteB.com/abc123.html/

is a completely different URI to

http://websiteB.com/abc123.html

... i assume that was just a typo in your question

[edited by: phranque at 8:35 am (utc) on Mar 26, 2015]
[edit reason] unlinked URLs [/edit]

[aakk9999]

@topr8, well spotted ^^^

@chriskriag, I would verify that the URL you have specified in rel canonical is correct and that there are no typos because it is very unusual to have .an URL that has .html exension ending with /

Does implement canonical tag on site A point to site B will deindex site A webpage?

Ideally it should, however the canonical is just a hint and Google may not honour it. Have you confirmed the page has been crawled by Google and if so, how long ago? You can check this in your server logs or perhaps have a look at the date on the cached version of the page.

[chriskriag]

Well Everyone

There is no Typos in the URL I forgot to add / while posting the comment thread. There isn't any typo.

And @aakk9999 Thanks for the reply...

I did check the cached date and google is crawling both the pages. I have their cache dates. Both pages are live and Google is constantly updating cache for them. Tel me what to do? There is no typo here.

How long Do i need to wait. Also what else I can do for this?

[fathom]

IMHO you are over thinking this.

If these pages don't share a common linking construct there is no canonical issue like you get from a shopping cart where similar products can be included on different pages via alternative sorts thus you use the Canonical tag to announce which version is NOT your choice to rank.

By using the Canonical tag on your webPage you are telling Googlebot that you don't want to rank your page ... Regardless of what it does with the compete page. And it is attempting to follow your instructions.

It would be better for you to address the duplication issue directly as multiple website can share the same content but your trust will be dimished somewhat. Google prefer original "once only" content and will never reward non-original content better than "once only" versions.

If you own the content do a DMCA Takedown for the other website

If you don't own the content and this is a Fair Use situation stop using your version ABSOLUTELY!

If the other party owns the content I would hire an attorney instead of screwing around with a tag that won't pay for your legal defense.

You don't specific state this but if this is a Syndication issue this would be the only reason you need to consider this issue or you offering your content to other websites and you wish to ensure your original gets ordered ranks.

[support.google.com...]

IMHO