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
- - - - -

Duplicate Content


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#1 mtdreamer

mtdreamer

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 11:53 AM

I have read and understand why search engines don't like duplicate content. But we have used server-side includes for content pieces that people might want to find under different sections of our site, so their url is different and the right navigation is different, but the main content is the same. Is that ok?

Also, we have international sites mostly done in native language (not as complete as our .com site). There are some things they display that is also on the .com site - because the cost of translation is very expensive. Is that considered duplicate content? Same company, different domains.

#2 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

  • Admin
  • 6,294 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 12:12 PM

It seems that Google handles duplicate content by picking one or the other and not showing both.

If you want to be sure that the one you prefer is the one that gets in the index, use robots.txt or robots metatags to prevent the indexing of duplicate content.

#3 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,956 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 12:13 PM

so their url is different and the right navigation is different, but the main content is the same. Is that ok?


It's perfectly okay. But don't expect the search engines to pick it up and rank it, necessarily.

Duplicate content isn't penalized, it's generally just ignored because...well, it's duplicate!

Jill

#4 mtdreamer

mtdreamer

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 12:19 PM

Thank you both. I thought I read in an article (brain can't remember which one) that Google might be penalizing in the near future....something that is not being done by people, but is being done by some technique (wow, brain can't remember that either.....a sign of age?)

#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,956 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 12:32 PM

mtdreamer, sorry, I forgot to welcome you before! :rolleyes:

People often miscontrue not showing content as content being penalized.

The engines can't, don't, won't penalize it because often it is there by mistake (dynamically generated URLs for instance). So the easiest and safest thing to do is simply not show it. It may appear like a penalty to the owner of the content, but it's not.

Your best bet is to simply come up with unique content.

Jill

#6 fathom

fathom

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 02:51 AM

Jill - although I agree with your reasoning -- it is a penalty (at least in Google anyway) and no different than hidden text, hidden link (same color as background).

A penalty isn't necessarily "a bad thing" (normally you can equate these to a minor penalty in hockey game) and why I agree with your reasoning.

The techique is penalized -- not the page and why google continues to crawl these pages and if after 30 days of being penalized, the penalty is removed "if the duplication" is less apparent.

There is also a difference between duplicated pages "on same site" and duplicated pages "on different sites".

It should also be noted why people duplicate things - to save time.

You can easy have duplicated pages get good ranks before Google recognizes any duplication at all - thus the object is to change such content before Google identifies any relationship but you do have time to play with -- and moreso the farther the duplicate pages are from one another (in links).

This is a search engine vulnerability and when it comes to business -- a competitive advantage is more often than not about knowing how far you can go rather than just what you know.

#7 Alan Perkins

Alan Perkins

    Token male admin

  • Admin
  • 1,642 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 04:11 AM

Welcome to the forums fathom. :drunk:

I think there are two separate issues here:

1) Deliberately duplicating content to "get more tickets in the search engine lottery" - i.e. search engine spamming
2) Duplicating content as a natural result of your online activities, e.g. syndicated content, dynamic content, etc. - i.e. not search engine spamming

Jill is talking about the second issue, you are talking about the first, I believe. :lol:

#8 Farhan

Farhan

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 04:29 AM

I am unable to understand the difference between SE's 'not showing' the content and 'penalizing' the content. If I copy a page of content from some other site, will Google (in this case) just not 'show' my page, or 'penalize' my complete site for it?

#9 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,956 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 09:14 AM

Farhan, in my opinion from what I have seen in the SERPs, they would simply not show your page, unless someone clicked on the "see results that were omitted from this search" (or however they word it).

Jill

#10 Matt B

Matt B

    The modem is the message.

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 09:42 AM

I've experimented with placing an HTML case study and the PDF version of the case study on our site to see what would happen. Lately, the unformatted PDF version is showing up in the SERPs for some very good local keywords, whereas the HTML version tends to get buried.

I would have thought the formatted HTML page would have had a better chance at ranking than the bland PDF version.
:eek: Go figure.

What did I learn from my exercise? Other than making a site completely out of PDF's?

I have no idea.

#11 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,956 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 10:09 AM

It seems kind of silly to me. I would think most people would prefer not to get a pdf file. At least I know I'd prefer an html file. They should make it that you only get pdf's if you're actually looking for pdf's.

At least with Google you can view the html version, so that's a plus.

Jill

#12 Haystack

Haystack

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 11:33 AM

Let's say for a second that you write an article and a few people republish it on their sites. Well, that's basically duplicate content, right? Is it done to manipulate search engines? No. In cases like this, it seems like Google only shows the results from the highest ranking site rather than showing a list of sites with the exact same article.

I have seen cases where exactly the same content is being served by a company within a variety of different templates for branding reasons, and in my experience Google has given a PR0 to the duplicate content. While I haven't tested this, I'd want to make darn sure that Google knew which version of content was the primary site so that one ranks well.

#13 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,956 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 11:37 AM

I have seen cases where exactly the same content is being served by a company within a variety of different templates for branding reasons, and in my experience Google has given a PR0 to the duplicate content.


Yes, but again, I still say it's not a penalty. It's simply a method for Google to not fill their SERPs with dupe content.

But I suppose it has the same effect as a penalty, so it's easy for people to think of it as a penalty.

But it's not. :eek:

Jill

#14 Haystack

Haystack

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 11:46 AM

Yes, but again, I still say it's not a penalty. It's simply a method for Google to not fill their SERPs with dupe content.

If someone views not being able to blanket the top search results with 10 pages of exactly the same content as a penalty, fine. Google and clearly provide a better search experience by hiding the duplicate content by default (you can still see it by clicking on the link to show the omitted results.

#15 fathom

fathom

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 13 August 2003 - 06:46 AM

Let's say for a second that you write an article and a few people republish it on their sites. Well, that's basically duplicate content, right? Is it done to manipulate search engines? No. In cases like this, it seems like Google only shows the results from the highest ranking site rather than showing a list of sites with the exact same article.

I have seen cases where exactly the same content is being served by a company within a variety of different templates for branding reasons, and in my experience Google has given a PR0 to the duplicate content. While I haven't tested this, I'd want to make darn sure that Google knew which version of content was the primary site so that one ranks well.

Missing the fact the republisher didn't republish the html page "as is" including your user interface, styles, etc.

This is "page content" and as each website is different no penalty.

In addition, other factors involved include IP diversity, and the link generations between text being republished.

Many publishers will point to your web site for credit -- few point an article to the same article.




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!