11 replies to this topic

[vicplumb]

Hello,

I run a .com website, but we also own the .co.uk and the .net domains. The .co.uk redirects straight to the .com domain but i have noticed today that the .net domain does not do this. Instead if you goto www.mywebsite.net you come onto an exact replica of the .com website but with no PR you can then navigate through the website aswell. Some of the sections have PR and some dont and i was wondering if two things:

1. is this duplicate content?

2. is our PR getting spread over 2 sites (we've recently dropped from a PR5 to PR4)

Any help is much appreciated

Jonathan

[chrishirst]

1. Yes

2. Yes (though a drop in the imaginary value of PR is probably coincidental)

[Jill]

1. is this duplicate content?

It's not duplicate content in a bad way, meaning it won't get you penalized or anything like that. But it's a good idea to redirect it properly if you can.

[piskie]

I thought Google would not assign PR to 2 identical Pages, meaning one would probably have PR0.
Am I wrong here ??

[Jill]

Am I wrong here ??

Yes.

If there are links to both pages from various places, both could certainly have PR.

[piskie]

If that is so and all the Duplicates have PR according to incoming links, what effect is the duplicate content filter having ??

[chrishirst]

what effect is the duplicate content filter having

It's having the effect that filters do. Removing the stuff it doesn't let through.

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that PR (of the toolbar variety) is somehow important or even useful.

[piskie]

I have no apprehension let alone a misapprehension and as for Google Toolbar, I don't have it installed.
Just plain curiosity triggered by Jill saying: "both could certainly have PR."
This suggested duplicate filtering was not as I understood it to be.

[Jill]

piskie, not sure where you understood the connection between dupe content and PR was. Could you explain? PR is about links and only links, which is why I'm confused.

[piskie]

Jill, you made the connection when you said:
"If there are links to both pages from various places, both could certainly have PR."
This created uncertainty in my mind prompting my further question.

I understood that a Dupe filter torpedoed ALL aspects of SE Rank & Rating for all but the "Deemed" orriginal. I had assumed this included the Dreaded PR0 being assigned to any Duplicate pages leaving only the orriginal to retain it's assigned PR.

It appears I was wrong and duplicates even with the Filter Applied will still benefit from PR.

That is why I asked for Clarification

[Randy]

I think you're simply misunderstanding where Filtering kicks in, as opposed to where Penalties kick in piskie.

Penalties kick in during the Scoring phase of process. So if a page (duplicate or otherwise) attracts a penalty it has something counting against it long before it ever gets to the searching and display phase.

Filtering on the other hand takes place well after the Scoring phase. It happens during the Display phase of the process, and is not a Penalty.

So... In a real world duplicate content example let's say you had two sites that were complete duplicates and the Scoring Google had on file for all of the pages was virtually the same.

When the Duplicate Filter kicks in during the Display phase Google will choose one or the other to show in their SERPs. Even though neither site has accrued a Penalty only one will be shown because of Google's penchant to show a variety of choices instead of the same thing over and over again.

By the same token if SiteA.com suddenly became unavailable and got removed from the index you could expect the duplicate SiteB.com to jump immdiately up in the SERPs for those same searches, even though you never saw it appear before. Why? Because there is no Penalty placed on the site and the Duplicate Filter no longer sees a duplicate.

Does that help?

[piskie]

Thanks Randy - I think somebody just switched the ligt on.