Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Many Versions Of One Site In 13 Countries
Posted 10 June 2009 - 11:54 AM
I cannot mention the industry due to privacy issues, but for the sake of this, let's pretend it's a ZOO.
The concept is a series of zoo web sites that dozens of zoos in 13 different countries can sign up for. The purpose of the exercise is for people to easily locate a nearby zoo in any one of the 13 countries.
Each zookeeper will get his own site where he can personalize some of the pages: Hours of Operation, Directions to our Zoo, Animal of the Month, etc.
In addition, each site will also have many pages of animal information that is common to every site, as an educational resource for zoo visitors.
My questions are:
1. Is there some code that should appear on each site to distinguish its country for the search engines? (Let's assume at this point that the URL may not identify the country)
2. Will the pages of duplicated animal information cause any issues? Should I block them from being indexed? Keep in mind the purpose of the sites are for people to be able to "locate a zoo nearby" - and the animal info is merely to enhance their visit to the site once they've located it. The purpose is NOT primarily to provide people with animal info.
Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:26 PM
I've decided to nofollow a US site because of the duplicate content, anyone got any ideas on how this will work?
Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:33 PM
and I would think sticking the country at the end of the <title> would not hurt either.
Posted 31 July 2009 - 02:55 PM
As a general rule duplicate content on sites that are *clearly geolocated differently* are not considered spammy by search engines. They will simply choose and serve the content closest to the visitor.
Just be aware that you are not going to be showing up multiple times for that duplicate content - only once, and the one that will show up will be (in order of importance):
1. Geolocated to the visitor
2. Has a higher PR (one of the few remaining uses of PR)
3. Is older or more likely to be the original.
Note: this order is based on my experience, I'm pretty sure I've never seen a search rep reference it in this manner.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 02:48 AM
Edited by Jill, 03 August 2009 - 09:37 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users