Great community. Great ideas.
Welcome to SEOChat, a community dedicated to helping beginners and professionals alike in improving their Search Engine Optimization knowledge. Sign up today to gain access to the combined insight of tens of thousands of members.
Feb 5th, 2013, 06:58 AM
Duplication and Google
here's an issue thats dogged me for years, can anyone shed any light.
1. As we all know google doesnt like duplication, I have seen a duplicate site rank well while the original was dropped out, so google cant even determine which was the original. I have also webmastered a few franchise operations where numerous franchisees get their own website for their own geographical area - the business is the same in each case - of course thats what franchises are. Therefore apart from tiny changes re area info the sites are duplicates, and legitimately so. Each site should be able to rank on its own for a search involving its own area, and yet google sees this a duplication. Thats wrong.
2. Many ecom sites will share ther products and therefore descriptions, texts etc across various / many domains, some owned by themselves, some owned by partners. Google will tell you that adding value to each product description ( probably extra text ) will create power and uniqueness. How can this be done with products like nails or A4 paper, and will owners / managers really do this ? nahh. And yet it seems to be product databases dont seem to have the duplicate penalties applied, or have i just not seen one yet ?
3. A competitor of one of my clients has a high ranking site, we battle among the top 3 positions. Ive lately noticed that this site has at least 3 duplicate sites and I mean duplicate sites, everything the same except the logo and header background colour. These sites are very low in the rankings, but some do appear in the top 100 results. This is clearly breaking googles guidelines and black hat seo. Do you think they should be reported ? In this case the first and orginal site has not been penalised, although others that i may or may not be aware of may have been - what to do ?
Feb 6th, 2013, 12:23 PM
anyone have any thoughts on this or is my post too long or too vague / help ?
Feb 7th, 2013, 04:54 AM
Duplication just degrade my ranking, For a while i made duplicate post on my site, Meanwhile Crawler comes and my site ranking decrease,
Any one help me how can I fix it?
I want that crawler come again and check my duplication is fix now, My question is that how crawler can come fast to my site?
Feb 7th, 2013, 05:04 AM
If your competitor is already using duplicate content, the chances could be that they will be punished at some point, so do not worry. Unless they are a well received company, e.g. Amazon is always going to rank high.
As far as duplicate content goes on other sites such as affiliate sites, I think it depends, as long as the content is there naturally for the user to see I don't see a problem with it. Also it should not be too much in my opinion just a short paragraph or what not but obviously its better to not have it at all.
People will have different opinions on this but this is what I think.
Feb 7th, 2013, 06:28 AM
Are you sure it was the duplication that gave you a drop, it might not have been. In any case you should remove your duplicate content, and then "re-submit" to google. Google will then crawl your page and reassess what happened - this might take 1 day or a few weeks, just depends on when google gets there....
Originally Posted by Benney Swet
Feb 7th, 2013, 06:41 AM
Thanks for that, i'm sure my clients would like to see them get punished :-), if they have been punished already its the duplicate sites that have been punished not the original one that is high in the rankings, which is a shame :-). But google cannot determine which was the original. When I set up 2 franchise sites that were virtual duplicates the original ( 1 year older ) was punished and not the new comer.
Originally Posted by freedom810
I agree and dont see a problem with legitimate duplicate content on affiliate and franchise sites, but I've never any output from google on what is acceptable duplication and how it can be achieved - only that duplication ( either in site or across sites ) is bad and will be punished.
If you think about it, with so many billion sites / blogs / content on the net, how can you ultimately avoid duplication, even naturally. With millions of estate agents and say thousands of sites selling nails, how different can these sites be. There must duplication somewhere even if its unwittingly done.
IMO google doesnt have a serious handle or guide on duplication. I don't think its enough to say all duplication is bad. 10 sites selling the same nail are probably gonna have really similar descriptions and content. Why should one or some of them get duplication penalties, or can google distinguish between ok and not ok duplication. If so how ?
Feb 7th, 2013, 07:38 AM
duplicate content is bad for your website reputation...
Feb 7th, 2013, 07:49 AM
What ??? thanks stuattpoul, but comments like that are bad for your reputation :-)
Originally Posted by stuattpoul
Feb 7th, 2013, 08:07 AM
If your websites have had content cloned then contact the webmasters let them know you're on to them and threaten legal action. That may be enough to get them to change tactics without things getting more serious. You should also report the website to google to ensure its not your websites that end up with a penalty. There's going to be very little benefit in it for them, especially if your content has already been indexed (and therefore dated as the original).
We had a website copied once and it was almost comical. We were using absolute url's with the full domain so all their internal paragraphs were still full of links back to our website - they showed up on our stats and gave themselves away. Rookies
Regarding your nail example - similar content and discussions are not usually word for word, so aren't seen as duplicate. If a manufacturer has issued a product description I usually re-write them or advise the client to rewrite them to avoid duplication penalties and keep our content unique. It's just a case of mixing the words up to give the same message.
Feb 7th, 2013, 08:38 AM
( Our website hasnt been copied, our competition has duplicated their own site 4 or 5 times, as they think doing this will get each site ranked in the top 10 thus taking up 50% of the results on p1.)
ummm... nails. I dont know how differently 10 websites can describe something like a 6" nail. Anyway in essence, affiliate, partner and franchise sites tend to have the product data and much content beign fed to them from 1 central db, therefore there is no room for an affiliate to have different product descriptions to all the others - the nail description will be identical on all sites.
In reality if you look at estate agents, they will load a property containing description and photos. If they have more than one office they will attempt to show that prop on all of their websites. They will then place that property, generally by a feed from a single db to as many other property sites and portals as possible, eg rightmove.co.uk and primelocation etc etc. That property can exist on 20 or 30 sites without too much hassle.
how is this NOT duplication ?
Feb 7th, 2013, 09:43 AM
I thought the nail was more of an example. That is a very limited product agreed but there is still more information available for a description on this basic product: home.howstuffworks.com/nails.htm
Google read source code so each layout is likely to be fairly unique anyway. Differing HTML tags and page layouts, header/bold text.
Many affiliate websites now have less ranking power in the SE's as they use duplicate content and someone else's product. So Google thinks it makes sense to cut out the middle man. If affiliate links are within useful and unique content they will still be beneficial.
Real Estate. Ok so what makes you think the description elements etc are not marked as partial duplication? This could well reduce the overall 'score' of the web page as the information can be found elsewhere BUT a website like right move is VERY popular and will pass on PR to all it's internal pages, which will mean it's still likely to get a pretty good score and show in the serps. The website is also regularly updated and the content is always rotating, more like news than an old static duplicate page.
Feb 7th, 2013, 12:31 PM
thats interesting - " a partial duplication ". I didnt know there was one, so are you saying google views duplications in different degrees ?
I take on board what you say in the rest of your post.
However, how would go about "seoing" say 10 franchise websites - they are legitimate, but have exactly the same content and code, with 1 tiny difference per site, thats the area word - so for London substitute for Manchester, Liverpool, New York, Chicago etc etc. As a franchise the business does the same thing in each area - its a model. I have seen scenarios where franchisees simply have their own "area folder " within a single uber site, but on many ocassions franchisees want and franchisors want to furnish each frenchise its own site.
duplication will kick in here surely ?
Feb 7th, 2013, 02:06 PM
google spider always like fresh content and google algorithm also always like fresh and single content, and originality is the main algo for the google .It is not not only rules for the google it is always prefer by all search engines, so please avoid duplicate content and design for healthier sites.
Feb 8th, 2013, 09:42 AM
So,... can no-one tell me how do you optimise say 10 duplicate but legitimate franchised websites, without incurring a duplication penalty. Each franchise must its own site.
Feb 9th, 2013, 03:02 PM
Well obviously my answer to the franchised websites ended up at the bottom of this page:
SERP frustration regarding unique content
I would back up a little. Why does each franchise have to have it's own site? Sometimes when what is set in stone is questioned and we ask "why is it set in stone?" people suddenly realise the reasoning is outdated and all that was remembered is that it "had to be"....?
What I forgot to mention in my last answer was that by using one site new franchises are immediately strong in the SERPs.
By brynah in forum Keyword Research
Last Post: Apr 17th, 2009, 04:30 PM
By eddieo in forum Google Optimization
Last Post: Oct 6th, 2006, 02:14 PM
By SeoBiz in forum Google Optimization
Last Post: May 6th, 2006, 01:58 PM
By yamin in forum Google Optimization
Last Post: Oct 31st, 2005, 02:53 PM
By ystoreowner in forum Google Optimization
Last Post: Feb 24th, 2005, 02:22 PM