The real question is, what do you think site managers need to do to plan for the future?
Recently, we have seen announcements from Microsoft on Live Search and Yahoo on Search Assist, promoting developments essentially in line with Google's Universal Search. Whether truly similar or not, these are being banded together by phrases such as " focusing on user intent", or "Web 2.0 search engines".
The first of these is presumably refinement of what has always been the intent, bringing up specific detail that search engines logically assume the searcher is likely to need. A laudable intent but is there the danger of further reducing focus beyond the "highly relevant" top results? Of course that will remain at the user's discretion but if this always held sway, search engines wouldn't advertise in the way they do. On that subject, will this further information be dovetailed into sponsored links?
The second phrase must amount to incorporation of wider media but how will this escape the influence of short term popularity? That has always had some relevance to search results but is there a danger of the balance been swung too far? Facebook is not a bad example, flavour of the month but some might say, shallow and transient in comparison to established textual sites. The thought of search engine bias in choosing Web 2.0 content also lingers, Yahoo/flickr -Google/youtube. Do you feel there is any risk of Web 2.0 search enhancing this bias?
That brings us back to looking after personal interests, which we all need to do. So how do you think we can achieve this? If you were responsible for external sites, what would you be planning for the coming months?
> Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > (brave souls!)
> Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > world > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > Help Center
> And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > existing doc to cover your question. > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> Some ground rules: > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > point there from this thread!) > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > everyone in this thread. > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > questions here.
> Doesn't matter. There is no averaging in competition law - the > individual instance rules. And it could be a pork pie manufacturer in > Woking.
"the individual instance rules". That means that an individual instance of a site being hosted in the US but with a co.uk ccTld which is found in UK only searches shows that it IS possible for a site not hosted in the UK to show up in UK only searches so host location can't be proven to have any effect.
So, you could have your German hosted site with a co.uk ccTld and show up in UK only searches.
If your site then doesn't rank for UK only searches, it is not due only to geolocation of the host but is more likely no different than any other, "Why does my site not rank where I want it to?" question.
On the other hand, if I want a site accessible in Japan at normal transfer speeds, I can't host it in France or Germany because of connections between there and here making even the fastest of servers with the phattest of pipes seem to be spitting out pages through a pixie straw. That would seem disruptive and prejudicial to business, no?
So, who is responsible for that? Who should I make a claim against because available services aren't up to the task of providing potential visitors from Japan to various countries' hosted sites the speed that others receive? It has to be a concerted effort by ISPs to not provide sufficient, or actually limit, bandwidth, right?
> Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > rather than duplicate content.
No, not really. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it considered duplicate? For instance, someone might upload a photo and provide a long description to go with that. That photo could legitimately be used several places throughout a site and each time show the description, but people would have you believe that such repeats of content could cause a duplicate content penalty. So, my question really comes down to "what hoops does google want us to jump through to ensure that a phrase only occurs once on a site?"
Keyword stuffing has nothing to do with my question and is waaaaaaay off my radar as something to consider.
> Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > rather than duplicate content.
> Cheers,
> doc
> On Oct 3, 12:26 am, daamsie wrote:
> > Apologies for the double post. Google Groups was apparently "not > > responding" .. typical Google. ;)
> > On Oct 3, 12:20 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > Lol :)
> > > In seriousness though.. my question is not entirely in jest. How long > > > does a phrase have to be before you can't repeat it across your > > > pages?
> > > For instance, I would assume "Copyright MyCompany 2007" is OK to > > > appear on all your pages. However maybe the phrase
> > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered > > > trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c) > > > (3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
> > > repeated millions of times could be considered duplicate content.
> > > So, where is the line drawn? 50 words, 100 words? Or is internal > > > duplication just not an issue?
> > > On Oct 2, 10:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > On 2 oct, 07:41, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > Here's one..
> > > > > If I write "communicating with Google is like talking to a brick wall" > > > > > in 100 places on my website, would that be considered duplicate > > > > > content?
> > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > > On Sep 24, 4:12 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > > > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > > > > (brave souls!)
> > > > > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > > > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > > > > world > > > > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > > > > Help Center
> > > > > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > > > > Some ground rules: > > > > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > > > > point there from this thread!) > > > > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > > > > everyone in this thread. > > > > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > > > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > > > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > > > > questions here.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> > > > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Phil Payne wrote.. "Yup. But it doesn't help - not material to the practice which is to Google's competitive benefit."
I was thinking that it was material in terms of the 'is it in the public interest to prosecute' criteria imposed by those who are responsible for such prosecutions (e.g. the OFT in the UK). If it only affects a relatively small amount of webmasters and foreign hosts there is little chance the OFT will do anything. I'm sure Goggles' main concern is not any competitive benefit but a means of ensuring their users are directed to the correct location of the business revealed by their regional search. I see the point made by Cass Hacks regarding connection speeds between Japan and Germany however i just wonder if Europe could be lumped together - in terms of size its no bigger than the states - do they have the same geo- location hosting issues between states?
Surely it depends how much other content you have from page to page.
You can look at logos, slogans, navigation, footer as all being repeated across all pages. They don't affect anything negatively. What appears to get indexed ultimately is the unique content from page to page.
If you put out a page with no other content, maybe that gets indexed as is. But any other pages like that won't.
> > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > rather than duplicate content.
> No, not really. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
> I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it > considered duplicate? For instance, someone might upload a photo and > provide a long description to go with that. That photo could > legitimately be used several places throughout a site and each time > show the description, but people would have you believe that such > repeats of content could cause a duplicate content penalty. So, my > question really comes down to "what hoops does google want us to jump > through to ensure that a phrase only occurs once on a site?"
> Keyword stuffing has nothing to do with my question and is waaaaaaay > off my radar as something to consider.
> On Oct 3, 8:33 am, dockarl wrote:
> > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > rather than duplicate content.
> > Cheers,
> > doc
> > On Oct 3, 12:26 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > Apologies for the double post. Google Groups was apparently "not > > > responding" .. typical Google. ;)
> > > On Oct 3, 12:20 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > Lol :)
> > > > In seriousness though.. my question is not entirely in jest. How long > > > > does a phrase have to be before you can't repeat it across your > > > > pages?
> > > > For instance, I would assume "Copyright MyCompany 2007" is OK to > > > > appear on all your pages. However maybe the phrase
> > > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered > > > > trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c) > > > > (3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
> > > > repeated millions of times could be considered duplicate content.
> > > > So, where is the line drawn? 50 words, 100 words? Or is internal > > > > duplication just not an issue?
> > > > On Oct 2, 10:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > On 2 oct, 07:41, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > > Here's one..
> > > > > > If I write "communicating with Google is like talking to a brick wall" > > > > > > in 100 places on my website, would that be considered duplicate > > > > > > content?
> > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:12 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > > > > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > > > > > (brave souls!)
> > > > > > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > > > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > > > > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > > > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > > > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > > > > > world > > > > > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > > > > > Help Center
> > > > > > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > > > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > > > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > > > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > > > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > > > > > Some ground rules: > > > > > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > > > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > > > > > point there from this thread!) > > > > > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > > > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > > > > > everyone in this thread. > > > > > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > > > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > > > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > > > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > > > > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > > > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > > > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > > > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > > > > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > > > > > questions here.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> > > > > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Hide quoted text -
> I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it > considered duplicate?
It depends on the relevance to a given search of the content that is duplicated.
For example, if a sentence from two pages were deemed to be the only thing relevant on their respective pages, only one will be listed.
If, however they both have additional content that is both relevant and unique, they might both be listed.
> could cause a duplicate content penalty.
There is no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty". For a given search, if multiple pages have exactly the same content relevant to the search, only one of them will be shown.
That doesn't mean a page with duplicate content on it won't show up for other searches for which it has original content though.
This is all assuming that entire pages or sites aren't duplicated but instead, small parts here and there.
> There is no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty". For a given > search, if multiple pages have exactly the same content relevant to > the search, only one of them will be shown.
Well, that's your opinion. You state it as fact, but it is only your opinion. There are enough others who claim that there is such a penalty though.
Considering this thread was intended as a way to get clear answers from Google, that is who I want to hear such a statement from. I'd love it to be true.
It is my opinion that it "should" work as you say, but I just don't know if that is also how Google sees it and I'd like a clear answer.
Incidentally, notice how Wikipedia ranks very highly (usually no.1) for each of the words found in that site footer? Then again, Wikipedia ranks highly for pretty much anything, so maybe that's just a co- incidence :) Kind of sucks if your site is purely dedicated to non- profit causes and you are constantly trailing in the results because Wikipedia is no.1 for "nonprofit". I actually think Wikipedia articles should just be moved to the top right area, where the "definition" link is now displayed. If people are looking for Wiki articles, then at least it would make sense to consistently find them in the same spot and not clutter the results for those who are specifically not looking for wikipedia articles. It seems there is barely a phrase left that won't have one Wikipedia article listed on the front page. Ok, end of that rant ;-)
> > I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it > > considered duplicate?
> It depends on the relevance to a given search of the content that is > duplicated.
> For example, if a sentence from two pages were deemed to be the only > thing relevant on their respective pages, only one will be listed.
> If, however they both have additional content that is both relevant > and unique, they might both be listed.
> > could cause a duplicate content penalty.
> There is no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty". For a given > search, if multiple pages have exactly the same content relevant to > the search, only one of them will be shown.
> That doesn't mean a page with duplicate content on it won't show up > for other searches for which it has original content though.
> This is all assuming that entire pages or sites aren't duplicated but > instead, small parts here and there.
Duplicate content doesn't cause a 'penalty' per-se - that's been said repeatedly here and elsewhere by Googlers.
What duplicate content does cause is one copy of the content to be used in the index, and the other to be sent to supplementals (usually) - if you've copied the 'duplicate content' from another site, then most often you'll find your content ends up in the supps (unless you're an evil proxy spammer).
What you are talking about is a particular phrase or paragraph repeated over and over and over again WITHIN A SITE. Whether it's a phrase or a keyword - my feeling is the same - that's not duplicate content. That's keyword stuffing or repeated text if you want to put it another way. On that topic, Wysz's answer is probably what you're after - http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
If what you are actually asking is what proportion of a page can be repeated elsewhere without deprecating the originality of your page in the eyes of google goes to the heart of their algorithm and I'd refer back to SEO101's great statement:-
"Dear Google
I want to spam the hell out of your index and manipulate the search ranking as much as I can. When I get notified exactly what and when I get a penalty, I can just change that to just remain under the radar scope until I push a little hard somewhere else. Thanks for notifying me exactly what I am doing wrong, so I know exactly where the 'line in the sand' is, so I can continue to manipulate so I get better rankings than I really deserve by playing this game with you.
> > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > rather than duplicate content.
> No, not really. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
> I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it > considered duplicate? For instance, someone might upload a photo and > provide a long description to go with that. That photo could > legitimately be used several places throughout a site and each time > show the description, but people would have you believe that such > repeats of content could cause a duplicate content penalty. So, my > question really comes down to "what hoops does google want us to jump > through to ensure that a phrase only occurs once on a site?"
> Keyword stuffing has nothing to do with my question and is waaaaaaay > off my radar as something to consider.
> On Oct 3, 8:33 am, dockarl wrote:
> > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > rather than duplicate content.
> > Cheers,
> > doc
> > On Oct 3, 12:26 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > Apologies for the double post. Google Groups was apparently "not > > > responding" .. typical Google. ;)
> > > On Oct 3, 12:20 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > Lol :)
> > > > In seriousness though.. my question is not entirely in jest. How long > > > > does a phrase have to be before you can't repeat it across your > > > > pages?
> > > > For instance, I would assume "Copyright MyCompany 2007" is OK to > > > > appear on all your pages. However maybe the phrase
> > > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered > > > > trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c) > > > > (3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
> > > > repeated millions of times could be considered duplicate content.
> > > > So, where is the line drawn? 50 words, 100 words? Or is internal > > > > duplication just not an issue?
> > > > On Oct 2, 10:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > On 2 oct, 07:41, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > > Here's one..
> > > > > > If I write "communicating with Google is like talking to a brick wall" > > > > > > in 100 places on my website, would that be considered duplicate > > > > > > content?
> > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:12 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > > > > > > Thought I'd try something new here, and the team's backing me up on it > > > > > > > (brave souls!)
> > > > > > > Got questions? We've got answers: at least five (5) substantive > > > > > > > responses to your picks on webmaster'y topics over the next two weeks.
> > > > > > > We invite you to ask questions in this thread that: > > > > > > > - don't deal with a specific site or sites > > > > > > > - are likely to be of interest to a great many webmasters around the > > > > > > > world > > > > > > > - aren't already covered in one of our recent blog posts or in our > > > > > > > Help Center
> > > > > > > And in turn we will do one of the following for each response: > > > > > > > - Start a thread in this group with a detailed answer. > > > > > > > - Add new Help Center documentation or substantially revise an > > > > > > > existing doc to cover your question. > > > > > > > - Do a blog post on the topic.
> > > > > > > Some ground rules: > > > > > > > - Please don't get into in-depth discussion on each question in this > > > > > > > thread; instead, kindly start a separate thread (and feel free to > > > > > > > point there from this thread!) > > > > > > > - Understand that -- unless we inexplicably get fewer than five > > > > > > > questions here -- we're not going to be able to answer everything/ > > > > > > > everyone in this thread. > > > > > > > - Webmaster'y questions or specific suggestions on topics to explore > > > > > > > are welcomed... but not wish lists, okay? (e.g., "I wish Webmaster > > > > > > > Tools stats were updated hourly!" and "Can we see more photos of > > > > > > > Matt's Cats please?" do not count!)
> > > > > > > We'll continue to answer site-specific questions in other threads, but > > > > > > > we thought it'd be interesting to tackle some broader/more-general > > > > > > > themes separately. And we'll see how this works out. If it bombs, > > > > > > > well, we tried. If it rocks, then we'll consider doing it again!
> > > > > > > Have a great week everyone, and we'll look forward to seeing your > > > > > > > questions here.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> > > > > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
> What duplicate content does cause is one copy of the content to be > used in the index, and the other to be sent to supplementals (usually) > - if you've copied the 'duplicate content' from another site, then > most often you'll find your content ends up in the supps (unless > you're an evil proxy spammer).
And if you want to avoid that problem, Google provides a whole raft of ways that you can guide Google to the copy you want indexed -
Alternatively, if you're wanting to duplicate content over and over again within a site, but you don't want google to think you're trying to spam it with stuffed text, another great way is to either encode that section of your content as javascript (might not work for ever) or use an iframe with the robots noindex meta tag. Same would be the case if you were duplicating content from another site and didn't want Google to think you were trying to thieve it.
> Duplicate content doesn't cause a 'penalty' per-se - that's been said > repeatedly here and elsewhere by Googlers.
> What duplicate content does cause is one copy of the content to be > used in the index, and the other to be sent to supplementals (usually) > - if you've copied the 'duplicate content' from another site, then > most often you'll find your content ends up in the supps (unless > you're an evil proxy spammer).
> What you are talking about is a particular phrase or paragraph > repeated over and over and over again WITHIN A SITE. Whether it's a > phrase or a keyword - my feeling is the same - that's not duplicate > content. That's keyword stuffing or repeated text if you want to put > it another way. On that topic, Wysz's answer is probably what you're > after -http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> If what you are actually asking is what proportion of a page can be > repeated elsewhere without deprecating the originality of your page in > the eyes of google goes to the heart of their algorithm and I'd refer > back to SEO101's great statement:-
> "Dear Google
> I want to spam the hell out of your index and manipulate the search > ranking as much as I can. When I get notified exactly what and when I > get a penalty, I can just change that to just remain under the radar > scope until I push a little hard somewhere else. Thanks for notifying > me exactly what I am doing wrong, so I know exactly where the 'line in > the sand' is, so I can continue to manipulate so I get better rankings > than I really deserve by playing this game with you.
> A. Spammer "
> doc
> On Oct 3, 10:50 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > > rather than duplicate content.
> > No, not really. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
> > I am purely asking if a phrase is repeated across pages, when is it > > considered duplicate? For instance, someone might upload a photo and > > provide a long description to go with that. That photo could > > legitimately be used several places throughout a site and each time > > show the description, but people would have you believe that such > > repeats of content could cause a duplicate content penalty. So, my > > question really comes down to "what hoops does google want us to jump > > through to ensure that a phrase only occurs once on a site?"
> > Keyword stuffing has nothing to do with my question and is waaaaaaay > > off my radar as something to consider.
> > On Oct 3, 8:33 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > Daamsie - Sounds to me like you are chatting about keyword stuffing > > > rather than duplicate content.
> > > Cheers,
> > > doc
> > > On Oct 3, 12:26 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > > Apologies for the double post. Google Groups was apparently "not > > > > responding" .. typical Google. ;)
> > > > On Oct 3, 12:20 am, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
> > > > > Lol :)
> > > > > In seriousness though.. my question is not entirely in jest. How long > > > > > does a phrase have to be before you can't repeat it across your > > > > > pages?
> > > > > For instance, I would assume "Copyright MyCompany 2007" is OK to > > > > > appear on all your pages. However maybe the phrase
> > > > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered > > > > > trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c) > > > > > (3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
> > > > > repeated millions of times could be considered duplicate content.
> > > > > So, where is the line drawn? 50 words, 100 words? Or is internal > > > > > duplication just not an issue?
> > > > > On Oct 2, 10:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > > On 2 oct, 07:41, daamsie wrote:
> > > > > > > Here's one..
> > > > > > > If I write "communicating with Google is like talking to a brick wall" > > > > > > > in 100 places on my website, would that be considered duplicate > > > > > > > content?
> > > > > > No, that would just be considered plain spamming. :)
