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.) Wikipediaź 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.) Wikipediaź 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.) Wikipediaź 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.) Wikipediaź 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 -
dockarl, I fully appreciate your answer to my question (though what I'm really after is an answer from a Googler, considering that is the intention of this thread). With all respect, I don't find your answer entirely satisfactory either.
Keyword stuffing is different by my definition - it is the overuse of the same phrase within a single page. That's not what I'm describing. I'm describing a legitimate use of duplicate content across a site, as is commonly found in footers for instance. Sometimes these footers can have SEO benefits of their own, if they happen to use (legitimately) some decent keywords. If I choose to say "One of the best travel sites online - CNN" at the bottom of my site, is that spam? It's SEO'ish, but it's certainly not an unreasonable thing to have on every page of a site.
My question is also directly a result of being told by members on this group that removing internal duplicate content may be a way for our site to get rid of the penalty it has been dealt. So, clearly *some people* do believe that it can cause a penalty.
I fully appreciate that Google doesn't want to reveal all its spam filtering secrets. But I also believe that if Google takes away traffic from a high-quality, on-topic site and is unwilling to communicate, in even the most basic ways, than that is not fair business practice. Our site is by no-one's measure spam, so I resent being compared to spammers.
> > 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.
> doc
> On Oct 3, 2:51 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > 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.) Wikipediaź 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 -
> 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.
No, it is not only my opinion. If it were an opinion I would have said so.
What I wrote is based on what has been said, one way or another, by numerous Google employees and although it might have just been their opinion, I would value their opinion at least slightly higher than someone on the outside that is just guessing.
Are any of the others who make the claim that a "duplicate content penalty" exists Google employees?
Thought not. ;-)
On the other hand, Google employees, "Vanessa Fox" to name one, have actually stated that there is no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty".
Hint, there is some quoted text in the previous sentence that you can use in a Google search to get it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. "Seek and ye shall find." ;-)
On that note, why should Googlers here in this forum answer questions that have been answered by Googlers numerous times and in numerous ways?
Things change over time and what was said yesterday may no longer be true today. I think all questions posed in this thread are valid, just because some regular read an answer to a question back in 2004 doesn't mean it still isn't valid as a question to pose today and want an answer to. If anything, that just shows to Google that perhaps they need to update their official response area (webmaster help center) with that answer so that all webmasters, not just the few hundred that post here, have a fair shot at reading it.
With regards to the actual thread at hand, we're about 4 days away from the two week mark at which time Google has committed to answer 5 questions posed here. Since Google is making this unusual gesture to communicate with us, perhaps we should do the unusual too, and all come together and agree on the 5 questions we'd like to see answered by Google. We've got a few days to seive out all the real questions here and then see for ourselves if they've been answered or not elsewhere. That will leave a few questions that have never been answered and that we REALLY want an answer to. We then come together as a group and post those 5 questions here together. Of course Google might not choose to answer those 5 questions, but that would be going against us, the users, and from Google's own goals we know that the users are their main priority. So either they shoot their company objectives in the foot, or they see this is a great opportunity to really help out.
What do you say? I'm willing to put some time into going through this thread and picking out the questions, without the fluff and then starting a new thread where we get together to decide on the final 5 before putting to the G'plex. Who's on board - it's 4 days to d-day, or should I say G-day? :)
> > 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.
> No, it is not only my opinion. If it were an opinion I would have > said so.
> What I wrote is based on what has been said, one way or another, by > numerous Google employees and although it might have just been their > opinion, I would value their opinion at least slightly higher than > someone on the outside that is just guessing.
> Are any of the others who make the claim that a "duplicate content > penalty" exists Google employees?
> Thought not. ;-)
> On the other hand, Google employees, "Vanessa Fox" to name one, have > actually stated that there is no such thing as a "duplicate content > penalty".
> Hint, there is some quoted text in the previous sentence that you can > use in a Google search to get it straight from the horses mouth, so to > speak. "Seek and ye shall find." ;-)
> On that note, why should Googlers here in this forum answer questions > that have been answered by Googlers numerous times and in numerous > ways?
> What do you say? I'm willing to put some time into going through this > thread and picking out the questions, without the fluff and then > starting a new thread where we get together to decide on the final 5 > before putting to the G'plex. Who's on board - it's 4 days to d-day, > or should I say G-day? :)
> Things change over time and what was said yesterday may no longer be > true today. I think all questions posed in this thread are valid, just > because some regular read an answer to a question back in 2004 doesn't > mean it still isn't valid as a question to pose today and want an > answer to. If anything, that just shows to Google that perhaps they > need to update their official response area (webmaster help center) > with that answer so that all webmasters, not just the few hundred that > post here, have a fair shot at reading it.
> With regards to the actual thread at hand, we're about 4 days away > from the two week mark at which time Google has committed to answer 5 > questions posed here. Since Google is making this unusual gesture to > communicate with us, perhaps we should do the unusual too, and all > come together and agree on the 5 questions we'd like to see answered > by Google. We've got a few days to seive out all the real questions > here and then see for ourselves if they've been answered or not > elsewhere. That will leave a few questions that have never been > answered and that we REALLY want an answer to. We then come together > as a group and post those 5 questions here together. Of course Google > might not choose to answer those 5 questions, but that would be going > against us, the users, and from Google's own goals we know that the > users are their main priority. So either they shoot their company > objectives in the foot, or they see this is a great opportunity to > really help out.
> What do you say? I'm willing to put some time into going through this > thread and picking out the questions, without the fluff and then > starting a new thread where we get together to decide on the final 5 > before putting to the G'plex. Who's on board - it's 4 days to d-day, > or should I say G-day? :)
> On Oct 3, 9:55 am, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > 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.
> > No, it is not only my opinion. If it were an opinion I would have > > said so.
> > What I wrote is based on what has been said, one way or another, by > > numerous Google employees and although it might have just been their > > opinion, I would value their opinion at least slightly higher than > > someone on the outside that is just guessing.
> > Are any of the others who make the claim that a "duplicate content > > penalty" exists Google employees?
> > Thought not. ;-)
> > On the other hand, Google employees, "Vanessa Fox" to name one, have > > actually stated that there is no such thing as a "duplicate content > > penalty".
> > Hint, there is some quoted text in the previous sentence that you can > > use in a Google search to get it straight from the horses mouth, so to > > speak. "Seek and ye shall find." ;-)
> > On that note, why should Googlers here in this forum answer questions > > that have been answered by Googlers numerous times and in numerous > > ways?
> "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated millions of times'.
After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of -459.67°F.
That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page miraculously come out of the supps.
Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've outlined.
Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - particularly if they're across the whole site.
Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for all of us if G started handing out specific information about those kinds of topics.
Ok guys. I'm convinced. I wish you had pointed me to this thread, http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_..., which pretty much lays that theory to bed. Even though it is a year old, it is not really likely to have changed much from what I can see. Then again, our penalty was only dished out in the last 6 months, so *something* at Google changed since last year!
I suppose I've become very sceptical of unofficial responses on these topics, because I've really been confronted with some absolute garbage reasoning in this forum in the past (not from you guys mind you..)
I wish I could run your test btw, but with 80% of our pages already on the last page of results, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any way of telling the difference ;) No matter how good or unique the content of our pages, Google just plain doesn't think they are worthwhile. Shame that.
> > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
> Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're > talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated > millions of times'.
> After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than > us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my > original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer > that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of > -459.67°F.
> That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of > us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information > because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
> Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this > forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
> Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
> Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash > them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page > miraculously come out of the supps.
> Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger > whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
> If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the > algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell > google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've > outlined.
> Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - > particularly if they're across the whole site.
> Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs > to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes > you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' > content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it > yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
> And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's > cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 > because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for > all of us if G started handing out specific information about those > kinds of topics.
Ok guys. I'm convinced. I wish you had pointed me to this thread, http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_..., which pretty much lays that theory to bed. Even though it is a year old, it is not really likely to have changed much from what I can see. Then again, our penalty was only dished out in the last 6 months, so *something* at Google changed since last year!
I suppose I've become very sceptical of unofficial responses on these topics, because I've really been confronted with some absolute garbage reasoning in this forum in the past (not from you guys mind you..)
I wish I could run your test btw, but with 80% of our pages already on the last page of results, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any way of telling the difference ;) No matter how good or unique the content of our pages, Google just plain doesn't think they are worthwhile. Shame that.
> > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
> Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're > talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated > millions of times'.
> After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than > us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my > original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer > that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of > -459.67°F.
> That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of > us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information > because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
> Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this > forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
> Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
> Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash > them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page > miraculously come out of the supps.
> Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger > whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
> If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the > algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell > google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've > outlined.
> Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - > particularly if they're across the whole site.
> Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs > to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes > you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' > content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it > yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
> And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's > cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 > because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for > all of us if G started handing out specific information about those > kinds of topics.
Argh.. double post. Not even sure how that happened.. but i've been getting a lot of strange messages from Google recently when trying to respond to things. My concise opinion of the google groups software: "frustrating".
> Ok guys. I'm convinced. I wish you had pointed me to this thread,http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_..., > which pretty much lays that theory to bed. Even though it is a year > old, it is not really likely to have changed much from what I can see. > Then again, our penalty was only dished out in the last 6 months, so > *something* at Google changed since last year!
> I suppose I've become very sceptical of unofficial responses on these > topics, because I've really been confronted with some absolute garbage > reasoning in this forum in the past (not from you guys mind you..)
> I wish I could run your test btw, but with 80% of our pages already on > the last page of results, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any way of > telling the difference ;) No matter how good or unique the content of > our pages, Google just plain doesn't think they are worthwhile. Shame > that.
> The search goes on.
> On Oct 3, 8:24 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
> > Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're > > talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated > > millions of times'.
> > After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than > > us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my > > original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer > > that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of > > -459.67°F.
> > That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of > > us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information > > because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
> > Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this > > forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
> > Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
> > Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash > > them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page > > miraculously come out of the supps.
> > Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger > > whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
> > If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the > > algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell > > google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've > > outlined.
> > Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - > > particularly if they're across the whole site.
> > Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs > > to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes > > you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' > > content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it > > yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
> > And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's > > cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 > > because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for > > all of us if G started handing out specific information about those > > kinds of topics.
Watch out Daamsie with those double posts - that's duplicate content ;) By the way - just to prove that we don't believe everything we hear - I'm totally unconvinced by Adam's contention that dupes aren't a cause for pages entering the supps - I feel that more than PR dilution is involved there.
> Argh.. double post. Not even sure how that happened.. but i've been > getting a lot of strange messages from Google recently when trying to > respond to things. My concise opinion of the google groups software: > "frustrating".
> On Oct 3, 8:45 pm, daamsie wrote:
> > Ok guys. I'm convinced. I wish you had pointed me to this thread,http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_..., > > which pretty much lays that theory to bed. Even though it is a year > > old, it is not really likely to have changed much from what I can see. > > Then again, our penalty was only dished out in the last 6 months, so > > *something* at Google changed since last year!
> > I suppose I've become very sceptical of unofficial responses on these > > topics, because I've really been confronted with some absolute garbage > > reasoning in this forum in the past (not from you guys mind you..)
> > I wish I could run your test btw, but with 80% of our pages already on > > the last page of results, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any way of > > telling the difference ;) No matter how good or unique the content of > > our pages, Google just plain doesn't think they are worthwhile. Shame > > that.
> > The search goes on.
> > On Oct 3, 8:24 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
> > > Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're > > > talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated > > > millions of times'.
> > > After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than > > > us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my > > > original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer > > > that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of > > > -459.67°F.
> > > That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of > > > us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information > > > because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
> > > Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this > > > forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
> > > Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
> > > Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash > > > them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page > > > miraculously come out of the supps.
> > > Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger > > > whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
> > > If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the > > > algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell > > > google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've > > > outlined.
> > > Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - > > > particularly if they're across the whole site.
> > > Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs > > > to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes > > > you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' > > > content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it > > > yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
> > > And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's > > > cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 > > > because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for > > > all of us if G started handing out specific information about those > > > kinds of topics.
> Things change over time and what was said yesterday may no longer be > true today. I think all questions posed in this thread are valid, just > because some regular read an answer to a question back in 2004 doesn't > mean it still isn't valid as a question to pose today and want an > answer to.
Do you know when the answer I gave is from?
> That will leave a few questions that have never been > answered and that we REALLY want an answer to.
That works.
> Of course Google > might not choose to answer those 5 questions, but that would be going > against us, the users, and from Google's own goals we know that the > users are their main priority.
Or, that could be the way Google always has and always will operate, i.e. they won't answer questions that could reveal too much.
So, the five would have to consist of questions that : 1. Have not been answered already. 2. Are applicable to the most sites. 3. Are questions Google is likely to answer so that questions aren't wasted.
> Watch out Daamsie with those double posts - that's duplicate > content ;) By the way - just to prove that we don't believe everything > we hear - I'm totally unconvinced by Adam's contention that dupes > aren't a cause for pages entering the supps - I feel that more than PR > dilution is involved there.
> doc
> On Oct 3, 9:33 pm, daamsie wrote:> Argh.. double post. Not even sure how that happened.. but i've been > > getting a lot of strange messages from Google recently when trying to > > respond to things. My concise opinion of the google groups software: > > "frustrating".
> > On Oct 3, 8:45 pm, daamsie wrote:
> > > Ok guys. I'm convinced. I wish you had pointed me to this thread,http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_..., > > > which pretty much lays that theory to bed. Even though it is a year > > > old, it is not really likely to have changed much from what I can see. > > > Then again, our penalty was only dished out in the last 6 months, so > > > *something* at Google changed since last year!
> > > I suppose I've become very sceptical of unofficial responses on these > > > topics, because I've really been confronted with some absolute garbage > > > reasoning in this forum in the past (not from you guys mind you..)
> > > I wish I could run your test btw, but with 80% of our pages already on > > > the last page of results, I'm afraid there wouldn't be any way of > > > telling the difference ;) No matter how good or unique the content of > > > our pages, Google just plain doesn't think they are worthwhile. Shame > > > that.
> > > The search goes on.
> > > On Oct 3, 8:24 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > > > > "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation > > > > > License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipediaź 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.
> > > > Ah see it's the wording - as I said Daamsie, that SOUNDS like you're > > > > talking about keyword stuffing - particularly the words 'repeated > > > > millions of times'.
> > > > After a thorough reread I now understand your meaning, but other than > > > > us having a conflict of semantics - that doesn't change a thing in my > > > > original advice. I reckon your chances of getting an official answer > > > > that isn't vague on that one are somewhere around the vicinity of > > > > -459.67°F.
> > > > That's why Craig and I are having a shot at helping you - neither of > > > > us are dummies and we're not just regurgitating this information > > > > because Google has told us it's so - experience also counts.
> > > > Exercise Number 1 - take a few paragraphs from a recent post on this > > > > forum (since it's so heavily crawled) and place them on your website.
> > > > Watch that page on your site fall into the supps.
> > > > Excercise Number 2 - take same content, with the same words, and mash > > > > them all around. Wait until the next crawl. Watch the page > > > > miraculously come out of the supps.
> > > > Duplicate content doesn't cause a penalty, it just seems to trigger > > > > whatever it is that they use to determine the originality of a page.
> > > > If you're duplicating content across pages the cure is to a) trust the > > > > algorithm to find the 'right' copy (suprisingly effective) or b) tell > > > > google which is the right copy using one of the strategies we've > > > > outlined.
> > > > Don't worry about footer text / header text / copyrights - > > > > particularly if they're across the whole site.
> > > > Dupe content DOES NOT result in a penalty in the sense that one needs > > > > to ask for reinclusion to have it lifted - dupe content just causes > > > > you not to rank as well because your site doesn't provide 'unique' > > > > content. Solution? given above. If you're unconvinced, try it > > > > yourself. Proof is in the pudding and the cure is very rapid.
> > > > And please don't think I'm comparing you to a spammer Daamsie - let's > > > > cut off misunderstanding number 2 at the pass - I just quoted SEO101 > > > > because I think he concisely summed up why it would be dangerous for > > > > all of us if G started handing out specific information about those > > > > kinds of topics.
> I'm totally unconvinced by Adam's contention that dupes > aren't a cause for pages entering the supps - I feel that more than PR > dilution is involved there.
On the other hand, if there isn't sufficient PageRank to keep every page out of the Supplemental index, which would you rather have in the Supplemental index, a page which mainly contains duplicate content or a page with unique content on it?
This is all speculation of course, although with a bit of experimentation behind it but as you say, the proof is in da puddin'! :-)
"On the other hand, if there isn't sufficient PageRank to keep every page out of the Supplemental index, which would you rather have in the Supplemental index, a page which mainly contains duplicate content or a page with unique content on it?"
HA!!! Not at all Craig, I believe you are 100% correct! Just look at cached data for a website and you will observe a very efficient system. This is not to say that lack of pagerank is not the major hurdle for webmasters.
Not to be a jerk BUT I can see Google behind the scenes of this post debating how much new information they will provide to webmasters. ALL the questions within this post already had a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Please do let people know about good uses of the nofollow tag (if I can change anyones mind there), thanks!
> > I'm totally unconvinced by Adam's contention that dupes > > aren't a cause for pages entering the supps - I feel that more than PR > > dilution is involved there.
> On the other hand, if there isn't sufficient PageRank to keep every > page out of the Supplemental index, which would you rather have in the > Supplemental index, a page which mainly contains duplicate content or > a page with unique content on it?
> This is all speculation of course, although with a bit of > experimentation behind it but as you say, the proof is in da > puddin'! :-)
> 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!)
Given the request by Adam to not get into a in-depth discussion on each question, maybe people need to merely post their questions and limit the discussion of the questions. Not sure the Googlers are not going to want to sort through the threads to find the questions. Kerry
My suggestion for a question that has never had a conclusive answer yet won't jeopardize any of Google's "secret sauce"...
What are the plans and a tentative timetable for Webmaster Tools upgrades?
I would be most interested in things like, when can the Message center be counted on to notify one of a possible penalty and/or whatever else it was planned to be used for and, will there be something to help support the migration of an entire site from one domain to another or anything in the way of helping replace old URLs with new. Those are just examples and are not to be taken as separate questions. ;-)
Although it seems some people are not getting their displayed data updated that often, from what I have seen from my account is that the data is MUCH more timely than previously and if it is more up to date, my question would be, "What have you done for me lately and when do we get new toys?" :-)
