Is this a duplicated content?
-
I have an e-commerce website and a separated blog hosted on different domains.
I post an article on my blog domain weekly. And I copy the 1st paragraph (sometimes only part of it when it's too long) of the article to my home page and a sub-catalog page. And then append it by anchor text "...more" which linked to the article.
1. Is that digest (1st paragraph) on my e-commerce site deemed as duplicated content by Google? Any suggestion?
2. In the future if I move the blog under the e-commerce website would it make any different with regards to this issue?
Thanks for your help!
-
While the blog format of showing a snippet with "read more" links is commonplace and perfectly acceptable, I would argue that it DOES matter whether the blog is on your domain or not. It would be better to have it on your domain. You don't want to seem like you're trying to beef up the content on your product and category pages by simply pulling in someone else's RSS feed snippets.
The longer you wait to move your blog over to your main domain the more difficult it will be. I would do this sooner rather than later.
-
Just as an afterthought, a slightly related issue... linking between your related blog and your ecomm sites shouldn't be any concern, unless you're dealing with several sites ("several", as in a LOT) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0-jw_PfwtY
-
1. I agree with Simon, and Matt C. did one of his videos in May of 2011, where he stated that excerpts, linking to the entire post is perfectly acceptable. He also said he does it on his own blog (and he still does).
2. I can't see that it would make any difference at all.
-
I would suggest that this isn't really an issue so long as you only place a small snippet (such as the first paragraph) of the post on your e-commerce site. Just think how many blogs work - they will have a main blog page which usually contains the first few lines of each post with a link to take you to view each of the individual posts.
Take a look at Rand's blog for example http://moz.com/rand/
Here you will find snippets of each blog post but then a link to view the entire post on it's own URL. This isn't really considered duplicate because only a small portion of each blog post is present on the main blog page itself. The same applies in your case, even though they are on different domains.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How do i check content is fresh or duplicate?
Hello there, As per google we need Fresh content For our website, i have content writer, but if i want to check it is duplicate before Submitting any where , Then How can i check ?? please any body let me know. Thanks,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | poojaverify060 -
Content Regurgitators
Hey, There are few websites such as http://bestthenews.com/ which regularly copy and paste articles from one of our sites onto theirs - along with all the links back to our site. The sites don't have a high spam score - but I cant imagine these sites serve any purpose (ie genuine readership) other than trying to boost their traffic. At the moment we haven't done anything about these, as they are backlinks after all - but could these sites have a negative impact and should we be asking them to remove? We have even had our content copied and pasted by AGDA (Australian Graphic Design Association) - which is OK as the site has great authority so the links are good, however it's still strange that a large reputable organization would just copy and paste articles without notifying us. Curious to here other experience / opinions on the matter. Cheers!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | wearehappymedia1 -
Separating the syndicated content because of Google News
Dear MozPeople, I am just working on rebuilding a structure of the "news" website. For some reasons, we need to keep syndicated content on the site. But at the same time, we would like to apply for google news again (we have been accepted in the past but got kicked out because of the duplicate content). So I am facing the challenge of separating the Original content from Syndicated as requested by google. But I am not sure which one is better: *A) Put all syndicated content into "/syndicated/" and then Disallow /syndicated/ in robots.txt and set NOINDEX meta on every page. **But in this case, I am not sure, what will happen if we will link to these articles from the other parts of the website. We will waste our link juice, right? Also, google will not crawl these pages, so he will not know about no indexing. Is this OK for google and google news? **B) NOINDEX meta on every page. **Google will crawl these pages, but will not show them in the results. We will still loose our link juice from links pointing to these pages, right? So ... is there any difference? And we should try to put "nofollow" attribute to all the links pointing to the syndicated pages, right? Is there anything else important? This is the first time I am making this kind of "hack" so I am exactly sure what to do and how to proceed. Thank you!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Lukas_TheCurious1 -
Cross Domain Duplicate Content
Hi, We want create 2 company websites and each to be targeted specific to different countries. The 2 countries are Australia and New Zealand. We have acquired 2 domains, company.com.au and company.co.nz . We want to do it like this and not use different hreflang on the same version for maximum ranking results in each country (correct?). Since both websites will be in English, inevitably some page are going to be the same. Are we facing any danger of duplicate content between the two sites, and if we do is there any solution for that? Thank you for your help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tz_Seo0 -
Does Duplicate Content Actually "Penalize" a Domain?
Hi all, Some co-workers and myself were in a conversation this afternoon regarding if duplicate content actually causes a penalty on your domain. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359?hl=en http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-duplicate-content-wont-hurt-you-unless-it-is-spammy-167459 Both sources from Google do not say "duplicate content causes a penalty." However, they do allude to spammy content negatively affecting a website. Why it came up: We originally were talking about syndicated content (same content across multiple domains; ex: "5 explanations of bad breath") for the purpose of social media sharing. Imagine if dentists across the nation had access to this piece of content (5 explanations of bad breath) simply for engagement with their audience. They would use this to post on social media & to talk about in the office. But they would not want to rank for that piece of duplicated content. This type of duplicated content would be valuable to dentists in different cities that need engagement with their audience or simply need the content. This is all hypothetical but serious at the same time. I would love some feedback & sourced information / case studies. Is duplicated content actually penalized or will that piece of content just not rank? (feel free to reference that example article as a real world example). **When I say penalized, I mean "the domain is given a negative penalty for showing up in SERPS" - therefore, the website would not rank for "dentists in san francisco, ca". That is my definition of penalty (feel free to correct if you disagree). Thanks all & look forward to a fun, resourceful conversation on duplicate content for the other purposes outside of SEO. Cole
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
What are your views on recent statements regarding "advertorial" content?
Hi, Recently, there's been a lot said and written about how Google is going to come down hard on 'advertorial' content. Many B2B publishers provide exposure to their clients by creating and publishing content about them -----based on information/ content obtained from clients (for example, in the form of press releases) or compiled by the publisher. From a target audience/ user perspective, this is useful information that the publication is bringing to its audience. Also, let's say the publishers don't link directly to client websites. In such a case, how do you think Google is likely to look at publisher websites in the context of the recent statements related to 'advertorial' type content? Look forward to views of the Moz community. Thanks, Manoj
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ontarget-media0 -
Does posting a source to the original content avoid duplicate content risk?
A site I work with allows registered user to post blog posts (longer articles). Often, the blog posts have been published earlier on the writer's own blog. Is posting a link to the original source a sufficient preventative solution to possibly getting dinged for duplicate content? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 945010 -
My attempt to reduce duplicate content got me slapped with a doorway page penalty. Halp!
On Friday, 4/29, we noticed that we suddenly lost all rankings for all of our keywords, including searches like "bbq guys". This indicated to us that we are being penalized for something. We immediately went through the list of things that changed, and the most obvious is that we were migrating domains. On Thursday, we turned off one of our older sites, http://www.thegrillstoreandmore.com/, and 301 redirected each page on it to the same page on bbqguys.com. Our intent was to eliminate duplicate content issues. When we realized that something bad was happening, we immediately turned off the redirects and put thegrillstoreandmore.com back online. This did not unpenalize bbqguys. We've been looking for things for two days, and have not been able to find what we did wrong, at least not until tonight. I just logged back in to webmaster tools to do some more digging, and I saw that I had a new message. "Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected doorway pages on http://www.bbqguys.com/" It is my understanding that doorway pages are pages jammed with keywords and links and devoid of any real content. We don't do those pages. The message does link me to Google's definition of doorway pages, but it does not give me a list of pages on my site that it does not like. If I could even see one or two pages, I could probably figure out what I am doing wrong. I find this most shocking since we go out of our way to try not to do anything spammy or sneaky. Since we try hard not to do anything that is even grey hat, I have no idea what could possibly have triggered this message and the penalty. Does anyone know how to go about figuring out what pages specifically are causing the problem so I can change them or take them down? We are slowly canonical-izing urls and changing the way different parts of the sites build links to make them all the same, and I am aware that these things need work. We were in the process of discontinuing some sites and 301 redirecting pages to a more centralized location to try to stop duplicate content. The day after we instituted the 301 redirects, the site we were redirecting all of the traffic to (the main site) got blacklisted. Because of this, we immediately took down the 301 redirects. Since the webmaster tools notifications are different (ie: too many urls is a notice level message and doorway pages is a separate alert level message), and the too many urls has been triggering for a while now, I am guessing that the doorway pages problem has nothing to do with url structure. According to the help files, doorway pages is a content problem with a specific page. The architecture suggestions are helpful and they reassure us they we should be working on them, but they don't help me solve my immediate problem. I would really be thankful for any help we could get identifying the pages that Google thinks are "doorway pages", since this is what I am getting immediately and severely penalized for. I want to stop doing whatever it is I am doing wrong, I just don't know what it is! Thanks for any help identifying the problem! It feels like we got penalized for trying to do what we think Google wants. If we could figure out what a "doorway page" is, and how our 301 redirects triggered Googlebot into saying we have them, we could more appropriately reduce duplicate content. As it stands now, we are not sure what we did wrong. We know we have duplicate content issues, but we also thought we were following webmaster guidelines on how to reduce the problem and we got nailed almost immediately when we instituted the 301 redirects.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CoreyTisdale0