Is Syndicated (Duplicate) Content considered Fresh Content?
-
Hi all,
I've been asking quite a bit of questions lately and sincerely appreciate your feedback. My co-workers & I have been discussing content as an avenue outside of SEO. There is a lot of syndicated content programs/plugins out there (in a lot of cases duplicate) - would this be considered fresh content on an individual domain?
An example may clearly show what I'm after:
domain1.com is a lawyer in Seattle.
domain2.com is a lawyer in New York.Both need content on their website relating to being a lawyer for Google to understand what the domain is about. Fresh content is also a factor within Google's algorithm (source: http://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor). Therefore, fresh content is needed on their domain. But what if that content is duplicate, does it still hold the same value?
Question: Is fresh content (adding new / updating existing content) still considered "fresh" even if it's duplicate (across multiple domains).
Purpose: domain1.com may benefit from a resource for his/her local clientale as the same would domain2.com. And both customers would be reading the "duplicate content" for the first time. Therefore, both lawyers will be seen as an authority & improve their website to rank well.
We weren't interested in ranking the individual article and are aware of canonical URLs. We aren't implementing this as a strategy - just as a means to really understand content marketing outside of SEO.
Conclusion: IF duplicate content is still considered fresh content on an individual domain, then couldn't duplicate content (that obviously won't rank) still help SEO across a domain? This may sound controversial & I desire an open-ended discussion with linked sources / case studies. This conversation may tie into another Q&A I posted: http://moz.com/community/q/does-duplicate-content-actually-penalize-a-domain.
TLDR version: Is duplicate content (same article across multiple domains) considered fresh content on an individual domain?
Thanks so much,
Cole
-
Hi all,
Thanks for the responses & feedback.
Alan, in this example, the fresh content would be relevant. Of course there are search queries that don't need freshness or updates, but I would argue most do need updates / freshness (even the ones we think we know the answer to over time).Once again, the conversation is not about RANKING for that page but about HELPING the domain achieve "freshness & relevance" around a topic with that duplicate content.
Would love to see others chime in.
Thanks,
Cole
-
Well that could mean that some don't need any.
Like
Q. Who discovered Australia, A. Captain Cook.
This does not need freshness.Also consider being original content, in that case the timestamp being older would be better.
I like to think that I own google, and say to myself would I rank it? of cause some things may rank that were not intended to, but I think its quite safe to think that way.
-
This was the part that triggered me:
"Google Fellow Amit Singhal explains that “Dif__ferent searches have different freshness needs.”
The implication is that Google measures all of your documents for freshness, then scores each page according to the type of search query."
-
Had a quick look at that page, did not see that it affects all pages. Anyhow google said 35% of queries, so could not be all pages.
Some points- Why would fresh data be excluded from duplicate content?
- Is it likely that syndicated data is fresh?
- What are google trying to do here, rank syndicated duplicate data?
I cant see it working
-
Thanks a lot! Kinda made me realize I really should read some more about this update. Might be off topic, but what's your view on freshness applied to **all **pages. In this Whiteboard Friday its stated it only impacts the terms you describe:
http://moz.com/blog/googles-freshness-update-whiteboard-friday
But in this blogpost of that time (before the sum up) it’s stated that it’s applied to all pages, but does affect search queries in different ways:
-
Yes, freshness update was not for all queries, it was for certain queries that need fresh content such as football scores, or whose on the team this week, obviously we don't want the score from last year or who is playing last year we want the current data, that is where the freshness update may give you a boost while your content is fresh. Having syndicated content I cant see falling into this category, even if it did, being duplicate content would mean that only once source is going to rank.
Also you have to look at indexing, will the duplicate content even be indexed? if so how often.
That's why I say the short answer is no.
-
Hi Alan,
Is there any source / own research that can back up this answer?
Would love to read more about this subject!
-
Short answer, NO
-
Thanks for your feedback Mike - definitely helpful!
In this hypothetical, we're looking at research or comprehensive articles for specific niches that could serve multiple businesses well as an authority.
Thanks,
Cole
-
Hi Cole,
Fresh by Google (if not noindexed) in this case would be kind of like the freshness value of a "fresh" error.
Maybe that's extreme, but point being, the content is not needed by the web, since it already exists. If there was absolutely nothing else being added to or changed about the site and my one option was adding duplicate content, I'd noindex/follow it and figure I might have gotten some small, small, small benefit from updating the site a little, maybe an improved user signal. I'd for sure keep it out of the index. I guess that's how I'd do it, if it had some value for visitors. If it's only value was adding something fresh and not that great for visitors, I'd find the extra hour necessary to re-write it into something fresh, unique and valued by visitors. .
The other thing about syndicated content is that after you make sure where else you can find it on the web via an exact phrase search in Google, it may not mean you've seen the only instance of it as it may evolve. Having duplicate content indexed with other sites of possibly low quality may put you in a bad neighborhood as sites with common content. If I had a ten foot pole, I wouldn't touch it with it.
I hope that helps. Best... Mike
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the feedback. That was one potential point I was making.
Am still curious if duplicate content would be considered "fresh" within a website. Good point of the duplicate content overriding the benefit of fresh content.
Thanks,
Cole
-
In phrasing the question as "is it considered fresh/unique," I'm going to assume you mean by google for the site's organic benefit. So, I guess the reasoning would be is the fact that it's fresh to the site a bigger positive than the negative of duplicate content. Is that what you're getting at? Personally, knowingly on-boarding duplicate content would be too big of a potential negative for me to consider doing it. I've done it as a noindex/follow for reasons other than Google, but not for some mystery freshness bump.
Not that you can't find examples of duplicate content ranking in more than one place. To me on-boarding indexed duplicate content seems like just asking for trouble.
Hope that helps. Best... Mike
-
I'm curious to see what others have to say on this, but I've always assumed that "fresh" and "unique" go hand in hand when it comes to website content. Therefore, duplicate content would not be fresh content.
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
-
Would this be duplicate content or bad SEO?
Hi Guys, We have a blog for our e-commerce store. We have a full-time in-house writer producing content. As part of our process, we do content briefs, and as part of the brief we analyze competing pieces of content existing on the web. Most of the time, the sources are large publications (i.e HGTV, elledecor, apartmenttherapy, Housebeautiful, NY Times, etc.). The analysis is basically a summary/breakdown of the article, and is sometimes 2-3 paragraphs long for longer pieces of content. The competing content analysis is used to create an outline of our article, and incorporates most important details/facts from competing pieces, but not all. Most of our articles run 1500-3000 words. Here are the questions: Would it be considered duplicate content, or bad SEO practice, if we list sources/links we used at the bottom of our blog post, with the summary from our content brief? Could this be beneficial as far as SEO? If we do this, should be nofollow the links, or use regular dofollow links? For example: For your convenience, here are some articles we found helpful, along with brief summaries: <summary>I want to use as much of the content that we have spent time on. TIA</summary>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | kekepeche1 -
Help finding website content scraping
Hi, I need a tool to help me review sites that are plagiarising / directly copying content from my site. But tools that I'm aware, such as Copyscape, appear to work with individual URLs and not a root domain. That's great if you have a particular post or page you want to check. But in this case, some sites are scraping 1000s of product pages. So I need to submit the root domain rather than an individual URL. In some cases, other sites are being listed in SERPs above or even instead of our site for product search terms. But so far I have stumbled across this, rather than proactively researched offending sites. So I want to insert my root domain & then for the tool to review all my internal site pages before providing information on other domains where an individual page has a certain amount of duplicated copy. Working in the same way as Moz crawls the site for internal duplicate pages - I need a list of duplicate content by domain & URL, externally that I can then contact the offending sites to request they remove the content and send to Google as evidence, if they don't. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Terry
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MFCommunications0 -
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 -
Removing duplicated content using only the NOINDEX in large scale (80% of the website).
Hi everyone, I am taking care of the large "news" website (500k pages), which got massive hit from Panda because of the duplicated content (70% was syndicated content). I recommended that all syndicated content should be removed and the website should focus on original, high quallity content. However, this was implemented only partially. All syndicated content is set to NOINDEX (they thing that it is good for user to see standard news + original HQ content). Of course it didn't help at all. No change after months. If I would be Google, I would definitely penalize website that has 80% of the content set to NOINDEX a it is duplicated. I would consider this site "cheating" and not worthy for the user. What do you think about this "theory"? What would you do? Thank you for your help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Lukas_TheCurious0 -
On-site duplication working - not penalised - any ideas?
I've noticed a website that has been set up with many virtually identical pages. For example many of them have the same content (minimal text, three video clips) and only the town name varies. Surely this is something that Google would be against? However the site is consistently ranking near the top of Google page 1, e.g. http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-guildford.html for "magician Guildford", http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-ascot.html for "magician Ascot" and so on (even when searching without localisation or personalisation). For years I've heard SEO experts say that this sort of thing is frowned on and that they will get penalised, but it never seems to happen. I guess there must be some other reason that this site is ranked highly - any ideas? The content is massively duplicated and the blog hasn't been updated since 2012 but it is ranking above many established older sites that have lots of varied content, good quality backlinks and regular updates. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MagicianUK0 -
Can I Point Multiple Exact Match Domains to a Primary Domain? (Avoiding Duplicate Content)
For example, lets say I have these 3 domains: product1.com product2.com product.com The first 2 domains will have very similar text content, with different products. The product.com domain will be similar content, with all of the products in one place. Transactions would be handled through the Primary domain (product.com) The purpose of this would be to capitalize on the Exact match domain opportunities. I found this seemingly old article: http://www.thesitewizard.com/domain/point-multiple-domains-one-website.shtml The article states that you can avoid duplicate content issues, and have all links attributed to the Primary domain. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible? Is there a better way of approaching this while still taking advantage of the EMD?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ClearVisionDesign0 -
DIV Attribute containing full DIV content
Hi all I recently watched the latest Mozinar called "Making Your Site Audits More Actionable". It was presented by the guys at seogadget. In the mozinar one of the guys said he loves the website www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk and that they have spent a lot of money on it from an SEO point of view (presumably with seogadget) so I decided to look through the source and noticed something I had not seen before and wondered if anyone can shed any light. On this page (http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorcycle_parts/content_cat/852/(2;product_rating;DESC;0-0;all;92)/page_1/max_20) there is a paragraph of text that begins with 'The ever reliable UK weather...' and when you via the source of the containing DIV you will notice a bespoke attribute called "threedots=" and within it, is the entire text content for that DIV. Any thoughts as to why they would put that there? I can't see any reason as to why this would benefit a site in any shape or form. Its invalid markup for one. Am I missing a trick..? Thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Kris P.S. for those who can't be bothered to visit the site, here is a smaller version of what they have done: This is an introductory paragraph of text for this page.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | yousayjump0 -
Syndicated content outperforming our hard work!
Our company (FindMyAccident) is an accident news site. Our goal is to roll our reporting out to all 50 states; currently, we operate full-time in 7 states. To date, the largest expenditure is our writing staff. We hire professional
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Wayne76
journalists who work with police departments and other sources to develop written
content and video for our site. Our visitors also contribute stories and/or
tips that add to the content on our domain. In short, our content/media is 100% original. A site that often appears alongside us in the SERPs in the markets where we work full-time is accidentin.com. They are a site that syndicates accident news and offers little original content. (They also allow users to submit their own accident stories, and the entries index quickly and are sometimes viewed by hundreds of people in the same day. What's perplexing is that these entries are isolated incidents that have little to no media value, yet they do extremely well.) (I don't rest my bets with Quantcast figures, but accidentin does use their pixel sourcing and the figures indicate that they are receiving up to 80k visitors a day in some instances.) I understand that it's common to see news sites syndicate from the AP, etc., and traffic accident news is not going to have a lot of competition (in most instances), but the real shocker is that accidentin will sometimes appear as the first or second result above the original sources??? The question: does anyone have a guess as to what is making it perform so well? Are they bound to fade away? While looking at their model, I'm wondering if we're not silly to syndicate news in the states where we don't have actual staff? It would seem we could attract more traffic by setting up syndication in our vacant states. OR Is our competitor's site bound to fade away? Thanks, gang, hope all of you have a great 2013! Wayne0