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 -
Is RSS feed syndication an effective link building strategy? Has anyone used it and had success?
This process was recommended to us and I am having trouble understanding exactly how it works. Does this type of link building directly benefit your site or is it an indirect process? Also, can you be penalized for republishing someone's content on your feed?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | marketingdepartment.ch0 -
Competitors with duplicate sites for backlinks
Hello all, In the last few months, my company has seen some keywords we historically rank well for fall off the first page, and there are a couple competitors that have appeared that use backlinks from seemingly the same site. For fairness, our site has slow page load speeds that we are working on changing, as well as not being mobile friendly yet. The sites that are ranking are mobile friendly and load fast, but we have heaps of other words still ranking well, and I'm more curious about this methodology. For example, these two pages: http://whiteboards.com.au/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JustinBSLW
http://www.glasswhiteboards.com.au/ In OSE, glasswhiteboards has the majority of links from whiteboards, and the content between the sites is the same. My page has higher domain authority & page authority, but less backlinks. However, if you take away the backlinks from the duplicate site, they are the same. Isn't this type of content supposed to be flagged? My question is about whether this kind of similar site on different domains is a good idea to build links, as all my research shows that it's poor in the long run, but it seems to be working with these guys. Another group of sites that has been killing us uses this same method, with multiple sites that look the same that all link to each other to build up backlinks. These sites do have different content. It seems instead of building different categories within their own site, they have purchased multiple domains that act as their categories. Here's just a few: http://www.lockablenoticeboards.com.au/
http://www.snapperframes.com/
http://www.snapperdisplay.com.au/
http://www.light-box.com.au/
http://www.a-frame-signs.com.au/
http://www.posterhangers.com.au/0 -
Top authors for ecommerce content
Hello, What are some tips that you recommend for someone looking to hire an expert to write or consult in a piece of content. It's as general a keyword as our niche has and it's the only keyword that's actually inside the niche that has any decent level of backlinks. We're considering searching out an expert in our field that knows more about the subject than our people do even though our people are knowledgable. Trying to come from authority. Your recommendations in the process of coming up with a great piece of content from a good authority?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Spam report duplicate images
Should i do a spam report if a site competitor as copied my clinical cases images and placed as their own clinical cases. That site also does not have privacy policy or medical doctor on that images. My site: http://www.propdental.es/carillas-de-porcelana/
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Duplicate content or not? If you're using abstracts from external sources you link to
I was wondering if a page (a blog post, for example) that offers links to external web pages along with abstracts from these pages would be considered duplicate content page and therefore penalized by Google. For example, I have a page that has very little original content (just two or three sentences that summarize or sometimes frame the topic) followed by five references to different external sources. Each reference contains a title, which is a link, and a short abstract, which basically is the first few sentences copied from the page it links to. So, except from a few sentences in the beginning everything is copied from other pages. Such a page would be very helpful for people interested in the topic as the sources it links to had been analyzed before, handpicked and were placed there to enhance user experience. But will this format be considered duplicate or near-duplicate content?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | romanbond0 -
Multiple domains different content same keywords
what would you advice on my case: It is bad for google if i have the four domains. I dont link between them as i dont want no association, or loss in rakings in branded page. Is bad if i link between them or the non branded to them branded domain. Is bad if i have all on my webmaster tools, i just have the branded My google page is all about the new non penalized domain. altough google gave a unique domain +propdental to the one that he manually penalized. (doesn't make sense) So. What are the thinks that i should not do with my domain to follow and respect google guidelines. As i want a white hat and do not do something that is wrong without knowledge
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Duplicate Content due to Panda update!
I can see that a lot of you are worrying about this new Panda update just as I am! I have such a headache trying to figure this one out, can any of you help me? I have thousands of pages that are "duplicate content" which I just can't for the life of me see how... take these two for example: http://www.eteach.com/Employer.aspx?EmpNo=18753 http://www.eteach.com/Employer.aspx?EmpNo=31241 My campaign crawler is telling me these are duplicate content pages because of the same title (which that I can see) and because of the content (which I can't see). Can anyone see how Google is interpreting these two pages as duplicate content?? Stupid Panda!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eteach_Marketing0