Does content have a shelf life for link building efforts?
-
Do you think that content (that doesn't have a date attached) has a shelf life? Especially content that is effectively timeless such as a quiz?
I've noticed in my link building efforts that most links are achieved within the first couple of weeks, and that there seems to be a point of diminishing returns. Why do you think that may be?
-
what causes it? There are new web sites popping up all the time. And existing sites are already out there with new content on those all the time as well.
While some content, specifically that classified as "evergreen" deserves to be found, the task of determining what older content deserves to remain high as compared to other content is extremely difficult - far from perfect.
-
What do you think causes the "freshness factor." Someone asked and I wasn't sure how best to explain it. Thanks!
-
You can attempt to recycle content to try and squeeze more links out of it. For example if you have quiz you could update it with new questions or if say you have written an e-mail cheat sheet you could update it every year to reflect changing techniques and technologies.
You could also look to promote old content in response to new events. An example would be a company who have written an article on steps you can take to prevent your phone being hacked. At present the UK news is dominated by a phone hacking scandal by one of the newspapers, there couldn't be a better time for the companies article to build some links if they can promote it properly.
-
it's the freshness factor. Unless we find way to promote such content on a longer-term scale, it's going to be diminishing returns. It's one of the reasons Google wants 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
-
Cornerstone Content?
Yoast keeps pestering me about Cornerstone Content. Is it really a ranking factor? Ryan
Content Development | | drdougweiss0 -
Simple Blog Content Question
Which is better? To write my own blog post or, (with permission) use other high DA content on my blog. I'll probably do both, but I'm very curious as to what the search engines prefer or which is better for seo. Thanks in advance!
Content Development | | MissThumann0 -
Duplicate Content for Non-SEO Purposes
Duplicate Content for Non-SEO Purposes There are a few layers to this question, but at the most basic level the question is... -Will having the same article (in the form of archived e-newsletter issues) on multiple different websites' newsletter archives HURT those sites? I'm fairly sure it won't HELP any of them in terms of SEO, but will having these back issues of their e-newsletters archived on their websites get them penalized? For the purpose of this question, these are not clients we are doing SEO for, just hosting and their e-newsletters. So it's fine if the archives provide no SEO benefit, we just don't want to leave them up if they will become LIABILITIES for the websites. -If having the same article in archived issues of e-newsletters on multiple different websites WOULD be harmful, would moving these archives to a sub-domain change anything or would it be best to simply take the archives down altogether? -Alternately, would spinning these articles make any difference in whether or not these sites get penalized? -Lastly, would spinning make the articles usable for archived e-newsletters for clients that ARE signed on for SEO services? I have a hunch about this, but I'd love to hear your expert opinions. Thanks!
Content Development | | BrianAlpert780 -
Duplicate Page Content & Rel-Canonicals
The SEO Moz duplicate page content tool lists the following URL's as having duplicate content: http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx?sort=PriceAsc&pi=2 The second URL is the price sorter/second page of the category and contains the following rel-canonical: | http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx"> Are we using the rel-canonical correctly in this case? If so, why does it continue to show up as duplicate content in our SEO Moz report? There are over 1,000 URLS listed in the report with the exact same issue. |
Content Development | | ironpac0 -
301 Redirect & Duplicate Content
We currently have 16465 audiobook products presented at our Web store. 5411 of them are out-of-publication (OOP). Here's an example: Harry Potter Audiobook 2 : Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - J.K. Rowling - cassette audiobook Many of the 5411 OOP products are duplicates and triplicates of one title but were offered on a different medium (cassette, CD or MP3 CD) or were a different type (abridged, unabridged, dramatized). The description (story-line) is the same for all. Because we know once a page gets on the Internet, it can live there for years, we decided to keep OOP product pages at our Web store to: Let those who may have searched for the product and clicked on a link to an OOP product's page that it was no longer available. Invite them to explore our Web store. Let them know that although the product may not be available on cassette, CD or MP3 CD, that it might be available as a digital download. We know that Google does NOT like duplicate content from one site to another and even within the same site. If we redirect all the 5411 pages to one OOP page, will this eliminate this duplicate content issue? The OOP page would explain that the title they were looking for is no longer available but that it might be available as a digital download.
Content Development | | lbohen0 -
Help with Content Revamp
Many years ago we wrote about 60 content pages for our surfboard e-commerce website targeting all the top popular keywords. Many of them generic but very keyword focused. We are now revamping our content our our site and want to move away from the generic side of things and actually rewrite all the pages to make them very useful and actually stuff our customers can really use and will find very helpful. I noticed that many times we wrote small pages less than 500 words that target similar keywords around a general theme. In looking at the analytics all the pages are getting a good amount of traffic and ranking well but im wondering would it be ok to focus on a main topic and combine similar pages if they are related? So i can take the say 60 articles and combine it down to say 10 articles and make the articles cover alot more stuff instead of just being small 500 word articles. As an example we have many surfboard models so we wrote an article for -Longboard Surfboards -Funboard Surfboards -Mini Malibu Surfboards -Retro Fish Surfboards -Womens Surfboards -Beginner Surfboards My question is could i weave these all together and write one long guide on say "Choosing The Type of Surboard you need" and cover all the board models in that article and then redirect the old pages to point to that one article. Would i still rank well for all these words Or would this destroy all my current rankings for these words? What is the best approach to rewriting and or combining old content pages that currently rank well but could be combined with others around the same theme to make it more user friendly?
Content Development | | isle_surf0 -
Define: Good Content
I am curious to hear what you guys consider to be the characteristics of good content and in which order if you have a preference. Here are a few I can think of: Informative (you can learn something new) Substantial (enough of it and thorough) Complete (doesn't give half-baked information or ideas) Unique (not regurgitated original content) Helpful (practical actionable information) Visual (content complemented by media) Referenced (claims made are substantiated through citations) Entertaining (or otherwise emotional, e.g. surprising, sad, shocking, controversial) Formatted (easy to read and follow) Timely (right content at the right time, applies for news) Professional (writing style, grammar, spelling and sentence structure) Can you add to this list?
Content Development | | Dan-Petrovic1 -
Duplicate Content - Video
I recently noticed a drop in rankings for my site shortly after the new algorithm update. I'm not sure exactly why rankings went down, but would like to know if it has to do with having videos on our site that do not belong to us. We have a few videos on product pages that the manufacturer of the product had created. I was wondering if Google maybe thinks we are maliciously stealing these videos or something and penalizing us for it. And if stuff like this has anything to do with the recent algorithm update. We make our own videos, but some of our manufacturer's videos are just better... and they work with us and are glad for us to have their videos listed. Thanks in advance
Content Development | | poolguy0