Footer copyright year statement. good or bad
-
Hi,
I see a lot of sites with a year copyright statment in the footer like
Copyright 2011 - DomainName.com
or
Copyright 2002 - 2012 - Domainname.com
since new year a lot of sites (founded before 2011) still have 2011 instead of 2012 in the footer. Do you think the date gives any signals to google?
Should someone update the date or remove it completely?
I would tend to remove it completely since the page date for google is submitted in the HTTP header. But maybe the info could be of any use for the user. Any best practices?
-
I agree with Bryce that it probably doesn't affect Google's perception of the page at all.
However, from a user standpoint an "outdated" copyright could work against you. I see it as a sort of trust signal. I was on a page earlier that said "Copyright 2001" and I just couldn't get over it. If they can't bother to update the date on their site, why would they bother with having me as a customer?
Just something to think about. Great question.
-
Copyright notices are really just a signal for the users, and to say "don't steal our stuff" in somewhat of a non-forceful way. People can generate the year automatically, but sometimes they just forget to include it.
Is it a big deal to have an older date? Probably not. Google has a number of other ways they could check a page's freshness aside from a completely arbitrary copyright date.
An interesting note about copyright, you don't really have to display a copyright notice in the first place. As soon as you create something, it's already considered "copyrighted."
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
-
Copying items from major website - bad?
Hello, I working on a new project that collect news items from websites like Bloomberg and CNN, I'm take the title and the full content of specific articles and publish them under my domain. At the same time my writers publish unique articles on the site. Sure, I'm adding "Source" for each duplicate article with the link to the source. 1. It's risky?
On-Page Optimization | | JohnPalmer
2. Duplicate content?
3. Should I use Noindex/Nofollow for each duplicate article? Please share your thoughts.0 -
E-commerce can we delete all products that have never sold for 10 years?
Hello, We're switching from a mediocre cart to Volusion.com, which I love. We've been in business for 10 years and have 8500 products. At least 75% of the products have never sold once. How do we know how many of those we can delete when switching carts? We only want to switch over the products we have to. Thanks! Bob
On-Page Optimization | | BobGW0 -
Do a bunch of footer internal links help or hurt?
We are an ecommerce site... In days gone by, having a bunch of footer links with your top products / categories was a good idea - as it created a ton of internal links to these products. Now, I am hearing that those links "dilute" the value of our other links on a page - and essentially, there is more harm than good from these. Does anyone know what I am talking about (the olds days) and should we still be doing this? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Ted_Cullen0 -
Same pdf attachments placed on more websites good for seo?
Hi I would like to ask if it is duplicate content if I place on my website article with pdf attachment-the same pdf attachment is placed on more websites. Worldwide company made article (short article and some photos) with special offer in pdf, this pdf file is placed on more sites. How google handle with this file? Can google read text inside?
On-Page Optimization | | joeko0 -
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing?
Are To Many Rel Canonical Links A Bad Thing? I had "twin" domains so I redirected my .com to www..com and now I have a lot of Rel Canonical Links.
On-Page Optimization | | Mike.Bean0 -
Lists of Product Links: What is good, what is bad?
I am a web designer but a bit of an SEO noob (trying to get better at both). I am working with one particular client on a site I inherited with existing structure. This client has about 10 products on 2 pages. On every page there is a product list that is basically the same list sorted in 2 ways: 1st by product, 2nd by usage. These all link to internal anchors so this might be an example on www.site.com Cleaner X1 - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x1
On-Page Optimization | | mparry9
Cleaner X2 - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x2
Cleaner X3 - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x3
...
Cleaner For Brick - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x1
Cleaner For Marble - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x2
Cleaner For Stone - links to www.site.com/cleaners.php#x3 Obviously this adds about 20 links on every page on the site (including the actual pages these products are on). What are your thoughts on this? Good idea or bad to have on the site? Should I remove the redundant links on the actual page that product falls on...or is this bad and should be removed altogether?0 -
Are blank Product Review pages bad for SEO?
Hi there, I'm running a new e-commerce site (BoatOutfitters.com) and have a question about our product review pages. On our current campaign, we have a lot of duplicate page content errors. When we export the data, it's almost all blank product review pages (since we are new, we don't have that many product reviews yet). Our product reviews aren't run through javascript, so we originally did not add them to a robots.txt file - however, I'm now wondering if it's worse to have all of these duplicate blank pages, or is it not affecting our SEO at all? Should we just wait until these products have reviews which will benefit our SEO and then they won't be considered "duplicate pages" - right? Sorry if this has been answered before - new here at SEO Moz and just looking for some help. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | BoatOutfitters0 -
Is a Z almost as good as an S?
Possibly seems a strange question, but let me clarify... I have a new site in mind and all the domain names I was considering for it have been taken (I want a .com or a .net if at all possible). However, I can get the domain with a z at the end rather than an s Example: www.keyword-guides.com is taken, but www.keyword-guidez.com is available. Am I completely wrong in thinking that it will still match well for anyone searching Keyword Guide, and should match fairly well (even though it is a partial match) for people searching Keyword Guides. As the keyword is the most relevant bit of the domain, and as the first word on the domain is given the most weight, will having Z instead of S at the end make any difference at all? Personally, I don't really like the Z option, but if it would have no (or little) impact on my SEO efforts, I could live with it.
On-Page Optimization | | Jingo010