Is is it true that Google will not penalize duplicated content found in UL and LI tags?
-
I've read in a few places now that if you absolutely have to use a key term several times in a piece of copy, then it is preferable to use li and ul tags, as google will not penalise excessive density of keywords found in these tags. Does anyone know if there is any truth in this?
-
lol... thanks for that report.
Should we go back and read for the laughs?
-
I just read several more articles on that site. Overall junk. I would find a new blog to get your info from.
-
** In that case you can use “li” and “ul” tag, moreover Google doesn’t penalize for repeating words under these tags.**
ha ha... that is B.S.
The author of that does not know how Google handles
-
and
I can imagine Matt Cutts telling people ... "Its OK to stuff the
- tag guys"
- tag guys"
-
-
Thanks for the response,
I've found it here http://www.dailytechpost.com/index.php/8-best-tips-for-css-for-seo/#comment-69311 amongst several other places. I'm not in to stuffing keywords and fully aware that writing natural prose is the way to go, it was more a reference for where there is an excessive amount of keywords coincidently, such as when using technical terms which cannot be substituted and form part of every element of a text. Or perhaps if you are talking about a concept and natural prose feels a little repetitive, such as writing about infographics.
-
Maybe they are not today. I'm not to sure about this like the others I'm asking myself who told you this.
I do recommand you do not to try fooling the big G around. Duplicate content is kind of not so valuable content in the best case. You should use your efforts building great content instead of trying to duplicate.
Because even if it was the case they are not doing it right now, they probably will one day.
From my experience, duplicate is duplicate anywhere you put it !
-
Exactly. **Content is written for the visitors, not the search engines. **
If you are familiar with the subject and are writing naturally, the content will do just fine with all of the search engines, and more importantly your visitors.
-
Where did you hear this at? That makes no sense and I have never heard anything like that.
And do not stuff keywords or even try to see if you can get away with it. Thats poor optimization and does not look well for users. Write and design for your users and you should be fine.
-
I have never heard that
-
are safe for anything.
Don't bet on the behavior of Google.
Also, I don't pay any attention to the number of times that I use a word in copy. None. I try to write naturally without regard for search engines.
-
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
When making content pages to a specific page; should you index it straight away in GSC or let Google crawl it naturally?
On-Page Optimization | | Jacksons_Fencing0 -
Duplicate Content in Footers (Not as routine as it seems)
Hello there, I know that content in the footer of sites are safe from duplication penalisation; however, what if the footers where replicated across different subdomains? For instance, the footer was duplicated across: www.example.com blog.example.com blog2.example.com I don't see it as a big issue personally; however, outsourced "specialists" seem to think that this is causing duplication problems and therefore negatively affecting the ranking power of "lesser" subdomains i.e. not the www version, which is by far the strongest subdomain. Would be good to get some insight if anybody has any. Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | SEONOW1230 -
Duplicate content affects on overall rankings
Hi guys, I have a website that has 23 pages with duplicate content. These pages serve the same function, which enables customers to upload their images. There is not much content on each one but we require a different page for each of our products, here is an example page: http://www.point101.com/giclee_printing/upload#/upload I don't think it makes sense to use a canonical tag as each page is for a different product and I think its going to be difficult to differentiate each page. I was wondering: 1. If this has a negative effect on the ranking of our homepage and other main product pages or if its an issue we do not need to worry too much about. 2. If anyone has any other ideas as to how we can resolve this issue. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | KerryK
Kerry0 -
Duplicate Content aka 301 redirect from .com to .com/index.html
Moz reports are telling me that I have duplicate content on the home page because .com and .com/index.html are being seen as two pages. I have implemented 301 redirect using various codes I found online, but nothing seems to work. Currently I'm using this code. RewriteEngine On
On-Page Optimization | | omakad
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^jacksonvilleacservice.com
RewriteRule ^index.html$ http://www.jacksonvilleacservice.com/ [L,R=301] Nothing is changing. What am I doing wrong? I have given it several weeks but report stays the same. Also according to webmasters tools they can't see this as duplicate content. What am I doing wrong?0 -
Google Results Title Tag HELP
Can anybody tell us why Google changes your title tag in the SERP? If you check out the below link or type in 'days inn', you will see the 2nd result for www.daysinnrc.co.uk just says 'Days Inn' but on the actual site the title tag for this page is 'Days Inn UK | Days Inn | Daysinnrc.co.uk' http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=days+inn&oq=days+inn&gs_l=hp.3...4110.4110.4.4297.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.1.kWVC24EnCHE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7680231318a44bb0&bpcl=35466521&biw=1920&bih=934 This has happened with another site too, does anybody know why? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | SEOwins0 -
How much constitutes duplicate content in your opinion?
Mornin' In your experience, how much constitutes duplicate content? A sentence, a paragraph, half a page, etc? What about quotes - are they considered duplications, too, if there aren't quotation marks? Over the years, the client has been a bit bad in taking a paragraph from here, a sentence from there, and coupling it all together as daily news on their site. I'm now in the middle of a purge. Oh boy! All hail originality.
On-Page Optimization | | Martin_S0 -
Filtered Navigation, Duplicate content issue on an Ecommerce Website
I have navigation that allows for multiple levels of filtering. What is the best way to prevent the search engine from seeing this duplicate content? Is it a big deal nowadays? I've read many articles and I'm not entirely clear on the solution. For example. You have a page that lists 12 products out of 100: companyname.com/productcategory/page1.htm And then you filter these products: companyname.com/productcategory/filters/page1.htm The filtered page may or may not contain items from the original page, but does contain items that are in the unfiltered navigation pages. How do you help the search engine determine where it should crawl and index the page that contains these products? I can't use rel=canonical, because the exact set of products on the filtered page may not be on any other unfiltered pages. What about robots.txt to block all the filtered pages? Will that also stop pagerank from flowing? What about the meta noindex tag on the filitered pages? I have also considered removing filters entirely, but I'm not sure if sacrificing usability is worth it in order to remove duplicate content. I've read a bunch of blogs and articles, seen the whiteboard special on faceted navigation, but I'm still not clear on how to deal with this issue.
On-Page Optimization | | 13375auc30