Any SEO Penalties from Removing RSS Feed?
-
Hi,
I have a site that has a Feedburner feed that has been in place for 5+ years. I am considering getting rid of the feed or starting a new one to combat content scraping. Google continues to rank thieves' sites ahead of mine. Google and Bing have no issue and always get it right. I use Wordpress and have the plugin PubSubHubb, but that is no guarantee. Nonetheless, there is no monetary value of my subscribers whereas the content not being accredited to me takes money out of my pocket as my model is advertising.
Is there any SEO issue if I do any of the following:
- Delete the feed and not have one?
- Change the feed address and drop all subscribers?
Attachments: DMCA Dashboard; example of being outranked by scrapers.
My site: www.furniturefashion.com
Thanks for your time and hopefully I did not vent too much.
-
Robert. Thanks for the response. I hate those sites as well and hate to see how they have exploited RSS. It's a shame Google can't figure out who they are and who the real content creators are. This should save me several hours a month by not having to file DMCA complaints.
-
Anthony. Thanks for your response. I think I will remove the feed.
-
Will2112
You have a good question and I agree with Anthony. You can kill the feed and be fine - if that is the only consideration. If the feed is bringing you something in return, say more people reading and interacting with your blog, that is another consideration.
With the image you have here, it appears almost all of the scrapers are the same person, group, company, etc. They appear to be out of Turkey and are taking part of your contact, then placing the Pinterest link hidden where there should be an image. What actually happens is the person clicks thinking they are going to see an image, and their item gets pinned. (Funny, but if the person does not have pinterest, it won't happen and, most are going to "Books Worth Reading.") Also, most of the images have your CDN url. No help for them.I hope that at least gives you some info to work with. Good luck. I hate that these types can get away with content theft, but I doubt their sites would actually outrank you for an actual keyword term search around the subject.
Best
Robert
-
You will be just fine if you remove your feed.
With the death of Google Reader and the lack of Feedburner support, I wouldn't be surprised if Google got rid of Feedburner down the road.
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
-
Redirects Being Removed...
Hi We have a team in France who deal with the backend of the site, only problem is it's not always SEO friendly. I have lots of 404's showing in webmaster tools and I know some of them have previously had redirects. If we update a URL on the site, any links pointing to it on the website are updated straight away to point to the most up to date URL - so the user doesn't have to go through a redirect. However, the team would see this as the redirect not being 'used' after about 30 days and remove it from the database - so this URL no longer has any redirects pointing to it. My question is, surely this is bad for SEO? However I'm a little unsure as they aren't actually going through the redirect. But somewhere in cyber space the authority of this page must drop? Any advice is welcome 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Page Speed Factors For SEO
Hey Guys, I have developed a page and optimised it. I have got a dilemma, I have 2 variants of the optimised page I could use. The page is responsive and uses bootstrap from an external CDN. The 2 variants: External CDN - This is adding an an extra request and is delivering the entire framework (not ideal for mobile) I've looked in the node/grunt.js route (+unCSS) to remove redundant CSS, which led me to my next variant. Inline CSS. After doing some grunt.js work I shaved out the redundant code from the framework then added it inline. I will also point out that all assets are optimised, all CSS/JS/HTML is minifed. In terms for score the 1st variant is less than the second, but I believe that most users of the internet already have bootstrap cached due to it being so common. The ultimate question comes down to ranking, I'm not entirely sure where I draw the line between development and SEO (I will also ask in Stack Overflow). Which one would rank better? all other factors being equal.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AkashMakwana0 -
An Unfair Content related penalty :(
Hi Guys, Google.com.au
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jarrodb
website: http://partysuppliesnow.com.au/ We had a massive drop in search queries in WMT around the 11th of september this year, I investigated and it seemed as though there were no updates around this time. Our site is only receiving branded search now - and after investigating i am led to believe that Google has mistakingly affected our website in the panda algorithm. There are no manual penalties applies on this site as confirmed by WMT. Our product descriptions are pretty much all unique but i have noticed that when typing a portion of text from these pages into google search using quotation marks, shopping affiliate sites which we use are being displayed first and our page no where to be seen or last in the results. This leads me to believe that Google thinks we have scraped the content from these sites when in actual fact they have from us. We also have G+ authorship setup. Typing a products full name into Google (tried a handful) our site is not in the top 100 or 200 at times, i think this further clarifies that we are penalised. We would really appreciate some opinions on this. Any course of actions would be great. We don't particularly want to invest in writing content again. From our point of view it looks like Google is stopping our site from ranking because it's getting mixed up with who the originator for our content is. Thanks and really appreciate it.0 -
Local SEO for Pregnancy Centers?
So, the thing is, we don't want these websites associated with anything pro-life or Christian. So, we can't list them in those directories. And we can't list them in abortion provider directories because they don't do abortions. The organizaitons are Christian, pro-life -- but the target audience is the complete opposite. How can I effectively market their services without crossing any boundaries?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CGR-Creative0 -
Daily Drip Feed
Friends, Any thoughts on what Daily Drip feed means in our SEO world? Please advise
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | INN0 -
Wordpress Blogs and SEO
So far we have been creating separate blogs on wordpress.com for our sites, and writing there. Today I was told that there was better SEO hosting the blog on the actual domain. i.e. www.widgets.com/blog instead of widget.wordpress.com Is this true? Oddly I have had my WP beat my own URL on one account. So I am not sure if this is valid. Can someone tell me pros and cons of both? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | greenhornet770 -
Penalties for site going down often?
I have a client with a site that ranks for some very competitive terms who consistently has server issues and the site goes down for a day at a time. Each time this happens his site seems to drop in site wide rankings and then stay there for months without ever fully recovering. Only part of the rankings are usually recovered. Has anyone else seen this trend? Is it something Google keeps on record without fully removing any penalty addressed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iAnalyst.com0 -
Expiring URL seo
a buddy of mine is running a niche job board and is having issues with expiring URLs. we ruled it out cuz a 301 is meant to be used when the content has moved to another page, or the page was replaced. We were thinking that we'd be just stacking duplicate content on old urls that would never be 'replaced'. Rather they have been removed and will never come back. So 410 is appropriate but maybe we overlooked something. any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | malachiii0