Image Optimization & Duplicate Content Issues
-
Hello Everyone,
I have a new site that we're building which will incorporate some product thumbnail images cut and pasted from other sites and I would like some advice on how to properly manage those images on our site. Here's one sample scenario from the new website:
We're building furniture and the client has the option of selecting 50 plastic laminate finish options from the Formica company. We'll cut and paste those 50 thumbnails of the various plastic laminate finishes and incorporate them into our site. Rather than sending our website visitors over to the Formica site, we want them to stay put on our site, and select the finishes from our pages.
The borrowed thumbnail images will not represent the majority of the site's content and we have plenty of our own images and original content. As it does not make sense for us to order 50 samples from Formica & photograph them ourselves, what is the best way to handle to issue?
Thanks in advance,
Scott
-
If you have permission to use their images, just get images from them, name them accurately, and give them accurate alt-text. Duplicate content has to do with your own content, in general. Since the point of naming images and alt-text is to help Google understand them, it's not a big issue if an image has the same alt-text as another or appears multiple times on the site (especially since they should all be coming from an images directory, no matter where they are on the website). Also, images are much more likely to be naturally reused than text, as licensing photos is a long accepted practice.
-
Google does "see" a lot more than just the alt text. To decide which keywords an image should rank for they take into account amongst other things:
- The text surrounding the image (caption, article it illustrates, etc.)
- Which images it is similar to
- The filename of the image
- Text recognition
In this video google shows how much they can "see" when it comes to images: http://youtu.be/t99BfDnBZcI
-
Arjen, Thanks for your reply.
You are correct that we're not looking to rank for images of Formica samples (or any of our other samples for that matter), in fact we're just providing the sample images to help our clients better decide which one of our products to order. The sample tiles are just a means to an end.
Do you have any knowledge as to the extent to which Google can "see" an image the same way a human user sees an image? Does Google just rely on the alt text that that you provide them with?
Thanks in advance,
Scott
-
Hello Keri,
Thanks for your reply. We do have an account with them and permission to use their images.
Do you have any opinions as to the best way to manage the images - ie title, alt text, etc - so as not to run into any duplicate content issues? I'm not clear if Google has the ability to somehow scan the images themselves, or if they just rely on the alt text, titles, etc that you provide along with the images. Any thoughts are appreciated.
Scott
-
I do not think using some images from another website will hurt your SEO. Logo's on a 'our clients' page, news photography delivered through news agencies, icon sets and stock images are by definition used on more than one site. The fact that this form of 'duplicate content' is so omni present, proofs that Google cannot devaluate sites using it.
If you your goal is to rank high in image search for formica in different colours, you should make sure to get your own high res images. If this is not one of your primary SEO goals, you should not worry about using copied images.
My advice would be to focus on really good photography of the furniture you are building and do not worry to much about the thumbnails of formica samples.
PS: I agree with KeriMorget. You should get permission to use the photo's before using them on your site.
-
The first thing I would do would be to look at the copyright on the Formica site to see their policy on copying their 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 -
What tools do you use to find scraped content?
This hasn’t been an issue for our company so far, but I like to be proactive. What tools do you use to find sites that may have scraped your content? Looking forward to your suggestions. Vic
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | VicMarcusNWI0 -
On-site duplication working - not penalised - any ideas?
I've noticed a website that has been set up with many virtually identical pages. For example many of them have the same content (minimal text, three video clips) and only the town name varies. Surely this is something that Google would be against? However the site is consistently ranking near the top of Google page 1, e.g. http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-guildford.html for "magician Guildford", http://www.maxcurd.co.uk/magician-ascot.html for "magician Ascot" and so on (even when searching without localisation or personalisation). For years I've heard SEO experts say that this sort of thing is frowned on and that they will get penalised, but it never seems to happen. I guess there must be some other reason that this site is ranked highly - any ideas? The content is massively duplicated and the blog hasn't been updated since 2012 but it is ranking above many established older sites that have lots of varied content, good quality backlinks and regular updates. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MagicianUK0 -
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 -
Are the Majority of SEO Companies 'Spammers, Evildoers, & Opportunists'?
This may not be the most productive Q&A discussion, but I've had some really interesting experiences this last month that have made me even more distrusting of "SEO" companies. I can't help but think of this post (not much has changed since '09). Even though it takes a pretty extreme stance, I agree with the core of it - _"The problem with SEO is that the good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work, and it’s poisoning the web." _ I didn't start doing this type of work wanting to have such a negative opinion of SEO companies, but I just keep having the same experience: I'll get referred to someone who isnt' happy with their SEO company. They send me their web address, I check out the site, and seriously can't believe what I find. MISSING PAGE TITLES, EVERY CANONICAL URL ISSUE IMAGINABLE, AND 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF BOT SPAM EMAT LINKS FROM PAGES LIKE THIS...AND THIS and just recently a company a called one of my clients and conned him into paying for this piece of spam garbage, obviously scraped from the site that I made for him. and what's worse, sometimes for whatever reason these companies will have all the client's FTP and CMS logins and it can be hell trying to get them to hand them over. There's no webmaster tools set up, no analytics, nothing.... These businesses are paying a good chunk of change every month, I just can't believe stuff like this is so common...well acutally, it's what i've come to expect this point. But I used to think most SEO companies actually had their clients best interest at heart. Does every honest consultant out there run into this same type of stuff constantly? How common is this type of stuff really? Now, on to the positive. This community rocks, and I feel like it represents real, ethical, solution-oriented, boundary-less SEO. So thank you Mozzers for all you do. and I love using the tools here to help businesses understand why they need an honest person helping them. If anyone has thoughts on the topic, I'd love to hear 'em...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SVmedia3 -
Google messages & penalties
I just read the following comment in a response to someone else's question. The Responer is an SEOMoz Authority whose opinion I respect and have learned from (not sure if it's cool to mention names in a question) and it spurred my curiosity: "...Generally you will receive a warning from Google before your site is penalized, unless you are talking about just specific keywords." This is something I have been wondering about in relation to my own sudden ranking drop for 2 specific keywords as I did not receive any warnings or notices. I have been proceeding as if I had over used these keywords on my Home page due to an initial lesser drop, but identifying the cause for the huge drop still seems useful for a number of reasons. Can anyone explain this further?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | gfiedel0 -
Being penalized for unnatural links, determining the issue, and fixing the problem. What to do?
Hi all, A client has been penalised, having received the message in Google Webmasters last week, along with two more yesterday. It seems the penalty is for something specific: “As a result, for this specific incident we are taking very targeted action on the unnatural links instead of your site as a whole“. This is the first time I've had to deal with this so I'll be a bit layman about it The penalty, firstly, seems to be for the old domain, from which there is a re-direct to the current one. This redirect has been in place since Feb 2012 (no link building has been done for the old domain since then). In Webmasters, I have the old and new domains set up separately and the messages are only coming for the old (but affecting the new, obviously). I need to determine if it’s the old or new URL I’m being hit for, or would that even matter? Some questionable links I can see in WM: There is an affiliate for whom WM is showing 154,000 links (all followed) from their individual products listings to the client’s site (as a related product) but they’re linking to the new domain if that matters. Could this affiliate be an issue? There is also Updowner, which has added 2000+ links unbeknownst to me but apparently they are discounted by Google. I see a ton of recent directory submissions - right up until last week - that I am not responsible for. Could that be intentional spam targeting? I did also use a 3<sup>rd</sup> party link building company for Feb, March and April who ‘manually’ submitted the new domain to directories and social bookmarking sites. Could this be issue? For what kind of time-scale are penalties usually imposed - how far back (or how recently) are they penalising for? Ranking were going really well until this happened last Thursday. Will directories with non-followed links effect us negatively - one such one has over 2000 links. What is the most conclusive way to determine which are the poor, penalty-incurring links pointing to us? I know I now have to contact all the dodgy directories the site is now listed on to get links removed, but any and all advice on how to rectify this, along with determining what had gone wrong, will be most appreciated. Cheers, David
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Martin_S0 -
Over optimization penalty on the way
Matt Cutts has just anouced that they are bringing in a penalty for over optimized sites, to try and reward good content. http://searchengineland.com/too-much-seo-google%e2%80%99s-working-on-an-%e2%80%9cover-optimization%e2%80%9d-penalty-for-that-115627?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed-main
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AlanMosley3