User generated content (Comments) - What impact do they have?
-
Hello MOZ stars!
I have a question regarding user comments on article pages. I know that user generated content is good for SEO, but how much impact does it really have?
For your information:
1 - All comments appears in source code and is crawled by spiders.
2 - A visitor can comment a page for up to 60 days.
3 - The amount of comments depends on the topic, we usually gets between 3-40 comments.My question:
1 - If we were to remove comments completely, what impact would it have from seo perspective? (I know you cant be certain - but please make an educated guess if possible)
2 - If it has a negative and-/or positive impact please specify why!
If anything is unclear or you want certain information don't hesitate to ask and I'll try to specify.
Best regards,
Danne -
Not what you asked, but other than SEO I would say comments do have an effect. I have heard advertisers say they were looking for sites with comments. Their thinking was they wanted popular sites with followers and they is how they judged it.
-
I do think that negative comments hurt UX and eventually the bottom line. No one wants to work with a company that has ton of negative feedback. Which is exactly why user generated content is so important to the searchers. It is a candid review of a company or product. There can be in the middle reviews, like a 3 star rating because customer service was great but the product stinks. I think those kinds of comments and reviews are necessary and overall good for UX.
In my opinion as a consumer, I want to see the bad comments. I always use the example of shoes and clothes. I don't want to find out when I get a pair of shoes in the mail that the sizes run a little small. If I see that in the comments or reviews ahead of time I will know to buy a size bigger and save myself the trouble of returning the product. These kinds of "negative" reviews are useful to a searcher and I wouldn't remove them.
-
Additional to what David said, I would still consider leaving the comments option open (until there is no "over-usage").
Also a factor to consider (especially in Barry's case), what kind of comments do people post. Do they have a positive or a negative annotation? Are they on-topic or not?
If you have a community, like Moz has IMO, where I see a lot of good, complementing comments, responses to each of the posts, I'd consider indexing the comments.
What do you think? David, Monica?
-
I also read that article. Barry seemed to think that the comments were hurting the site, rather than helping. Comments can get off topic, or stray away from the original article. If I remember correctly, Barry made the comments viewable, but not readable by Google as a result.
For return traffic, I think comments are great. After seeing the results that Barry shared, I'm not sure if it is still a good idea to have them included in the page crawl.
Here is the article that he spoke about this: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-panda-ser-poll-19675.html
IMO, I would leave the comments on the pages, but block them from being indexed/use javascript for showing the comments if possible.
-
Like I have mentioned in my response, that is one case.
But I must agree with Monica, you should place the value to the searchers&User Experience.
-
User generated content in my opinion is extremely useful. It is unique, it is informative most of the time and it is valuable to future searches. In this instance I would be more concerned about the value to the searchers and to user experience than the SEO effects.
-
Hi Danne,
I remember reading a post about this from Barry Schwartz on seroundtable.com: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-panda-ser-hurt-comments-19652.html
Read it through, it quite describes the effect of user generated content (specially comments).
This is one specific case, I am sure that it is not a general rule for this.
Gr., Keszi
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
-
Please help - Duplicate Content
Hi, I am really struggling to understand why my site has a lot of duplicate content issues. It's flagging up as ridiculously high and I have no idea how to fix this, can anyone help me, please? Website is www.firstcapitol.co.uk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alix_SEO1 -
301 redirect impact on ranking
If Website A is ranking 19th position in Google for a specific keyword, and Website B is ranking 30th position for the same keyword, What would be impact after 301 redirect? Will Website A drop to 30th position because of 301 or existing position would improve because of link juice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | riyaaaz0 -
Does Google see this as duplicate content?
I'm working on a site that has too many pages in Google's index as shown in a simple count via a site search (example): site:http://www.mozquestionexample.com I ended up getting a full list of these pages and it shows pages that have been supposedly excluded from the index via GWT url parameters and/or canonicalization For instance, the list of indexed pages shows: 1. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff 2. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff?page=2 3. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?page=3 4. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?mq_source=q-and-a 5. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?type=productss&sort=1date Example #1 above is the one true page for search and the one that all the canonicals reference. Examples #2 and #3 shouldn't be in the index because the canonical points to url #1. Example #4 shouldn't be in the index, because it's just a source code that, again doesn't change the page and the canonical points to #1. Example #5 shouldn't be in the index because it's excluded in parameters as not affecting page content and the canonical is in place. Should I worry about these multiple urls for the same page and if so, what should I do about it? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Duplicate Content Question
Hey Everyone, I have a question regarding duplicate content. If your site is penalized for duplicate content, is it just the pages with the content on it that are affected or is the whole site affected? Thanks 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jhinchcliffe0 -
Can videos be considered duplicate content?
I have a page that ranks 5 and to get a rich snippet I'm thinking of adding a relevant video to the page. Thing is, the video is already on another page which ranks for this keyword... but only at position 20. As it happens the page the video is on is the more important page for other keywords, so I won't remove it. Will having the same video on two pages be considered a duplicate?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brocberry0 -
Duplicate content mess
One website I'm working with keeps a HTML archive of content from various magazines they publish. Some articles were repeated across different magazines, sometimes up to 5 times. These articles were also used as content elsewhere on the same website, resulting in up to 10 duplicates of the same article on one website. With regards to the 5 that are duplicates but not contained in the magazine, I can delete (resulting in 404) all but the highest value of each (most don't have any external links). There are hundreds of occurrences of this and it seems unfeasible to 301 or noindex them. After seeing how their system works I can canonical the remaining duplicate that isn't contained in the magazine to the corresponding original magazine version - but I can't canonical any of the other versions in the magazines to the original. I can't delete the other duplicates as they're part of the content of a particular issue of a magazine. The best thing I can think of doing is adding a link in the magazine duplicates to the original article, something along the lines of "This article originally appeared in...", though I get the impression the client wouldn't want to reveal that they used to share so much content across different magazines. The duplicate pages across the different magazines do differ slightly as a result of the different Contents menu for each magazine. Do you think it's a case of what I'm doing will be better than how it was, or is there something further I can do? Is adding the links enough? Thanks. 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Image and Content Management
My boss has decided that on our new website we are building, that he wants all content and images managed by not allowing copying content and/or saving images. Some of the information and images is proprietary, yet most is available for public viewing, but never the less, he wants it prohibited from copy and/or saving. We would still want to keep the content indexable and use appropriate alt tags etc... I wanted to find out if there is any SEO reason and facts to why this would not be a good idea?Would implementing code to prohibit (or at least make it difficult) to save images and copy content, penalize us?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KJ-Rodgers0 -
Accepting RSS feeds. Does it = duplicate content?
Hi everyone, for a few years now I've allowed school clients to pipe their news RSS feed to their public accounts on my site. The result is a daily display of the most recent news happening on their campuses that my site visitors can browse. We don't republish the entire news item; just the headline, and the first 150 characters of their article along with a Read more link for folks to click if they want the full story over on the school's site. Each item has it's own permanent URL on my site. I'm wondering if this is a wise practice. Does this fall into the territory of duplicate content even though we're essentially providing a teaser for the school? What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | peterdbaron0