Updating Old Content at Scale - Any Danger from a Google Penalty/Spam Perspective?
-
We've read a lot about the power of updating old content (making it more relevant for today, finding other ways to add value to it) and republishing (Here I mean changing the publish date from the original publish date to today's date - not publishing on other sites).
I'm wondering if there is any danger of doing this at scale (designating a few months out of the year where we don't publish brand-new content but instead focus on taking our old blog posts, updating them, and changing the publish date - ~15 posts/month). We have a huge archive of old posts we believe we can add value to and publish anew to benefit our community/organic traffic visitors.
It seems like we could add a lot of value to readers by doing this, but I'm a little worried this might somehow be seen by Google as manipulative/spammy/something that could otherwise get us in trouble.
Does anyone have experience doing this or have thoughts on whether this might somehow be dangerous to do?
Thanks Moz community!
-
Awesome, thank you so much for the detailed response and ideas - this all makes a good deal of sense and we really appreciate it!
-
We have actually been doing this on one of our sites where we have several thousand articles going all the way back to the late 90s. Here is what we do / our process (I am not including how to select articles here, just what to do once they are selected).
- Really take the time to update the article. Ask the questions, "How can we improve it? Can we give better information? Better graphics? Better references? Can we improve conversion?" 2) Republish with a new date on the page. Sometimes add an editor's note on how this is an updated version of the older article. 3) Keep the same URL to preserve link equity etc or 301 to new url if needed 4) mix these in with new articles as a part of our publication schedule.
We have done this for years and have not run into issues. I do not think Google sees this as spammy as long as you are really taking the time to improve your articles. John M. and Gary I. have stated unequivocally that Google likes it when you improve your content. We have done the above, it has not been dangerous at all. Our content is better overall. In some cases where we really focused on conversion, we not only got more traffic, but converted better. Doing this will only benefit your visitors, which usually translates into Google liking the result.
I would ask, why take a few months where you only recycle content, to just mixing it up all year long? If you were going to designate 3 months of the year to just update content, then why not take the 3rd week of the month each month or every Wednesday and do the same thing instead. You accomplish the same thing, but spread it out. Make it a feature! Flashback Friday etc.
Bonus idea - make sure you get the schema right
We have something new with our process. Previously, we only marked up the publication date in schema. So when we republished, we would change the publication date in the schema as well to the new pub date. Now that Google requires a pub date and last modified date in schema we have changed our process. When we republish content, we will leave the original publication date as the publication date marked up in schema and then put the new date that the article is being published marked up as last modified in schema. This is a much more clearer and accurate representation to Google as what you are doing with the article.
We are also displaying the last modified date to the user as the primary date, with the publication date made secondary. The intent here is that we want to show that this is an article that has been recently updated to the user so they know the information is current.
To get this to work properly, we had to rework how our CMS interacts with content on both published date and last modified date, but in the end, I think we are giving better signals to Google and users on the statuses of our articles.
-
You'll probably experience a dip from not publishing new content but I don't believe there will be any other issues.
Updating old content (drip fed or in bulk) won't trigger any spam/manipulation flags.
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
-
CTA first content next or Content first CTA next
We are a casino affiliations company, our website has a lot of the same casino offers. So is it beneficial to put the content over the casino offers, then do a CSS flex, reverse wrap, so the HTML has the page content first, but the visual of the page displays the casinos first and the content after? or just the usual i.e image the HTML as content first, and CSS makes offers come first?
On-Page Optimization | | JoelssonMedia0 -
Duplicate content query
I'm currently reauthoring all of the product pages on our site. Within the redesign of all the pages is a set of "why choose us?" bullet points and "what our customers say" bullet points. On every page these bullet points are the same. We currently have 18% duplicate content sitewide and I'm reluctant to push this. The products are similar but targeted at different professions, so I'm not sure whether to alter the text slightly for the bullet points on each page, remove the bullet points entirely or implement some form of canonicalisation that won't impact the profession-specific pages' ability to rank well.
On-Page Optimization | | EdLongley0 -
Duplicated content by the product pages
Hi,Do you thing those pages have duplicate content:https://www.nobelcom.com/Afghanistan-phone-cards/from-Romania-235-2.htmlhttps://www.nobelcom.com/Afghanistan-phone-cards-2.htmlhttps://www.nobelcom.com/Afghanistan-Cell-phone-cards-401.htmlhttps://www.nobelcom.com/Afghanistan-Cell-phone-cards/from-Romania-235-401.html.And also how much impact will it have on a panda update?I'm trying to figure out if all the product pages, (that are in the same way as the ones above) are the reson for a Panda Penalty
On-Page Optimization | | Silviu0 -
Old landing page modifications - should I change the content?
One of our most popular landing page is starting to be a little bit out dated, should I keep the old content and update with newer text or is it safe to completely replace the old content with the new content without losing our organic traffic on this page?
On-Page Optimization | | rusted880 -
Does Bing consider http://www.domain.com the same as https://www.domain.com?
Bing Webmaster Tools showed me that sometimes it displays https://www.domain.com in its results and sometimes http://www.domain.com. That got me thinking. Does Bing consider https to be a seperate duplicate copy of the http version? IE does my site get knocked down for duplicate content because of this? In Google webmaster tools, I can tell it whether I want https or http. But I dont know how to tell Bing. Any pointers will be appreciated. Thanks Dan
On-Page Optimization | | DanFromUK0 -
Google rel hell
So apologies in advance for this question, but: Can someone explain whether as a site we should be using the "rel author" tag or the "rel publisher" tag? 1. We don't really need to distinguish between the people who write our content. 2. We definitely do need to establish ownership of our content, as unfortunately it has been widely copied. We are spending quite a bit of time filing DMCA notices. 3. Do we need to apply either tag to every page? Or does "del publisher" just need to be applied to the homepage to cover the rest of the site? 4. What looks better in the search results? - a person's face or a company logo? If prefer a face, but understand we need to promote our brand. Thanks P
On-Page Optimization | | dexm100 -
Duplicate content and the Moz bot
Hi Does our little friend at SEOmoz follow the same rules as the search engine bots when he crawls my site? He has sent thousands of errors back to me with duplicate content issues, but I thought I had removed these with nofollow etc. Can you advise please.
On-Page Optimization | | JamieHibbert0 -
Sliders and Content Above the Fold
I was just inspecting a wire frame that is going out to a client and realized that the slider may interfere with the "content above the fold." Can't believe this had not struck me on others. If the Header has basic business info, etc. in it and you place a slider to display images in the area just beneath the Header or slightly down from it, does that decrease the amount of content seen a being above the fold? Or, is content above the fold established by virtue of H1,2, 3, etc.?
On-Page Optimization | | RobertFisher0