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
-
How to replace the keywords of our Google Site https://www.opcfitness.com/ 's TITLE
How to replace the keywords of our Google Site https://www.opcfitness.com/ 's TITLE Our new google site https://www.opcfitness.com/ page https://www.opcfitness.com/commercial-fitness title: Gym Equipment for Sale - Buy Commercial Fitness The site name is Gym Equipment for Sale. But we need the title like this Buy Commercial Fitness - Gym Equipment for Sale How to fix it?
On-Page Optimization | | ahislop5740 -
Content hidden behind a 'read all/more..' etc etc button
Hi Anyone know latest thinking re 'hidden content' such as body copy behind a 'read more' type button/link in light of John Muellers comments toward end of last year (that they discount hidden copy etc) & follow up posts on Search Engine Round Table & Moz etc etc ? Lots of people were testing it and finding such content was still being crawled & indexed so presumed not a big deal after all but if Google said they discount it surely we now want to reveal/unhide such body copy if it contains text important to the pages seo efforts. Do you think it could be the case that G is still crawling & indexing such content BUT any contribution that copy may have had to the pages seo efforts is now lost if hidden. So to get its contribution to SEO back one needs to reveal it, have fully displayed ? OR no need to worry and can keep such copy behind a 'read more' button/link ? All Best Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Duplicate content issues?
Our company consists of several smaller companies, some of whom deal with very similar things. For instance, two of our companies resell accounts software, but only one provides after-sales support. Because of the number of different companies and websites we have, sometimes it would be easier to simply copy content from one site to the other, optimised in the same manner as, in some instances, we would want different websites to rank for the same keywords. I have been asked my opinion on the potential impact of this practice and my initial response was that we should avoid this due to potential penalties. However, I thought I'd garner opinion from a wider audience before making any recommendations either way. What do people think? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | HBPGroup0 -
Is there a set length / restriction on ALT tag content?
Something in which is an essential part of any site but I cant for the life of me remember if there is a set / recommended limit to the size if should be or is restricted to.
On-Page Optimization | | SamPenno0 -
Issue with old sitemap
Hi Quite new to SeoMoz so some learning curve but we have one issue on a site perhaps someone can advise on? We have many duplicate page titles / content, we think this was due to a corrupt sitemap.xml file, all of the URL's look like this with an odd page at the end http://www.totalpetsupplies.co.uk/problem.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/animals/Cat_Accessories_Pet_Collars/privacy.aspx So that XML map was removed well over a week ago, the new sitemap is an apsx generated one to get all pages correctly show as www.totalpetsuppies.co.uk/sitemap.aspx. Goolge and Bing have that. SeoMoz re did our site and the errors went up a bit!! Not sure how that process works, anyone any suggestions? Cheers Shaun
On-Page Optimization | | ShaunSizen0 -
Google Ranking Dropped
Hi We launched a new website on the12th Feb 2012, it appeared on google page one for the search term "compare travel insurance" . Last week it changed ranking to page 49 of google ranking. my site is www.1234compare1234travel1234insurance1234ireland1234.com Take out the 1234 for my site address, some people have mentioned that it was honeymooned to page 1 due to being a new site with new content. Can anyone tell me if it looks as if I've done something wrong and been penalised by google? If not are there any SEO advice I could use to improve ranking? All comments and advice appreciated. Regards Paul
On-Page Optimization | | CocoMagenta1 -
Duplicate page content,
Hi, in my campaign crawls diagnostic, I have a lot of Duplicate page content, but we use canonicalization and I used webmastertool to make sure the campaign parameters are not consider by the Google bot. Can you see what could be my problem, or do you have a tip for me or things to look at ? Thank You VB
On-Page Optimization | | Vale70 -
URL with two forward slashes //
We have a potential client with a URL structure in this fashion: http://www.site-url.com//cpage/page.html pretty strange, right? my question is: How bad are the 2 forward slashes // for SEO? How bad is it to have that extra layer of /cpage in the URL? this doesn't appear to serve any other purpose than making the URL longer than necessary.
On-Page Optimization | | Motava0