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
-
Old Blog Posts
Every single day we publish articles that have a high amount of engagement onsite 50-300 comments. We have been running for around 8 years now and have a rather bloated database of old stale posts. We post advice on betting on sports. Not guides as such but tips for events. After the event has started the posts are outdated. What is your advice for these? These articles are not seen as "thin" but rather outdated. There is no way possible for me to update the content as such. Also out right deleting the content would go against our openness and transparency of past selections advised.
On-Page Optimization | | MrDeeBee0 -
Duplicate Page Content
Hi, I am new to the MOZ Pro community. I got the below message for many of my pages. We have a video site so all content in the page except the video link would be different. How can i handle such pages. Can we place adsense AD's on these pages? Duplicate Page Content Code and content on this page looks similar or identical to code and content on other pages on your site. Search engines may not know which pages are best to include in their index and rankings. Common fixes for this issue include 301 redirects, using the rel=canonical tag, and using the Parameter handling tool in Google Webmaster Central. For more information on duplicate content, visit http://moz.com/learn/seo/duplicate-content. Please help me to know how to handle this.. Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Nettv0 -
SEO value of old press releases (as content)?
Howdy Moz Community, I'm working with a client on migrating content to a new site/CMS and am wondering whether anyone has thoughts on the value of old press releases. I'm familiar with the devaluation of press release links from early 2013, but I'm wondering more about their value as content. Does importing old press releases (3-5 years old) create contextual depth of content that has some value for the site as a whole (even though the news contained within is useless)? Or, do these old press releases just create clutter and waste time (in migration). The site has a wealth of additional content (articles and videos), so the press releases wouldn't be covering up for thin content. I'm just wondering whether there's any best practices or a general rule of thumb. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | MilesMedia0 -
Why is this site 1st in Google??
Hello The site www.woodensigns.net is 1st in google for the keyword "wooden Signs". All seo indicators are poor except keyword in url; wich, i thought, was not a + for google anymore. Could someone help me to understand here? Thank you Emmanuel
On-Page Optimization | | manu450 -
Http://www.xxxx.com does not re-direct to http://xxx.com
When typing in my website URL www.earthsaverequipment.com successfully re-directs to earthsaverequipment.com as specified in robot. However if you type http://www.earthsaverequipment.com it brings up a 404 error Is this a potential issue? if so is there a way to fix it? thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Earthsaver0 -
Duplicate content problem
I am having an issue with duplicate content that I can't seem to figure out. I got rid of the www.mydomain.com by modifying the htaccess file but I can't figure out how to fix theproblem of mydomain.com/ and mydomain.com
On-Page Optimization | | ayetti0 -
Should H1s be used in the logo? If they are and it is dynamic on each page to relate to the page content, is this detrimental to the site rather than having it in the page content?
On some sites, the H1 is contained within the logo and remains consistent throughout the site (i.e. the company name is in the of the logo). If the h1 in a logo is dynamic for each page (i.e. on the homepage it is company name - homepage) is this better or worse to have it changed out on the logo rather than having it in the page content?
On-Page Optimization | | CabbageTree0 -
Google Reconsideration
Our site fell from grace last July and landed on page five of the Google search results for our primary keyword. For 6 months I tried a number of strategies with no results, including reconfiguring our site based on the SOEmoz on-page grading tool. More recently, after receiving your advice in a Q&A, I took down all of my paid links and submitted a reconsideration request to Google. Interestingly, 3 days later we popped up 20 spots. This left us on the top of page three. Better than page 5, but still not prime time! A few days ago (two weeks after our reconsideration request was submitted) I got a message back in my Webmaster Tools, that they had completed a review of our site - but oddly enough they provided no info on the outcome, positive or negative. And there has been no additional movement in the rankings since I received the message. Was the original 20 point jump the result of the reconsideration request, or just a coincidence? Or, is it possible that they did a review and the results will only occur later during some organic re-indexing process? What do you think?
On-Page Optimization | | JimSkychief0