Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks.

It was purely a theoretical question, just trying to get a better handle on the relative importance of different ranking factors.

I have noticed something odd about how Google ranks social media pages, and was hoping someone would have a good explanation.

When I search for a particular name in Google, the first two results are Twitter pages of two people who share the same name.

• #1 is an older account with more Tweets, but it has fewer followers, no external backlinks, and the URL is unrelated to the name
• #2 is a newer account, but it has more followers, a few external backlinks, and the name itself is in the URL.  It has fewer overall Tweets, but has Tweeted more frequently over the past several months.  #2 is also happens to be in the same City as I am.

Given my understanding of Google's ranking factors, I would not have expected #1 to outrank #2.  In fact, I would not have expected #1 to even be on the first page.

What could be causing #1 to rank so highly?  Does it make sense that the age of the account or the number of Tweets would affect SEO at all?  Really, I am just trying to understand what are the main factors that determine the ranking of social media profile pages.

Thanks

Hello -

Here is a scenario, representative of something that I just saw play out.

• Site A is a new blog about travel (as an example topic)
• Site B is an older, established blog about travel
• Site C is a new blog launched and owned by Site B that focuses on a particular travel niche (luxury travel, for example)

Here is what happens next

• Site A writes an original piece of content
• Site C then republishes Site A's content, paraphrasing all of the text, but giving Site A credit with a link
• Site B (the established site) publishes a blurb about the article, directing readers with a link to "read more" on Site C.  It credits Site A as the original author, but does not link to it.

If you were able to follow that, here is what I would like to know.

Did Site C do anything wrong by republishing a paraphrased version of Site A's content, even though it gave credit with a link?

Did Site B do anything wrong by linking to Site C (which is for all intents and purposes the same website), but not linking to Site A (the original source)?

My sense is that the established blog (Site B) is trying to get it's new publication (Site C) to outrank the original author (Site A) using its own content.  In general though, I am curious to get some thoughts on this situation because it raises a few ethical questions that I am not sure about, namely:

Is there anything wrong with publishing "spun" content, if it is done well and links back to the source?

Is there anything wrong with linking to a republished version of an article on a sister website, rather than linking to the original article.

Thanks

Hello -

Here is a scenario, representative of something that I just saw play out.

• Site A is a new blog about travel (as an example topic)
• Site B is an older, established blog about travel
• Site C is a new blog launched and owned by Site B that focuses on a particular travel niche (luxury travel, for example)

Here is what happens next

• Site A writes an original piece of content
• Site C then republishes Site A's content, paraphrasing all of the text, but giving Site A credit with a link
• Site B (the established site) publishes a blurb about the article, directing readers with a link to "read more" on Site C.  It credits Site A as the original author, but does not link to it.

If you were able to follow that, here is what I would like to know.

Did Site C do anything wrong by republishing a paraphrased version of Site A's content, even though it gave credit with a link?

Did Site B do anything wrong by linking to Site C (which is for all intents and purposes the same website), but not linking to Site A (the original source)?

My sense is that the established blog (Site B) is trying to get it's new publication (Site C) to outrank the original author (Site A) using its own content.  In general though, I am curious to get some thoughts on this situation because it raises a few ethical questions that I am not sure about, namely:

Is there anything wrong with publishing "spun" content, if it is done well and links back to the source?

Is there anything wrong with linking to a republished version of an article on a sister website, rather than linking to the original article.

Thanks

Thanks.

It was purely a theoretical question, just trying to get a better handle on the relative importance of different ranking factors.