Duplicate content or not? If you're using abstracts from external sources you link to
-
I was wondering if a page (a blog post, for example) that offers links to external web pages along with abstracts from these pages would be considered duplicate content page and therefore penalized by Google.
For example, I have a page that has very little original content (just two or three sentences that summarize or sometimes frame the topic) followed by five references to different external sources. Each reference contains a title, which is a link, and a short abstract, which basically is the first few sentences copied from the page it links to.
So, except from a few sentences in the beginning everything is copied from other pages.
Such a page would be very helpful for people interested in the topic as the sources it links to had been analyzed before, handpicked and were placed there to enhance user experience.
But will this format be considered duplicate or near-duplicate content?
-
Are you going to get some sort of penalty for it? No. Duplicate content doesn't work that way unless you're just a low-quality or scraper site. Are you going to rank for a lot of keywords in the quoted text? No, probably not.
If there's value in your curation, you could in theory rank for the theme or topic that you're covering with the external quotations. This is especially true if you're pulling together hard-to-find or obscure quotations together, or combining them in an interesting/unique way.
Providing unique content is generally a good way to go in organic search, but there are plenty of aggregation sites succeeding. This was all MetaCritic had before it filled up with user reviews, but it was insanely useful. Don't let anyone tell you that content will get you penalized or something just because it can be found elsewhere. Do cite your sources and think about user comments. If you provide something uniquely valuable to the user, there are ways to make even pure duplicate content work in search.
-
Romanbond,
This is thin content/Panda kind of stuff. If your users find it valuable and outside sources link to your abstract pages, it could pass muster. It's likely though, that those pages will not build up the authority that they need to either rank well themselves or pass along link equity to those pages they link to.
-
Hmmm I would say borderline. If this was the mainstay of posts to a site, then I would be worried. However if you have lots of other content published on a regular basis that is content-rich and engaging, then I would be less worried.
If the main goal here really is for users, rather than SERPS, why not noindex, dofollow the page?
Couldn't you twist this a little though, have a unique intro at the start of the article, then a paragraph of your own thoughts on each topic - adding value and provoking thought, then a link to the topic after that? It's what I do on some of my sites, and it works well!
-
It would probably be duplicate content. The page would be useful for people who stumble upon your site, but why would Google want to rank that page over the actual sources themselves? So your best bet is to add plenty of your own content to that page, or rank the rest of your site and link to this useful resource (not expecting it to rank on its own).
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
-
Back links to pages on our site that don't exist on forums we haven't used with irrelevant product anchor text
Hi, I have a recurring issue that I can't find a reason for. I have a website that has over 7k backlinks that I monitor quite closely. Each month there are additional links on third party forums that have no relevance to the site or subject matter that are as a result toxic. Our clients site is a training site yet these links are appearing on third party sites like http://das-forum-der-musik.de/mineforum/ and have anchor text with "UGG boots for sale" to pages on our url listed as /mensuggboots.html that obviously don't exist. Each month, I try to contact the site owners and then I add them to Google using the disavow tool. Two months later they are gone and then are replaced with new backlinks on a number of different forum websites. Quite random but always relating to UGG boots. There are at least 100 extra links each month. Can anyone suggest why this is happening? Has anyone seen this kind of activity before? Is it possibly black hat SEO being performed by a competitor? I just don't understand why our URL is listed. To be fair, there are other websites linked to using the same terms that aren't ours and are also of a different theme so I don't understand what the "spammer" is trying to achieve. Any help would be appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | rufo
KInd Regards
Steve0 -
Pinging Links
Interested to know if anybody still uses the strategy of pinging links to make sure they get indexed, there are a number of sites out there which offer it. Is it considered dangerous/spamy?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seoman100 -
Sudden influx of 404's affecting SERP's?
Hi Mozzers, We've recently updated a site of ours that really should be doing much better than it currently is. It's got a good backlink profile (and some spammy links recently removed), has age on it's side and has been SEO'ed a tremendous amount. (think deep-level, schema.org, site-speed and much, much more). Because of this, we assumed thin, spammy content was the issue and removed these pages, creating new, content-rich pages in the meantime. IE: We removed a link-wheel page; <a>https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Asuperted.com%2Fpopular-searches</a>, which as you can see had a **lot **of results (circa 138,000). And added relevant pages for each of our entertainment 'categories'.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ChimplyWebGroup
<a>http://www.superted.com/category.php/bands-musicians</a> - this page has some historical value, so the Mozbar shows some Page Authority here.
<a>http://www.superted.com/profiles.php/wedding-bands</a> - this is an example of a page linking from the above page. These are brand new URLs and are designed to provide relevant content. The old link-wheel pages contained pure links (usually 50+ on every page), no textual content, yet were still driving small amounts of traffic to our site.
The new pages contain quality and relevant content (ie - our list of Wedding Bands, what else would a searcher be looking for??) but some haven't been indexed/ranked yet. So with this in mind I have a few questions: How do we drive traffic to these new pages? We've started to create industry relevant links through our own members to the top-level pages. (http://www.superted.com/category.php/bands-musicians) The link-profile here _should _flow to some degree to the lower-level pages, right? We've got almost 500 'sub-categories', getting quality links to these is just unrealistic in the short term. How long until we should be indexed? We've seen an 800% drop in Organic Search traffic since removing our spammy link-wheel page. This is to be expected to a degree as these were the only real pages driving traffic. However, we saw this drop (and got rid of the pages) almost exactly a month ago, surely we should be re-indexed and re-algo'ed by now?! **Are we still being algor****hythmically penalised? **The old spammy pages are still indexed in Google (138,000 of them!) despite returning 404's for a month. When will these drop out of the rankings? If Google believes they still exist and we were indeed being punished for them, then it makes sense as to why we're still not ranking, but how do we get rid of them? I've tried submitting a manual removal of URL via WMT, but to no avail. Should I 410 the page? Have I been too hasty? I removed the spammy pages in case they were affecting us via a penalty. There would also have been some potential of duplicate content with the old and the new pages.
_popular-searches.php/event-services/videographer _may have clashed with _profiles.php/videographer, _for example.
Should I have kept these pages whilst we waited for the new pages to re-index? Any help would be extremely appreciated, I'm pulling my hair out that after following 'guidelines', we seem to have been punished in some way for it. I assumed we just needed to give Google time to re-index, but a month should surely be enough for a site with historical SEO value such as ours?
If anyone has any clues about what might be happening here, I'd be more than happy to pay for a genuine expert to take a look. If anyone has any potential ideas, I'd love to reward you with a 'good answer'. Many, many thanks in advance. Ryan.0 -
Common passwords used for spam accounts?
This is a bit of a longshot. I know that many of the spam forum accounts, blog posts etc that have in the past been used for SEO are generated automatically. Does anyone know of any common passwords that are often used when setting up these accounts? I only ask as, trying to clean up the backlink profile for my website, I found myself in desperation keying in random passwords trying to access the spam accounts created on various forums by our former SEO agency. Eventually I got lucky and worked out the password for a series of forum accounts was, not very imaginatively, 'seo'. Having worked out this, I was able to delete the spam signatures on about 10 forums. But there are many other accounts where I have no idea of the password used. I guess I'm just wondering if there are standard stock passwords used in the past by many SEOs? Not likely to get an answer to this one, I know, but worth a shot.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mgane0 -
Forum Ping Back Links
Hi all, This will probably be a fairly simple question, however I'm unsure of the correct terminology to get a good answer via search. Some of my competitors have links in the comment section of highly respected websites, example of one occurrence on the mighty Wired: http://www.wired.com/bodyhack/2007/07/good-green/ Since Panda and Penguin I know Google has attempted to disregard any sort of link juice from such comment/forum spam - is this the case with comment links in sites such as Wired, as above? I'd like to hear that such comment spam actually harms the ranking of competitor sites..is there any truth to this also? I want to avoid all sorts of spammy approaches to SEO such as this - I've always been an ethical marketer, and would rather not stoop to these levels...but if they work and there is no chance of ranking penalisation.. Thanks for your time, dudes!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | paj19790 -
Will aggregating external content hurt my domain's SERP performance?
Hi, We operate a website that helps parents find babysitters. As a small add- on we currently run a small blog with the topic of childcare and parenting. We are now thinking of introducing a new category to our blog called "best articles to read today". The idea is that we "re-blog" selected articles from other blogs that we believe are relevant for our audience. We have obtained the permission from a number of bloggers that we may fully feature their articles on our blog. Our main aim in doing so is to become a destination site for parents. This obviously creates issues with regard to duplicated content. The question I have is: will including this duplicated content on our domain harm our domains general SERP performance? And if so, how can this effect be avoided? It isn't important for us that these "featured" articles rank in SERPs, so we could potentially make them "no index" sites or make the "rel canonical" point to the original author. Any thoughts anyone? Thx! Daan
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | daan.loening0 -
Links via scraped / cloned content
Just been looking at some backlinks on a site - a good proportion of them are via Scraped wikipedia links or sites with similar directories to those found on DMOZ (just they have different names). To be honest, many of these sites look pretty dodgy to me, but if they're doing illegal stuff there's absolutely no way I'll be able to get links removed. Should I just sit and watch the backlinks increase from these questionable sources, or report the sites to Google, or do something else? Advice please.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Link Building after Google updates!
Hello All, I just wanted to ask the question to start a discussion on link building after the Google Updates. I haven't been very proactive lately with regards to link building due to the updates and not wanting to get penalised! Are there any link building trends/techniques people are using since the changes? Thanks, seo_123
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TWPLC_seo0