Is Syndicated (Duplicate) Content considered Fresh Content?
-
Hi all,
I've been asking quite a bit of questions lately and sincerely appreciate your feedback. My co-workers & I have been discussing content as an avenue outside of SEO. There is a lot of syndicated content programs/plugins out there (in a lot of cases duplicate) - would this be considered fresh content on an individual domain?
An example may clearly show what I'm after:
domain1.com is a lawyer in Seattle.
domain2.com is a lawyer in New York.Both need content on their website relating to being a lawyer for Google to understand what the domain is about. Fresh content is also a factor within Google's algorithm (source: http://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor). Therefore, fresh content is needed on their domain. But what if that content is duplicate, does it still hold the same value?
Question: Is fresh content (adding new / updating existing content) still considered "fresh" even if it's duplicate (across multiple domains).
Purpose: domain1.com may benefit from a resource for his/her local clientale as the same would domain2.com. And both customers would be reading the "duplicate content" for the first time. Therefore, both lawyers will be seen as an authority & improve their website to rank well.
We weren't interested in ranking the individual article and are aware of canonical URLs. We aren't implementing this as a strategy - just as a means to really understand content marketing outside of SEO.
Conclusion: IF duplicate content is still considered fresh content on an individual domain, then couldn't duplicate content (that obviously won't rank) still help SEO across a domain? This may sound controversial & I desire an open-ended discussion with linked sources / case studies. This conversation may tie into another Q&A I posted: http://moz.com/community/q/does-duplicate-content-actually-penalize-a-domain.
TLDR version: Is duplicate content (same article across multiple domains) considered fresh content on an individual domain?
Thanks so much,
Cole
-
Hi all,
Thanks for the responses & feedback.
Alan, in this example, the fresh content would be relevant. Of course there are search queries that don't need freshness or updates, but I would argue most do need updates / freshness (even the ones we think we know the answer to over time).Once again, the conversation is not about RANKING for that page but about HELPING the domain achieve "freshness & relevance" around a topic with that duplicate content.
Would love to see others chime in.
Thanks,
Cole
-
Well that could mean that some don't need any.
Like
Q. Who discovered Australia, A. Captain Cook.
This does not need freshness.Also consider being original content, in that case the timestamp being older would be better.
I like to think that I own google, and say to myself would I rank it? of cause some things may rank that were not intended to, but I think its quite safe to think that way.
-
This was the part that triggered me:
"Google Fellow Amit Singhal explains that “Dif__ferent searches have different freshness needs.”
The implication is that Google measures all of your documents for freshness, then scores each page according to the type of search query."
-
Had a quick look at that page, did not see that it affects all pages. Anyhow google said 35% of queries, so could not be all pages.
Some points- Why would fresh data be excluded from duplicate content?
- Is it likely that syndicated data is fresh?
- What are google trying to do here, rank syndicated duplicate data?
I cant see it working
-
Thanks a lot! Kinda made me realize I really should read some more about this update. Might be off topic, but what's your view on freshness applied to **all **pages. In this Whiteboard Friday its stated it only impacts the terms you describe:
http://moz.com/blog/googles-freshness-update-whiteboard-friday
But in this blogpost of that time (before the sum up) it’s stated that it’s applied to all pages, but does affect search queries in different ways:
-
Yes, freshness update was not for all queries, it was for certain queries that need fresh content such as football scores, or whose on the team this week, obviously we don't want the score from last year or who is playing last year we want the current data, that is where the freshness update may give you a boost while your content is fresh. Having syndicated content I cant see falling into this category, even if it did, being duplicate content would mean that only once source is going to rank.
Also you have to look at indexing, will the duplicate content even be indexed? if so how often.
That's why I say the short answer is no.
-
Hi Alan,
Is there any source / own research that can back up this answer?
Would love to read more about this subject!
-
Short answer, NO
-
Thanks for your feedback Mike - definitely helpful!
In this hypothetical, we're looking at research or comprehensive articles for specific niches that could serve multiple businesses well as an authority.
Thanks,
Cole
-
Hi Cole,
Fresh by Google (if not noindexed) in this case would be kind of like the freshness value of a "fresh" error.
Maybe that's extreme, but point being, the content is not needed by the web, since it already exists. If there was absolutely nothing else being added to or changed about the site and my one option was adding duplicate content, I'd noindex/follow it and figure I might have gotten some small, small, small benefit from updating the site a little, maybe an improved user signal. I'd for sure keep it out of the index. I guess that's how I'd do it, if it had some value for visitors. If it's only value was adding something fresh and not that great for visitors, I'd find the extra hour necessary to re-write it into something fresh, unique and valued by visitors. .
The other thing about syndicated content is that after you make sure where else you can find it on the web via an exact phrase search in Google, it may not mean you've seen the only instance of it as it may evolve. Having duplicate content indexed with other sites of possibly low quality may put you in a bad neighborhood as sites with common content. If I had a ten foot pole, I wouldn't touch it with it.
I hope that helps. Best... Mike
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the feedback. That was one potential point I was making.
Am still curious if duplicate content would be considered "fresh" within a website. Good point of the duplicate content overriding the benefit of fresh content.
Thanks,
Cole
-
In phrasing the question as "is it considered fresh/unique," I'm going to assume you mean by google for the site's organic benefit. So, I guess the reasoning would be is the fact that it's fresh to the site a bigger positive than the negative of duplicate content. Is that what you're getting at? Personally, knowingly on-boarding duplicate content would be too big of a potential negative for me to consider doing it. I've done it as a noindex/follow for reasons other than Google, but not for some mystery freshness bump.
Not that you can't find examples of duplicate content ranking in more than one place. To me on-boarding indexed duplicate content seems like just asking for trouble.
Hope that helps. Best... Mike
-
I'm curious to see what others have to say on this, but I've always assumed that "fresh" and "unique" go hand in hand when it comes to website content. Therefore, duplicate content would not be fresh content.
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
-
Internal Links & Possible Duplicate Content
Hello, I have a website which from February 6 is keep losing positions. I have not received any manual actions in the Search Console. However I have read the following article a few weeks ago and it look a lot with my case: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-cut-down-on-similar-content-pages-25223.html I noticed that google has remove from indexing 44 out of the 182 pages of my website. The pages that have been removed can be considered as similar like the website that is mentioned in the article above. The problem is that there are about 100 pages that are similar to these. It is about pages that describe the cabins of various cruise ships, that contain one picture and one sentence of max 10 words. So, in terms of humans this is not duplicate content but what about the engine, having in mind that sometimes that little sentence can be the same? And let’s say that I remove all these pages and present the cabin details in one page, instead of 15 for example, dynamically and that reduces that size of the website from 180 pages to 50 or so, how will this affect the SEO concerning the internal links issue? Thank you for your help.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Tz_Seo0 -
Duplicate Content does effect
Hey there, I am Doing SEO For one of my client For mortgage Company. As i have Checked in Other mortgage sites, they used to have Same Content/Details, In all Websites, & my client site have also Some of them, So my Question is as per Google If there Duplicate Content, it will be Got penalize, But as i see Ranking & traffic For competitor site, They have Duplication, then also Rank For 1st page,. what is Reason behind? so i also Implement/Execute our site With that same content?? or i'll Got penalize?? Thnx in advance
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | iepl20010 -
Would it be a good idea to duplicate a website?
Hello, here is the situation: let's say we have a website www.company1.com which is 1 of 3 main online stores catering to a specific market. In an attempt to capture a larger market share, we are considering opening a second website, say www.company2.com. Both these websites have a different URL, but offer the same products for sale to the same clientele. With this second website, the theory is instead of operating 1 of 3 stores, we now operate 2 of 4. We see 2 ways of doing this: we launch www.company2.com as a copy of www.company1.com. we launch www.company2.com as a completely different website. The problem I see with either of these approaches is duplicate content. I think the duplicate content issue would be even more or a problem with the first approach where the entire site is mostly a duplicate. With the second approach, I think the duplicate content issue can be worked around by having completely different product pages and overall website structure. Do you think either of these approaches could result in penalties by the search engines? Furthermore, we all know that higher ranking/increased traffic can be achieved though high quality unique content, social media presence, on-going link-building and so on. Now assuming we have a fixed amount of manpower to provide for these tasks; do you think we have better odds of increasing our overall traffic by sharing the manpower on 2 websites, or putting it all behind a single one? Thanks for your help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | yacpro130 -
Copied Content/ Copied Website/
Hello guys, I was checking my product descriptions and I found out that there is a website that is using my descriptions word by word, also they use company name, product images, they have a link that sends you to my site, contact form.. I tried to purchase something and the order came through our email, but i made an inquire and it didn't come through. Also they have a sub-folder with my company name. Also they have url's with my company name, and this isn't right is it? I am confused and honestly I don't know what to do, we don't take part to any affiliation program or anything like that and we don't ship out of Europe. This is a Chinese website. Just for curiosity, I noticed that one of our competitors is there as well, and it does seem weird. Here is the links: www.everychina . com/company/repsole_limited-hz1405d06.html
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
Moving content to a clean URL
Greetings My site was seriously punished in the recent penguin update. I foolishly got some bad out sourced spammy links built and I am now paying for it 😞 I am now thinking it best to start fresh on a new url, but I am wondering if I can use the content from the flagged site on the new url. Would this be flagged as duplicate content, even if i took the old site down? your help is greatly appreciated Silas
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Silasrose0 -
How do you optimize a page with Syndicated Content?
Content is syndicated legally (licensed). My questions are: What is the best way to approach this situation? Is there any a change to compete with the original site/page for the same keywords? Is it okay to do so? Will there be any negative SEO impact on my site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | StickyRiceSEO0 -
Shadow Pages for Flash Content
Hello. I am curious to better understand what I've been told are "shadow pages" for Flash experiences. So for example, go here:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mozcrush
http://instoresnow.walmart.com/Kraft.aspx#/home View the page as Googlebot and you'll see an HTML page. It is completely different than the Flash page. 1. Is this ok?
2. If I make my shadow page mirror the Flash page, can I put links in it that lead the user to the same places that the Flash experience does?
3. Can I put "Pinterest" Pin-able images in my shadow page?
3. Can a create a shadow page for a video that has the transcript in it? Is this the same as closed captioning? Thanks so much in advance, -GoogleCrush0 -
Tricky Decision to make regarding duplicate content (that seems to be working!)
I have a really tricky decision to make concerning one of our clients. Their site to date was developed by someone else. They have a successful eCommerce website, and the strength of their Search Engine performance lies in their product category pages. In their case, a product category is an audience niche: their gender and age. In this hypothetical example my client sells lawnmowers: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-34 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-33 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-25 http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-3 For all searches pertaining to lawnmowers, the gender of the buyer and their age (for which there are a lot for the 'real' store), these results come up number one for every combination they have a page for. The issue is the specific product pages, which take the form of the following: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-34/fancy-blue-lawnmower This same product, with the same content (save a reference to the gender and age on the page) can also be found at a few other gender / age combinations the product is targeted at. For instance: http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-34/fancy-blue-lawnmower http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/men/age-33/fancy-blue-lawnmower http://www.example.com/lawnmowers/women/age-32/fancy-blue-lawnmower So, duplicate content. As they are currently doing so well I am agonising over this - I dislike viewing the same content on multiple URLs, and though it wasn't a malicious effort on the previous developers part, think it a little dangerous in terms of SEO. On the other hand, if I change it I'll reduce the website size, and severely reduce the number of pages that are contextually relevant to the gender/age category pages. In short, I don't want to sabotage the performance of the category pages, by cutting off all their on-site relevant content. My options as I see them are: Stick with the duplicate content model, but add some unique content to each gender/age page. This will differentiate the product category page content a little. Move products to single distinct URLs. Whilst this could boost individual product SEO performance, this isn't an objective, and it carries the risks I perceive above. What are your thoughts? Many thanks, Tom
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SoundinTheory0