Publication Date, Modification Date - (Proper) Usage and Effect
-
Hi,
First of all: I think apart from QDF results, effects of this are rather small and trumped by such things as the actual content and value a page offered. Nevertheless I got to wondering how the publication date and modification date are used ... effectively and correctly.
Fact: Google displays the publication date on SERPS (if it is given via schema or through the CMS or in any other form). This also applies if you have a date of last modification, for example via schema.org/dateModified - regardless of the extent of changes.
Google only considers the publication date. Google also uses it as an indicator for "freshness". There are quite a few articles on that out there, ex: http://www.kevinmuldoon.com/change-date-article-boost-seo/ and http://www.viperchill.com/new-seo/Q1: In my opinion, faking the publication date is at the very least a darkish grey area which nonetheless seems to still work. Would you agree?
Q2: Would you see it as legitimate to (at some point after thoroughly reworking one page) update the publication date to the date of republication?
Case in point: I have a page with book reviews. These reviews do not really go stale - much like recipes; tastes may change a bit, but essentially it stays the same. I find it somewhat irking to see a 10 year old date there - even if I maybe have restructured and rewritten, maybe even completely redone a review...
But apart from the question of whether to ever "update" your publication date. I started pondering when it was proper to change the modification date (especially as it seems to have little effect apart from serving as date for last changes in headers, caches etc.)?
For example, content changes when
- Manually changing text
- a visitor leaves a comment
- a visitor gives a book/article/page a rating
- a visitor gives a book a rating and this rating is part of another entity's aggregate rating
Q: Which of these events would warrant an update of the last modification? ratings and aggregate ratings typically only change single numbers (vote count and sums/averages); yet there is [legitimate] change and it is utilised in SERPS (review stars).
I am still hesitant.
My answers would be: Changing the publication date might be valid in case of a MAJOR overhaul with new or lots of extra content - when, for example you could publish the same article again in another issue of the same print magazine the article has been published in before; and all of those changes warrant an update of the last modification, at least as it is currently used, i.e. only to show when change has happened with any real influence.
Personally I'd wish for lastModified carrying more weight compared to pubDate AND especially for more google-side checks if actual change has happened. (To be ignored in case of small things like legitimately switching a sentence or correcting a typo; to be penalised if changed when nothing really changes; to honour when real change happens)
Looking forward on your opinions for dating content - and of course on your hints what I am forgetting.
Nico
-
The dating of content has gotten a lot of play of late, in large part because of a post that appeared on the Moz blog: https://moz.com/blog/case-study-can-you-fake-blog-post-freshness-
Despite the dissenting opinions on all sides, this much appears to find consensus: Update your content and the content's date when you have new, valuable information available to provide, and only then.
Otherwise the results are likely to be short-term and not very worthwhile.
RS
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
-
Canonical URL Tag Usage
I have a large website, almost 1500 pages that each market different keywords for the trucking logistics industry. I don't really understand the new Canonical URL Tag USAGE. They say to use it so the page is not a duplicate but the page that MOZ is call for to have the tag isn't a duplicate. It promotes 1 keyword that no other page directly promotes. Here is the page address, now what tag would I put up in the HEAD so google don't treat it as a duplicate page. http://www.freightetc.com/c/heavyhaul/heavyhaul.php 1. Number 1 the actual page address because I want it treated like its own page or do I have to use #2 below? 2. I don't know why I would use #2 as I want it to be its own page, and get credit and listed and ranked as its own page. Can anyone clarify this stuff to me as I guess i am just new to this whole tag usage.
On-Page Optimization | | dwebb0070 -
can we include iframe content if we properly reference the source in the url?
can we safely include iframe content if we properly source the source url. eg we have a travel company we are looking to produce another website, but use the same hotel descriptions in the hotel directory. can we do this?
On-Page Optimization | | Direct_Ram0 -
Proper Use and Interpretation of new Query/Page report
When I'm in WMT/Search Console - I start a process of looking at all of the data initially unfiltered Then I select a query. Let's say its a top query for starters and I filter my results by that top query (exactly) With the filter on, I flip over to Pages and I get about a dozen results. When I look at this list, I get the normal variety of output: impressions, clicks, CTR, avg. position One thing that seems a bit odd to me is that most of the average positions for each of the URLs displayed is about the same. Say they range from 1.0 to 1.3. Does this mean that Google is displaying the dozen or so URLs to different people and generally in the 1st or 2nd position. Does this mean that my dozen or so pages are all competing with each other for the same query? On one hand, if all of my dozen pages displayed most of the time in the SERP all at the same time, I would see this as a good thing in that I would be 'owning' the SERP for my particular query. On the other hand, I'm concerned that the keyword I'm trying to optimize a particular page for is being partially distributed to less optimized pages. The main target page is shown the most (good) and it has about a 15x better CTR (also good). But all together, the other 11 pages are taking in around 40% of impressions and get a far lower CTR (bad). Am I interpreting this data correctly? Is WMT showing me what pages a particular query sends traffic to? Is there any way to extract the keywords that a particular page receives? When I reset my query and then start by selecting a specific page (exact match) and then select queries - is this showing my the search queries that drove traffic to that page? Is there a 'best practices' process to try to target a keyword to a specific page so that it gets more than the 60% of impressions I'm seeing now? Obviously I don't want to do a canonical because each keyword goes to many different pages and each page receives a different mix of keywords. I would think there would be a different technique when your page has an average position off of page 1.
On-Page Optimization | | ExploreConsulting0 -
Does anyone know how I can see the original date of a link to my website?
Hello community, I'm trying to find the oldest links to my website/places that have referenced my company. By old, I'm looking for anything 2008 or older. I have access to a bunch of backlink tools, but they all log stuff based on when they discovered it, and we didn't begin using the tools until June 2013. I'm hoping there's some tool or some easy trick where I can quickly sort my links based on original date they linked to travelexinsurance.com. Thanks, Patrick
On-Page Optimization | | Patrick_G0 -
Will "internal 301s" have any effect on page rank or the way in which an SE see's our site interlinking?
We've been forced (for scalability) to completely restructure our website in terms of setting out a hierarchy. For example - the old structure : country / city / city area Where we had about 3500 nicely interlinked pages for relevant things like taxis, hotels, apartments etc in that city : We needed to change the structure to be : country / region / area / city / cityarea So as patr of the change we put in place lots of 301s for the permanent movement of pages to the new structure and then we tried to actually change the physical on-page links too. Unfortunately we have left a good 600 or 700 links that point to the old pages, but are picked up by the 301 redirect on page, so we're slowly going through them to ensure the links go to the new location directly (not via the 301). So my question is (sorry for long waffle) : Whilst it must surely be "best practice" for all on-page links to go directly to the 'right' page, are we harming our own interlinking and even 'page rank' by being tardy in working through them manually? Thanks for any help anyone can give.
On-Page Optimization | | TinkyWinky0 -
SEOmoz's On-page Checker upto date?
Helllo Mozzers, Just wondering if SEOmoz's on-page optimisation checker is upto date with google recent updates? If not... what do you suggest?
On-Page Optimization | | Prestige-SEO0 -
What is the most effective eCommerce product / category structure?
Hi all, We sell musical equipment, and we have been debating about how to structure our website in terms of products and categories. These are our two options: Each category page lists sub-categories _and _all of the products contained within each of these sub-categories, so e.g. the "Guitars" category page would contain links to "Electric Guitars" and "Acoustic Guitars" as well as a big list of electric and acoustic guitars. Each category page lists only its sub-categories, unless it is a "leaf" node, in which case it lists all the products, so e.g. category "Guitars" just has two links - to "Electric Guitars" and "Acoustic Guitars" - and no products. Option 2 means customers don't see products until they've decided which category they want, which doesn't seem ideal to me, but SEO-wise, which is best? Thanks! Alex
On-Page Optimization | | reddogmusic0 -
Does keyword density on a landing page effect SEO?
I'm relitavely new to SEO, and I just wondered how keyword dense the homepage to our businesses site should be? Is there any value in loading the frontpage at the potential expense of readibility, or should our content elsewhere be responsible for our yield in search engine results? Look forward to any responses. Thanks, Mark
On-Page Optimization | | RobertHill0