Revenue Source

Welcome to the Revenue Source affiliate marketing forums.

You are viewing our internet marketing and SEO forums as a guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions.  By joining our free community, you will have access to post affiliate marketing topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), exchange SEO strategies, and access many other special features.  Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Go Back   Revenue Source > Affiliate Marketing Hangout > Internet Marketing Articles > SEO / SEM
Reload this Page Duplicate Content Revisited
Tags: , ,

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
SEO Blogs is Offline
Revenue Source Veteran
SEO Blogs is worth a listen.SEO Blogs is worth a listen.SEO Blogs is worth a listen.
 
SEO Blogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 822
   
Duplicate Content Revisited - 11-15-2006

Tedster wrote a meaty post in WMW concerning duplicate content:
Google tries to select the dupes and then put all but one of them into the “supplemental index”. If a domain has just a few instances of duplication like this in the Google index, things tend to go on as normal. But when many, many urls start showing up, all with identical content, then something seems to get tripped at Google and a site can start to see trouble.
One of my domains in supplemental hell (where not even my home page can be found on the first page of a site: query) uses a few directories to link off to sponsors - this adds up to a few thousand supplemental URLs out of 7,000 indexed. I also have session ID type seed in urls that results in thousands of supplementals. The result? I’m seeing even unqiue pages end up being listed by Google as supplemental.
Still, didn’t Matt Cutts say there’s no such thing as “duplicate content penalty?” What tedster says doesn’t sound like a mere filter - it sounds like a site wide penalty. Then again, I never fully trust what anyone says. I mean…Google didn’t even notice the sandbox phenomenon until someone pointed it out to them :)
Why doesn’t Google just want to forget supplementals? (speculation) Because if any page points to them, Moz-bot will have to recrawl them later, and it’s better to have records of these urls to avoid wasting time recrawling and indexing them.
Makes you want to start a few domains over from scratch, doesn’t it? My only hope at this point is to increase the number of incoming links, beef up PR sitewide and write more content. Still, seeing site:domain.com return the same SERP for the last 2-3 weeks isn’t encouraging.


Duplicate Content Revisited - Read More...
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads for: Duplicate Content Revisited
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supplemental Cache Refresh Revisited SEO Blogs SEO / SEM 0 11-15-2006 10:41 PM
Sitewide Duplicate Content Checker Tool Useless? SEO Blogs SEO / SEM 0 11-15-2006 10:41 PM
Page Strength Revisited SEO Blogs SEO / SEM 0 11-15-2006 08:44 PM
I agree to disagree on duplicate content! SEO Blogs SEO / SEM 0 11-15-2006 05:21 PM
RSS: It's about Content, Content, Content Affiliate Marketing News Commission Junction 0 11-02-2006 04:43 PM



© 2004-6 RevenueSource.com.  All rights reserved.  Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.
This website and its logos/design are property of RevenueSource.com.  All rights reserved. vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34