What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
70 Comments
- RawbCahn, on 11/14/2007, -1/+17**Additional generic compliment**
- ayeroxor, on 11/14/2007, -0/+15"Google has been cracking down on site's with duplicate content."
site is? - TracerX, on 11/14/2007, -1/+11Hmm, how does Google feel about pages that are dead...
- inactive, on 11/14/2007, -0/+10Look, stop submitting poorly hosted blogs to digg. They almost NEVER HOLD UP.
- TracerX, on 11/14/2007, -0/+8Please forgive the comment spam. Coral Cache caught it:
http://blog.freshegg.com.nyud.net/2007/11/14/dupli ...
Here is the article since coral cache can be flaky:
Duplicate content can cause major headaches for gaining positions in natural search. If content is not unique and can be found in identical form on another domain – this could greatly inhibit your site’s ability to gain a commanding presence in the SERPs.
Duplicate content is frowned upon in the eyes of search engines. This is because understandably they want to ensure users are not subject to identical content displayed throughout search results.
So what is duplicate content defined as? According to Google Webmaster Central, duplicate content is:
“…substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar.”
Duplicate content is commonplace, and many are unaware that their site even has duplicate content issues.
Simply linking back to your site’s homepage by the pages filename (e.g. index.html) is a duplicate content hazard. If a search engine was to follow and index that link, they would be seeing the content of your homepage on two separate URLs:
* http://www.yourdomain.com/
* http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html
Even though the above links are actually referencing exactly the same page, this would still be seen as duplicate content as search engines index URLs not pages.
The same problem would arise with a site that contained canonical URL issues, that is a site that is accessible via both www and non-www URLs:
* http://www.yourdomain.com/
* http://yourdomain.com/
So what about quoting other peoples words? This is fine so long as the quote is not too long and you do not quote excessively there will be no duplicate content risk.
Almond Resorts UK, a site offering luxury all-inclusive holidays in the Caribbean has been subject to duplicate content issues.
The US .com site was replicated on a new .co.uk in order to offer the holidays to UK based consumers, but the identical copy meant that the newer domain (www.almondresorts.co.uk) was struggling to rank competitively.
For this reason we looked at ways to differentiate the two sites, to put the .co.uk domain in a better position to rank competitively.
We began by rewriting the Meta data for the site. Rewording and rewriting the page titles, Meta Description and Keywords tags and we have already begun to see the benefits of making these changes.
From visibility outside of the top 30 in Google UK, we have seen terms such as all inclusive Barbados jump to the first page and all inclusive holiday St. Lucia has reached 13th position.
These are encouraging jumps and show how, by making content unique you are greatly enhancing your site for both users and search engines.
The next step for the UK Almond Resorts site will be to rewrite the copy. We are confident that this will only serve to propel the site to even higher visibility in the natural search listings. - BloggerJohn, on 11/14/2007, -4/+11Really good article, duplicate content is something that is overlooked way too much at the moment, number one way to boost your site in google = get a lot of unique content - update regularly.
- Chompy, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7The correct plural for the word sites is "sites", not "site's". The apostrophe is not used to indicate plural. Never ever.
- justice7, on 11/14/2007, -1/+7do your clients know about your nickname of analwart?
- doit3d, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6I wish this meant that Engadget would get banned for linking back to itself multiple times in all it's spam articles submitted here.
I can only dream... - snowtwist, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5what happens to sites like the big newspapers where content is cut and paste the whole time?
- zachshmack, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6But what if you're minding your p's and q's? :-D
- ers35, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4I wish the same could be said for the articles on Digg.
- interiot, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4The article linked is so unhelpful on this point, that it's wrong. It goes so far as to say that even these qualify as duplicate contents to Google, and that you should fix it:
http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html
http://www.yourdomain.com/
That's.... ridiculous. That's the default Apache behavior, and Google isn't going to penalize something that's so widespread.
In cases where the pages are exactly the same, you can have one do an HTTP 301 redirect from one to the other, and then there's zero chance Google will penalize you for that.
However, numerous content systems DO host the exact same content at different URLs, without using HTTP redirects. eg. Wikipedia doesn't redirect between any of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Amer ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.A.
And Google can't penalize for that either. So clearly there's broader limits or exceptions to what Google will penalize for. - mevans05, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3what are you even talking about?!?? "ban you up"? and yes, google has banned/penalized sites for dupe content.
- MalDON, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Way to duplicate his content... Thanks though, coral Cache was being picky. And he has a point, I've noticed my ranking going down over the past month or so with the cause being duplicate content. I didn't realize that my old website directory was still being indexed by Google.
- jjohnstn, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Looks like someone is trying to get links to a client site (or their own). The link anchor text "luxury all-inclusive holidays in the Caribbean", "all inclusive Barbados", and "all inclusive holiday St. Lucia" point to the site www.almondresorts.co.uk instead of a Google search results page.
- Elranzer, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2People want their AdSense revenue. The ironic thing is, most of Digg's traffic uses AdBlock and so just wastes their bandwidth costs, since the ads never show up for these viewers anyway.
- inactive, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Actually both are acceptable.
- Elranzer, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Maybe someday Google can crackdown on apostrophe's being used as plural's.
- ayeroxor, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2diggs, clicks, etc, etc.
- NeoN068, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4Duplicate Content on Mirrored Sites across Multiple Domains
Written by Simon
Duplicate content can cause major headaches for gaining positions in natural search. If content is not unique and can be found in identical form on another domain – this could greatly inhibit your site’s ability to gain a commanding presence in the SERPs.
Duplicate content is frowned upon in the eyes of search engines. This is because understandably they want to ensure users are not subject to identical content displayed throughout search results.
So what is duplicate content defined as? According to Google Webmaster Central, duplicate content is:
“…substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar.”
Duplicate content is commonplace, and many are unaware that their site even has duplicate content issues.
Simply linking back to your site’s homepage by the pages filename (e.g. index.html) is a duplicate content hazard. If a search engine was to follow and index that link, they would be seeing the content of your homepage on two separate URLs:
* http://www.yourdomain.com/
* http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html
Even though the above links are actually referencing exactly the same page, this would still be seen as duplicate content as search engines index URLs not pages.
The same problem would arise with a site that contained canonical URL issues, that is a site that is accessible via both www and non-www URLs:
* http://www.yourdomain.com/
* http://yourdomain.com/
So what about quoting other peoples words? This is fine so long as the quote is not too long and you do not quote excessively there will be no duplicate content risk.
Almond Resorts UK, a site offering luxury all-inclusive holidays in the Caribbean has been subject to duplicate content issues.
The US .com site was replicated on a new .co.uk in order to offer the holidays to UK based consumers, but the identical copy meant that the newer domain (www.almondresorts.co.uk) was struggling to rank competitively.
For this reason we looked at ways to differentiate the two sites, to put the .co.uk domain in a better position to rank competitively.
We began by rewriting the Meta data for the site. Rewording and rewriting the page titles, Meta Description and Keywords tags and we have already begun to see the benefits of making these changes.
From visibility outside of the top 30 in Google UK, we have seen terms such as all inclusive Barbados jump to the first page and all inclusive holiday St. Lucia has reached 13th position.
These are encouraging jumps and show how, by making content unique you are greatly enhancing your site for both users and search engines.
The next step for the UK Almond Resorts site will be to rewrite the copy. We are confident that this will only serve to propel the site to even higher visibility in the natural search listings. - CheeseburgerBro, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2What exactly qualifies as duplicate content? I have a blog, and I have blog archives on my main site. Would that trip the filter? What are RSS feeds?
(I'd read the article but the server's gone all deadish.) - CheeseburgerBro, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Oh, I see. So the article is more or less for self-annointed Google SEOs who don't yet know about Google Webmastertools.
Got it. - Haecceity, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3According to the OED's site (http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsp ...
"An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:
1. in the plurals of single letters:
There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
Mind your p's and q's.
(Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)
2. in the plurals of abbreviations:
We have several pg's [paying guests].
We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
(But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs)."
The OED tends to know something about the English language. - mevans05, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2the original source will typically (not always) rank over syndicated/copied content (because they have more links or it is an older document). also, this isn't always viewed as dupe content becauset the surrounding code is usually unique enough even thought the main content is the same.
- morcheeba, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Bob has been cracking down on headlines with bad apostrophes: http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
- absinthism, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Not that great of an article.
Google doesn't "ban" your website for duplicate content. They may drop your pagerank and unlist your page but once you replace the duplicated content your PR and listing goes back to normal.
cPanel and other major control panels let you access your website via mypage.com or www.mypage.com by default. It would be stupid of google to rank your site lower or give your site a penalty for that. There's other "advice" in there I wouldn't believe for a minute. - crapmatic, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2The domain FreshEgg.com is hosted by ServerStream (serverstream.net). Guess I'll be giving them a miss.
- SjRaptor, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2This article is complete *****. Google and Yahoo and other search engines are intelligent enough to distinguish page links using www and those using no-www. To think they can't understand this is so 1995. Buried.
- gregdigg, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Since when do digg users compliment anything?
- intenscia, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2This is a pretty poor article. As stated above Google and Yahoo are both smart enough to distinguish between www. and non www.
Also duplicate content does not immediately block you from the SERPS, Google and Yahoo will simply try and find the source of the article and link to that. The main problem here is that if a site with a higher pagerank dupes your content, they will generally be the one indexed and you will get burned. - inactive, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1follow these instructions to help your blog withstand the digg effect
http://astawerks.net/blog/2007/11/13/how-to-prepar ... - my8bird, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Is anyone else worried that we have placed so much on this search techniques that the truly good content does not get found because the creators are busy creating instead of gaming the search engines?
- alexjsolis, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I also would like to know, it seems that many sits just copy and paste duplicate stories all over the place but each of these stories seem to generate page rank on all their respected sites.
- Lasereth, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2no worky, no diggy
sorry that was stupidy - bigk9, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4But will Google ban you when your database server crashes from too much Digg traffic?
- Butros, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1/*nested comment*/
- LongShlong, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4Already dead.
- davidlyness, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Really good article, duplicate content is something that is overlooked way too much at the moment, number one way to boost your site in google = get a lot of unique content - update regularly.
- rynTAU, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Looks like this one has been shunned...
- Archon810, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1delete. stupid digg eats less than and greater than signs.
- inactive, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Copypasta is finally banned?
Anon will be pissed. - Ozymandias42, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Yeah, except Google gets so much traffic that increasing your rank a little bit is 1000x more price-effective than slowly building a customer base over a period of several years. Getting in the top couple links on a relevant keyword will bring massive amounts of customers interested in what you're selling. That's an exceptionally valuable commodity, and understandably people are willing to go through hoops to get it.
- interiot, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2That's using an apostrophe (which are usually reserved for possessives) on a plural, mr. greengrocer.
- BurnTees, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1google will ban you for trying to cheat the system however. i know people with sites that have just disappeared off of google for months at a time. for example, if you hide text at the bottom of your site and just load it with keywords (that may not even apply to your site), google will punish you big time.
- mattcurrie, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Yes
- 888er, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1this is dumb....if google can penalize sites which are selling links, why can't they just recognise www.site.com and site.com as the same thing and not mark it down as duplicate content?
Also www.site.com/ and www.site.com/index.php? - jrfuda, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1According to Google, you should no longer be penalized for duplicate content as of December of last year. See these links:
http://videos.webpronews.com/2006/12/06/vanessa-fo ...
and
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2006/12 ...
The bottom line, as I understand it, is that (usually) only 1 URL will be listed in the search engine (even if there are dozens to the same content, as often happens with CMS). In order to get your preferred URL to the content in question, it should be the only URL included in your sitemap. - Haecceity, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1This is commonly-known information followed by some blatant spam. Why is this being dugg?
- horsecharles, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0It's the site that's having problems actually....
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is