Could we run into issues with duplicate content penalties if we were to borrow product descriptions?
-
Hello,
I work for an online retailer that has the opportunity to add a lot of SKUs to our site in a relatively short amount of time by borrowing content from another site (with their permission). There are a lot of positives for us to do this, but one big question we have is what the borrowed content will do to our search rankings (we normally write our own original content in house for a couple thousand SKUs). Organic search traffic brings in a significant chunk of our business and we definitely don't want to do something that would jeopardize our rankings.
Could we run into issues with duplicate content penalties if we were to use the borrowed product descriptions?
Is there a rule of thumb for what proportion of the site should be original content vs. duplicate content without running into issues with our search rankings?
Thank you for your help!
-
I think Alan and EGOL have summed it up nicely for you.
I have looked at a lot of Panda hit sites and one of the most common issues were e-commerce sites that consisted of primarily of stock product descriptions. Why would Google want to rank a site highly that just contains information that hundreds of other sites have?
If you've got a large chunk of your site containing duplicate descriptions like this then you can attract a Panda flag which can cause your whole site to not rank well, not just the product pages.
You could use the duplicate product descriptions if you had a large amount of original and helpful text around it. However, no one knows what the ratio is. If you have the ability to rewrite the product descriptions this is by far the best thing to do.
-
Just adding a point to this (and with reference to the other good points left by others) - Writing good product descriptions isn't actually that expensive!
It always seems it, as they are usually done in big batches. However on a per product basis they are pretty cheap. Do it well and you will not only improve the search results, but you can improve conversions and even make it more linkable.
Pick a product at random. Would it be worth a few £/$ to sell more of that item? If not remove it from the site anyway.
-
Adding a lot of SKUs to your site in a relatively short amount of time by borrowing content from another site sounds more like a bad sales pitch than a good "opportunity". If you don't want to put in jeopardy a significant chunk of your business, then simply drip the new sku's in as you get new content for them. The thin content's not likely to win you any new search traffic, so unless their addition is going to quickly increase sales from your existing traffic sources and quantities in dramatic fashion, why go down that road?
-
adding emphasis on the danger.
Duplicate product descriptions are the single most problematic issue ecommerce sites face from an SEO perspective. Not only are most canned descriptions so short as to cause product pages to be considered thin on content, copied/borrowed descriptions are more likely to be spread across countless sites.
While it may seem like an inordinate amount of time/cost, unique quality descriptions that are long enough to truly identify product pages as being worthy will go a long way to proving a site deserves ranking, trust.
-
You can hit Panda problems doing this. If you have lots of this content the rankings of your entire site could be damaged.
Best to write your own content, or use this content on pages that are not indexed until you have replaced with original content.
Or you could publish it to get in the index and replace as quickly as possible.
The site you are getting this content from could be damaged as well.
-
You definitely could run in to trouble here. Duplicate content of this type is meant to be dealt with on a page level basis. However if Google think it is manipulative then then it can impact on the domain as a whole. By "think" I really mean "if it matches certain patterns that manipulative sites use" - there is rarely an actual human review.
It is more complex than a simple percentage. Likely many factors are involved. However.. there is a solution!
You can simply add a no index tag to the product pages that have non-original content. That;ll keep them out of the index and keep you on the safe side of dupe issues.
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
-
Meta descriptions
When writing a meta description is it ok to use keywords that are not on the page or site itself?
Algorithm Updates | | aplnzoctober181 -
Mobile Usability Issues after Mobile Frist
Hi All A couple months ago we got an email from google, telling us - Mobile-first indexing enabled for https://www.impactsigns.com/ Ran the test on MOZ, Mobile usability shows 100% Last week got an email from google - New Mobile usability issues detected for impactsigns.com Top new issues found, ordered by number of affected pages: Content wider than screen Clickable elements too close together I can not seem to figure out what those issues are, as all content is visible. How important are these 2 issues? Since we are now on the mobile first side?
Algorithm Updates | | samoos0 -
SEO Myth-Busters -- Isn't there a "duplicate content" penalty by another name here?
Where is that guy with the mustache in the funny hat and the geek when you truly need them? So SEL (SearchEngineLand) said recently that there's no such thing as "duplicate content" penalties. http://searchengineland.com/myth-duplicate-content-penalty-259657 by the way, I'd love to get Rand or Eric or others Mozzers aka TAGFEE'ers to weigh in here on this if possible. The reason for this question is to double check a possible 'duplicate content" type penalty (possibly by another name?) that might accrue in the following situation. 1 - Assume a domain has a 30 Domain Authority (per OSE) 2 - The site on the current domain has about 100 pages - all hand coded. Things do very well in SEO because we designed it to do so.... The site is about 6 years in the current incarnation, with a very simple e-commerce cart (again basically hand coded). I will not name the site for obvious reasons. 3 - Business is good. We're upgrading to a new CMS. (hooray!) In doing so we are implementing categories and faceted search (with plans to try to keep the site to under 100 new "pages" using a combination of rel canonical and noindex. I will also not name the CMS for obvious reasons. In simple terms, as the site is built out and launched in the next 60 - 90 days, and assume we have 500 products and 100 categories, that yields at least 50,000 pages - and with other aspects of the faceted search, it could create easily 10X that many pages. 4 - in ScreamingFrog tests of the DEV site, it is quite evident that there are many tens of thousands of unique urls that are basically the textbook illustration of a duplicate content nightmare. ScreamingFrog has also been known to crash while spidering, and we've discovered thousands of URLS of live sites using the same CMS. There is no question that spiders are somehow triggering some sort of infinite page generation - and we can see that both on our DEV site as well as out in the wild (in Google's Supplemental Index). 5 - Since there is no "duplicate content penalty" and there never was - are there other risks here that are caused by infinite page generation?? Like burning up a theoretical "crawl budget" or having the bots miss pages or other negative consequences? 6 - Is it also possible that bumping a site that ranks well for 100 pages up to 10,000 pages or more might very well have a linkuice penalty as a result of all this (honest but inadvertent) duplicate content? In otherwords, is inbound linkjuice and ranking power essentially divided by the number of pages on a site? Sure, it may be some what mediated by internal page linkjuice, but what's are the actual big-dog issues here? So has SEL's "duplicate content myth" truly been myth-busted in this particular situation? ??? Thanks a million! 200.gif#12
Algorithm Updates | | seo_plus0 -
Product Listing Pages
Hi I had a question regarding product pages and the best way to display the page for SEO. For example, is it best to have a page for - Blue Euro Containers including a table of the capacity options you can buy.. Or, have each product split out so it has it's own product page - 60L Blue Euro Container, etc etc I know a lot of the information will be fairly similar, with the capacity being the one major difference - is this a bad thing? Some of our product tables are too big and the idea was to split them out. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
How much content is it safe to change?
I have read that it is unsafe to change more than 20% of your site’s content in any update. The rationale is that "Changing too much at once can flag your site within the Google algorithm as having something suspicious going on." Is this true, has anyone had any direct experiences of this or similar?
Algorithm Updates | | GrouchyKids0 -
Google penalty for one keyword?
Is it possible to get penalized by Google for a specific keyword and essentially disappear from the SERPs for that keyword but keep position for the brand (#1) and some other keywords (#4 and #7)? And how would you find out that this is what happened if there is no GWT message?
Algorithm Updates | | gfiedel0 -
Duplicate Content & www.3quarksdaily.com, why no penalty?
Does anyone have a theory as to why this site does not get hit with a DC penalty? The site is great, and the information is good but I just cannot understand the reason that this site does not get hit with a duplicate content penalty as all articles are posted elsewhere. Any theories would be greatly appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | KMack0 -
Why is a website with lower content interest reaching higher in google
there is a website that i am competing with <cite>www.gastricbandhypnotherapy.net for the term gastric band hypnotherapy and for some reason it is now ranching higher than me.</cite> I have been number one in google with http://www.clairehegarty.co.uk/virtual-gastric-band-with-hypnotherapy for the term Gastric Band Hypnotherapy but for some reason in the past few days it has ranked number one and pushed me down to number three. i do not understand it as there is not much relevant content to gastric band hypnotherapy and also it does not have many links pointing into it can you please help with this question
Algorithm Updates | | ClaireH-1848860