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
-
Canonicals from sub-domain to main domain: How much content relevancy matters? Any back-links impact?
Hi Moz community, I have this different scenario of using canonicals to solve the duplicate content issue in our site. Our subdomain and main domain have similar landing pages of same topics with content relevancy about 50% to 70%. Both pages will be in SERP and confusing users; possibly search engine too. We would like solve this by using canonicals on subdomain pointing to main domain pages. Even our intention is to only to show main domain pages in SERP. I wonder how Google handles it? Will the canonicals will be respected with this content relevancy? What happens if they don't respect? Just ignore or penalise for trying to do this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Header Structure In Product Gallery Page
Hi Everyone, Should product names have an H2 header tag on a gallery page? (H1 already optimized) Why or why not?
Algorithm Updates | | JMSCC0 -
Using Google to find a discontinued product.
Hi Guys. I mostly use this forum for business questions, but now it's a personal one! I'm trying to find a supplier that might still have discontinued product. It's the Behritone C5A speaker monitor. All my searches bring up a plethora of pages that appear to sell the product... but they have no stock. (Wouldn't removing these pages make for a better internet?) No 2nd hand ones on eBay 😞 Do you have any suggestion about how I can get more relevant results... i.e find supplier that might still have stock? Any tips or trick I may be able to use to help me with this? Many thanks in advance to an awesome community 🙂 Isaac.
Algorithm Updates | | isaac6631 -
Dates appear before home page description in the SERPs- HUGE drop in rankings
We have been on the first page of Google for a number of years for search terms including 'SEO Agency', 'SEO Agency London' etc. A few months ago we made some changes to the design of the home page (added a blog feed), and made changes to the website sitemap. Two days ago (two months after last site changes were made) we dropped subsantially in the SERPs for all home page keywords. Where we are found, a date appears before the description in the SERPs, dating February 2012 (which is when we launched the original website). The site has been through a revamp since then, yet it still shows 2012. This has been followed by a few additional strange things, including the sitelinks that Google is choosing to show (which including author bio pages showing in homepage site links), and googling our brand name no longer brings up sitelinks in the SERPs. The problem only affects the home page. All other pages are performing as standard. When Penguin 4.0 came out we saw a noted improvement in our SERP performance, and our backlinks are good and quality, largely from PR efforts. Of course, I would be interested in additional pairs of eyes on the back links to see if anyone thinks that I have missed anything! We have 3 of our senior SEOs working on trying to figure out what is going on and how to resolve it, but I would be very interested if anyone has any thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | GoUp3 -
Does anyone know what causes the long meta description snippet?
You know the ones I mean... Google have been infrequently displaying some meta descriptions as 3-4 lines long for some time now. But recently, I've been noticing them more. Not sure whether it's just a coincidence that I've been seeing more for my searches, or whether Google are displaying more in this format. Does anybody know what causes Google to prefer the longer meta description or extended meta description for some results?
Algorithm Updates | | Ria_0 -
Google indexing site content that I did not wish to be indexed
Hi is it pretty standard for Google to index content that you have not specifically asked them to index i.e. provided them notification of a page's existence. I have just been alerted by 'Mention' about some new content that they have discovered, the page is on our site yes and may be I should have set it to NO INDEX but the page only went up a couple of days ago and I was making it live so that someone could look at it and see how the page was going to look in its final iteration. Normally we go through the usual process of notifying Google via GWMT, adding it to our site map.xml file, publishing it via our G+ stream and so on. Reviewing our Analytics it looks like there has been no traffic to this page yet and I know for a fact there are no links to this page. I am surprised at the speed of the indexation, is it a example of brand mention? Where an actual link is now no longer required? Cheers David
Algorithm Updates | | David-E-Carey0 -
Duplicate content on a sub domain
I have two domains www.hairremoval.com and a sub domain www.us.hairromoval.com both sites have virtual the same content apart from around 8 pages and the sub domain is more focused to US customers so the spelling are different, it is also hosted in the states. Would this be classed as duplicate content ? (The url’s are made up for the question but the format is correct)
Algorithm Updates | | Nettitude0 -
Implications of removing all google products from site
Is there any data on the implications of removing everything google from a site; analytics, adsense, webmaster tools, sitemaps, etc. Obviously they still have their search data and they say they dont use these other sources of data for ranking information but has anyone actually tried this or is there any existing data on this?
Algorithm Updates | | jessefriedman0