Unpublishing content question
-
Hi there, a disgruntled ex-employee requested that my company (a large publisher) unpublish a large number of at this point fairly dated articles.
We're going to honor his request. The traffic numbers to these articles aren't significant, but I wanted to understand the SEO ramifications. Two questions:
1. These articles in sum account for 0.51% of site traffic. Will removing them outright cut off just that chunk of traffic? Or will it also affect search rankings for all of our remaining articles?
2. How should we handle unpublished URLs? Is it better to redirect the user to our homepage or a friendly, recirculation-oriented 404?
-
We yanked a whole bunch more content than that over the last few months.. blog posts that no longer got much traffic and had never really gotten any traction, articles covering topics we'd covered better multiple times, etc. If they were still drawing some traffic, we set up a 301. If there wasn't much of anything happening, we just let it 404. We haven't seen any negative impact from this so far.
I like EGOL's idea of having someone rewrite the content on those pages. If you can't get that done quickly enough to satisfy Mr. Disgruntled, set up some 302s until the new content is ready.
I'd also say that it's probably not worth rewriting unless you're planning to do it better than it was the first time around. If you can't blow it out and make it more valuable, then 301 or 404, whatever, either is probably just fine to wash your hands of it and walk away. Stressing out over one half of one percent when it's not delivering results in the first place isn't going to be worth my time, not when I could be spending that time and effort on something more profitable. Opportunity costs apply.
-
Yanking a couple of articles that make up a tiny amount of your traffic should not be a problem unless those articles have a lot of links or other off-site assets or unless those 0.51% of visitors do a lot of buying.
If you are worried about this, have someone write same-topic replacement content and toss it up on the same URL
I bought a domain that had about 25% infringed articles. I took them down right away and tossed up replacement content and the rankings held.
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
-
What other major publications use bloggers for content? (UK)
Hi Guys. I've been building a database of journos who write about our niche recently for some outreach. I discovered that in at least one case (Metro UK), a huge amount of content is simply by bloggers, not 'official' journalists. (They can be found easily on Twitter but not in databases like muck rack etc) Generally, bloggers represent an easier 'way in'. So I thought id ask... Is this common practice? Has anyone identified other publications using bloggers for content creation? (Bit of context... We're looking at' Best diary/ planner' runs downs, 'best stationery for new year' and similar. Not strong story-based pitches to journos. (For example: Company blar is revolutionizing market X with Blar.) Simple product runs downs is what we're after for some quick wins on exposure during the holiday period.)
Branding | | isaac6630 -
Domain Transition: Leaving low quality content behind
We're in the initial stages of planning a domain transition / rebrand. We're considering 301'ing our low and high(er) quality content split to two different domains. One for the low quality, one for our high. Best practices normally tell you to not split your content between between multiple domains. However, what if the majority of pages on your site are thin/outdated, and attract low volume/long tail? Does it make sense to bring that low quality/volume content over the new domain, when you know you'll never have the resources (nor would it make sense to) mass improve the quality of these pages? I'm concerned the quality of these pages are affecting our overall domain authority. Some background on our site/business: Current site has 15,000+ pages. 98% of our site is a product directory of professional/enterprise business management software. While a small handful of our product pages have quality original long form content (maybe 50-100), most of the product pages are a combination of: thin, outdated, overly sales-y content provided directly from product developers, and/or catch only very low-volume/long tail organic traffic. 95% of our pages attract fewer than 20 visits/mo, 90% of our pages attract fewer than 10 visits/mo. We have a small business of about 10 employees. Most of which don't maintain our site. It's unrealistic for us to genuinely improve the quality of that many pages. Nor does it make sense to improve most of these pages, as they'll attract only very low volume keywords. Individually these low quality pages don't bring in many customers, but on aggregate they do. 70% of our organic conversions come from pages with less than 20 visits/mo. A few questions: Is this content negatively affecting our domain authority in any way? While I don't believe we've been hit with a penalty, Google knows that on average our pages aren't very helpful to many users, and I'm concerned that affects our ability to rank with pages that matter. None of the content was mass produced in any form of scraping efforts or anything nefarious like that. Would there be any negative/positive affect to offloading these low quality/volume pages to a different domain during the rebrand?
Branding | | dsbud0 -
If other people copy your content, is really GOOD or BAD for SEO ?
Hi MOZ friends. Last week, when i was following up the backlinks linking to my domain, i detect that a new website from an unknown administrator copies the content of an entire section of my website. The administrator of that webpage did not remove the internal links on the post, so i could find.
Branding | | NachoRetta
My website has a better domain and page authority and we focus every day on create new content, but when we found people that only copy content from another, i feel disappointed. But then I got to thinking that could be good that people copy our content, although they did not quote us. If they do not remove the links either by mistake or on purpose, we receive new backlinks. ¿What do you think about this? ¿Is really good that a website copy our content? If they remove all backlinks, Is risky that Google detects that the content owner is another? ¿What do you do in this cases?1 -
How to measure the penalty of duplicate content if we populate our provider bios on WebMD?
I work for a large healthcare system and we have an initiative to populate 2,500 of our our provider bios on WebMD. The proposed method for providing content is to supply it via API, in exactly the same way provider bio content appears on our site. When my colleague and I pointed out this would be an anti-practice as it would be disseminating duplicate content, we were asked to weigh: The penalty of the duplication The time and resources necessary to provide an alternative method (i.e., is there a programmatic way to supply unique content to WebMD) A few other questions we are investigating is if we can include links to each provider bio from WebMD to our main site. If this is the case, we can include a very short intro and direct users to our site if they want to learn more. The benefit of being included on WebMD is showing up for searches pertaining to expertise/specialties, as this will open our system to new users who likely won't search our providers by name. Any advice on how to measure the potential effect of displaying duplicate content on WebMD, considering their impressive domain authority?
Branding | | Account-Owner2 -
Google+ Page Question
When we do a search in Google for our brand name like this "google+ whiteboard creations" we see 2 different G+ pages: 1) https://plus.google.com/b/104564843813332206907/ and 2) https://plus.google.com/+WhiteboardCreations/ #2 is our real one which we are trying to promote, grow, etc, etc. However, I'm not sure where the other one came from. Did Google create it? We have the option to "Delete Page" in the settings, but unsure if it will delete the real page we actively manage. Has anyone else had this issue with multiple pages? Any advice as get into G+ more and more? Thanks in advance everyone! - Patrick
Branding | | WhiteboardCreations0 -
Duplicate Content and Indexing issues
Hey guys, I have a client whom has an existing site www.currentdomain.ie and we have created a new site with a new domain name www.newdomain.ie. They do not wish for it to be redirected. They wish for two sites to have the exact same content just with different logos. So for example if you search for current domain the search results present to you www.currentdomain.ie as the number 1 search listing and the same if you searched for their new domain. I'm trying to understand how google might index the two sites if side wide canonical tag were implemented on either of the sites to get over the duplicate content issue. How would google index the brand name of each site if one site canocilised? I don't want to encourage this client with this idea as it appears to be nonsensical but I thought I should first understand fully what the SEO implications might be. Thanks Rob
Branding | | daracreative0 -
Questions about Press Releases
Are sites such as Marketwire, PRWeb, PRnewswire, BusinessWire, e-Releases and PitchEngine good for editorial back links? Also, if I have a press release on PRWeb, for example, can I have the EXACT same one on Martketwire, etc or do I need to worry about duplicate content?
Branding | | tutugirl0 -
A question on what you should always track on your users
For any website it obviously useful to know about as much of your user behaviour as possible - and part of that involves past user behaviour. This is generally done by cookies and would involve things like: Last Visit Date Number of Site Visits Number of pages viewed etc etc I'm trying to build up a list for my developers so they are trackign the information that, although may not be explicetly useful now, but may be useful for future functionality. So does anyone have a list of the key things you should always track?
Branding | | James770