Does 'framing' a website create duplicate content?
-
Something I have not come across before, but hope others here are able offer advice based on experience:
A client has independently created a series of mini-sites, aimed at targeting specific locations. The tactic has worked very well and they have achieved a large amount of well targeted traffic as a result.
Each mini-site is different but then in the nav, if you want to view prices or go to the booking page, that then links to what at first appears to be their main site.
However, you then notice that the URL is actually situated on the mini-site. What they have done is 'framed' the main site so that it appears exactly the same even when navigating through this exact replica site.
Checking the code, there is almost nothing there - in fact there is actually no content at all. Below the head, there is a piece of code:
<frameset rows="*" framespacing=0 frameborder=0> <frame src="[http://www.example.com](view-source:http://www.yellowskips.com/)" frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0>
<noframes>Your browser does not support frames. Click [here](http://www.example.com) to view.noframes>
frameset>
Given that main site content does not appear to show in the source code, do we have an issue with duplicate content? This issue is that these 'referrals' are showing in Analytics, despite the fact that the code does not appear in the source, which is slightly confusing for me. They have done this without consultation and I'm very concerned that this could potentially be creating duplicate content of their ENTIRE main site on dozens of mini-sites. I should also add that there are no links to the mini-sites from the main site, so if you guys advise that this is creating duplicate content, I would not be worried about creating a link-wheel if I advise them to link directly to the main site rather than the framed pages. Thanks!
-
Still laughing about the frames. Man, I am old, so frames were part of the web back in the day, whoever these people are that are doing this work, they need to put their slippers and reading glasses on and sit down in front of the fire with a glass of warm milk.
Frames, made my day I tells ya!
-
Hey, I can't see this approach working for long, it's exactly the kind of thing they are trying to cut down on. Like you say, it should not hurt the main page but it would be interesting to see if the mini sites have taken a hit as they are essentially low quality, cookie cutter garbage created just for the search engines.
I am unsure how google handles frames as it is not technically duplicate content, it is just a window to the main site itself but it is kind of manipulative to present one sites content in another one, especially when that other one is a page designed purely for search engine traffic and with identical content (bar the location keyword) to a bunch of others.
This whole approach is flawed.
-
Ha unfortunately they are for real! I have to confess that I've never seen this done before, and it immediately alerts my 'dodgy' sensor!
Good point regarding doorway pages. They are mini-sites with around 8 pages of their own, which then link to the framed site from the nav and the odd text link. However each of the mini sites has duplicated the same content with the location name changed wherever it appears. I assume therefore that you'd advise against linking to the main site?
The fact that the site has been framed raises a question if indeed Google does punish this as duplicate content:
If I were a spiteful black-hatter, could I not just frame a competitors site on loads of different domains and harm the original site's SERPs? I guess in the same way I could do that anyway by copying all the content, so there is a real problem with measuring original/duplicate content.
-
It's hard to say without seeing the mini sites and just how mini they are but they could be classed as doorway pages if they have little or no original content and are just designed to feed traffic to the main site.
If they are useful little sites then linking back to the main site may help that site rank better but it's still not a whiter than white approach but again, real tough to comment in detail without seeing the sites in question.
On a personal snobbery level, Frames? Are they for real?
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
-
URL slash creating duplicate content
Hi All, I currently have an issue whereby by domain name (just homepage) has: mydomain.com and: mydomain.com/ Moz crawler flags this up as duplicate content - does anyone know of a way I can fix this? Thanks! Jack
Technical SEO | | Jack11660 -
Content Duplication - Zencart
Hi Guys !!! Based on crawler results, it shows that I have 188 duplicate content pages, out of which some are those in which I am not able to understand where the duplication is ??? The page created is unique. All the URL's are static, all titles, metat tags are unique. How do I remove this duplication !!! I am using Zencart as a platform. Thanks in advance for the help !!! 🙂
Technical SEO | | sidjain4you0 -
Duplicate Content Reports
Hi Dupe content reports for a new client are sjhowing very high numbers (8000+) main of them seem to be for sign in, register, & login type pages, is this a scenario where best course of action to resolve is likely to be via the parameter handling tool in GWT ? Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Duplicate content
I'm getting an error showing that two separate pages have duplicate content. The pages are: | Help System: Domain Registration Agreement - Registrar Register4Less, Inc. http://register4less.com/faq/cache/11.html 1 27 1 Help System: Domain Registration Agreement - Register4Less Reseller (Tucows) http://register4less.com/faq/cache/7.html | These are both registration agreements, one for us (Register4Less, Inc.) as the registrar, and one for Tucows as the registrar. The pages are largely the same, but are in fact different. Is there a way to flag these pages as not being duplicate content? Thanks, Doug.
Technical SEO | | R4L0 -
Bad Duplicate content issue
Hi, for grappa.com I have about 2700 warnings of duplicate page content. My CMS generates long url like: http://www.grappa.com/deu/news.php/categoria=latest_news/idsottocat=5 and http://www.grappa.com/deu/news.php/categoria%3Dlatest_news/idsottocat%3D5 (this is a duplicated content). What's the best solution to fix this problem? Do I have to set up a 301 redirect for all the duplicated pages or insert the rel=canonical or rel=prev,next ? It's complicated becouse it's a multilingual site, and it's my first time dealing with this stuff. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | nico860 -
Duplicate Content
Many of the pages on my site are similar in structure/content but not exactly the same. What amount of content should be unique for Google to not consider it duplicate? If it is something like 50% unique would it be preferable to choose one page as the canonical instead of keeping them both as separate pages?
Technical SEO | | theLotter0 -
How do I fix duplicate content with the home page?
This is probably SEO 101, but I'm unsure what to do here... Last week my weekly crawl diagnostics were off the chart because http:// was not resolving to http://www...fixed that but now it's saying I have duplicate content on: http://www.......com http://www.......com/index.php How do I fix this? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | jgower0 -
Duplicate Content issue
I have been asked to review an old website to an identify opportunities for increasing search engine traffic. Whilst reviewing the site I came across a strange loop. On each page there is a link to printer friendly version: http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes That page also has a link to a printer friendly version http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes&printfriendly=yes and so on and so on....... Some of these pages are being included in Google's index. I appreciate that this can't be a good thing, however, I am not 100% sure as to the extent to which it is a bad thing and the priority that should be given to getting it sorted. Just wandering what views people have on the issues this may cause?
Technical SEO | | CPLDistribution0