Footer copyright year statement. good or bad
-
Hi,
I see a lot of sites with a year copyright statment in the footer like
Copyright 2011 - DomainName.com
or
Copyright 2002 - 2012 - Domainname.com
since new year a lot of sites (founded before 2011) still have 2011 instead of 2012 in the footer. Do you think the date gives any signals to google?
Should someone update the date or remove it completely?
I would tend to remove it completely since the page date for google is submitted in the HTTP header. But maybe the info could be of any use for the user. Any best practices?
-
I agree with Bryce that it probably doesn't affect Google's perception of the page at all.
However, from a user standpoint an "outdated" copyright could work against you. I see it as a sort of trust signal. I was on a page earlier that said "Copyright 2001" and I just couldn't get over it. If they can't bother to update the date on their site, why would they bother with having me as a customer?
Just something to think about. Great question.
-
Copyright notices are really just a signal for the users, and to say "don't steal our stuff" in somewhat of a non-forceful way. People can generate the year automatically, but sometimes they just forget to include it.
Is it a big deal to have an older date? Probably not. Google has a number of other ways they could check a page's freshness aside from a completely arbitrary copyright date.
An interesting note about copyright, you don't really have to display a copyright notice in the first place. As soon as you create something, it's already considered "copyrighted."
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
-
Copying items from major website - bad?
Hello, I working on a new project that collect news items from websites like Bloomberg and CNN, I'm take the title and the full content of specific articles and publish them under my domain. At the same time my writers publish unique articles on the site. Sure, I'm adding "Source" for each duplicate article with the link to the source. 1. It's risky?
On-Page Optimization | | JohnPalmer
2. Duplicate content?
3. Should I use Noindex/Nofollow for each duplicate article? Please share your thoughts.0 -
Good sources of information for product page SEO from a manufacturers perspective
I'm working with a manufacturer whose product copy is used by many many many retailers online. This copy is typically exactly the same or very similar to their own brand website. We're ok with that as most of the time our brand website is seen as the source of the information. Retailers, however, aren't so ok. Understandably they want unique product description content but we can't supply that for every retailer. So I want to acknowledge that whilst unique product copy is important there are other factors that they should consider such as site usability, the frequency and recency or ratings/reviews, etc. I've skimmed through google and reviewed the message boards and can see a number of posts touching on this topic but I wonder if anyone can recommend good sources or care to share their insights? Thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | willheadlondon1 -
Bad to have "As Seen on" links sitewide
I've seen a lot of people saying that sidewide external links are a no-go. Does this also apply to links of a vanity variety? What I mean by this is "as seen on" links or links to awards given to the business? This intellectually seems okay to me, but I want to make sure I'm not shooting myself in the foot. Any evidence, case studies, anecdotal stories would be appreciated!
On-Page Optimization | | Oren.0 -
Handling multiple locations in the footer
I have a client with several locations. Should I include only the main office's address in the footer? The client is wanting to add them all.
On-Page Optimization | | SearchParty0 -
Is this good practise for SEO: www.example.com/testing-once/testing-once.aspx?
My web developer is telling me that it is best practice for SEO to place your keyword in your URL twice. For Example: www.example.com/testing-once/testing-once.aspx. I'm sure that this is not true, could you please help?
On-Page Optimization | | CoGri0 -
Do we have too many links in our footer?
Hi guys, we have 41 links on our holiday(vacation) rental website, this seems too many when looking at best practice. 24 of these are links to community pages while 8 link to activities pages. The community and activity pages are also accessible from links on the top menu so they are not strictly necessary but do get 10% of site clickthroughs according to Google in-page analytics. I therefore do not want to remove the links if there is no good evidence that google will penalize us for this. What do you think would be best for our site? Thanks, John Tulley. footer.jpg
On-Page Optimization | | JohnTulley0 -
Good Internal Site Structure Idea?
Hello SEOMoz, After reading a bunch of your Site Structure articles, I've decided to make ours more flat. There are numerous pages on our site which are linked to directly from our homepage, wasting mysterious amounts of Link Juice every day. I want to remove most of these links so that the Fewer, and now more heavily weighted, Homepage Links will be more powerful... but I am worried that the pages which I am knocking down to the 3rd tier level already have high rank and are distributing this Juice to other pages. The problem is that 3 of these 9 pages are great for assisting our sales team, so I cannot take those 2 links off of the homepage...so I will be forced to Nofollow them instead. I am worried this is cutting down the number of pages on the site, also cutting out content which was previously indexed. Is this whole thing a good idea at all? And should I just leave those 2 pages alone because I can't remove the link? I'm thinking maybe I should rel=canonical it back to the homepage? I am ultimately trying to rank the homepage for the keyword "POS Software" and this is my on-site strategy for it. Maybe adding a link from those 2 pages that say "POS Software" back to the homepage is the best bet in this scenario? I am trying to learn the absolute best thing to do instead of guessing. Thanks! Derek
On-Page Optimization | | DerekM880 -
A good title for each page on my website.
Dear SEOs, I know these facts: a) not more than 70 chars b) relevant to the page subject - probably best keyword at the beginning My problem - should I rebuild the current structure of my titles which is: Main Page keywords (in my case 4) | domain name - Main Page Sub-page - one click from main page keywords (again same 4) | domain name - Sub Page Name (or as you like Category Name) Specific page with an article / content keywords (again same 4 as on any other) | domain name - category name - title of article same as used in tag To be more precise, should this title be changed for following pages: Sub Page - where really it's page that let's you chose particular subjects (there will be few article for each subjects) so should the keywords be changed to - "chose your category" Specific page with an article - should the category name - title of article be completely removed and first part of title which at the moment contains same 4 keywords used on main page be replaced with keywords specific for the content ? To be honest I find those titles at the moment bit confusing and sort of illogical. But since I can't really change anything in the code I would like to know what's the right way before I keep pressing on the programmer 🙂 Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | lolskizz0