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.
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
-
Does changing text content on a site affects seo?
HI, i have changed some h1 and h2 , changed and added paragraphs,fixed plagiarism,grammar and added some pics with alt text, I have just done it today, I am ranking on second page QUESTION-1 is it gonna affect my 2 months SEO efforts? QUESTION -2 Do I have to submit sitemap to google again? QUESTION-3 does changing content on the site frequently hurts SEO?
Algorithm Updates | | Sam09schulz0 -
Product pages - should the meta description match our product description?
Hi, I am currently adding new products to my website and was wondering, should I use our product description (which is keyword optimised) in the meta description for SEO purposes? Or would this be picked up by Google as duplicate content? Thanks in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | markjoyce1 -
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 -
Is Having Content 'Above The Fold' Still Relevant for Website Design and SEO
Hey there, So I have a client who recently 're-skinned' their website and now there is little to no content above the fold. Likewise, I've noticed that since the transition to this new front-end design there has been a drop in rankings for a number of keywords related to one of the topics we are targeting. Is there any correlation here? Is having content 'above the fold' still a relevant factor in determining a websites' searchability? I appreciate you reading and look forward to hearing from all of you. Have a great day!
Algorithm Updates | | maxcarnage0 -
Duplicate videos
We have multiple screen cast videos being made that are the same all except for city names being switched out. Does anyone know if this might be frowned upon by Google in the same way that duplicate content is?
Algorithm Updates | | Stevej240 -
How often do people use Google Product Search
I was was reading Tom Critchlow's excellent blog on how to rank well for Google Product Search. I'm trying to find out if there are stats on how often people use this feature in Google (since it is not listed on Google's main navigation). I'm working with a customer who has b-2-b products and am trying to determine the value of adjusting his ecommerce pages to appear on Google Product Search.
Algorithm Updates | | EricVallee340 -
Is this a possible Google penalty scenario?
In January we were banned from Google due to duplicate websites because of a server configuration error by our previous webmaster. Around 100 of our previously inactive domain names were defaulted to the directory of our company website during a server migration, thus showing the exact same site 100 times... obviously Google was not game and banned us. At the end of February we were allowed back into the SERPS after fixing the issue and have since steadily regained long-tail keyword phrase rankings, but in Google are still missing our main keyword phrase. This keyword phrase brings in the bulk of our best traffic, so obviously it's an issue. We've been unable to get above position 21 for this keyword, but in Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex (Russian SE) we're positions 3, 3, and 7 respectively. It seems to me there has to be a penalty in effect, as this keyword gets between 10 and 100 times as much traffic in Google than any of the ones we're ranked for, what do you think? EDIT: I should mention in the 4-5 years prior to the banning we had been ranked between 15 and 4th in Google, 80% of the time on the first page.
Algorithm Updates | | ACann0 -
Will google punish us for using formulaic keyword-rich content on different pages on our site?
We have 100 to 150 words of SEO text per page on www.storitz.com. Our challenge is that we are a storage property aggregator with hundreds of metros. We have to distinguish each city with relevant and umique text. If we use a modular approach where we mix and match pre-written (by us) content, demographic and location oriented text in an attempt to create relevant and unique text for multiple (hundreds) of pages on our site, will we be devalued by Google?
Algorithm Updates | | Storitz0