Msg#: 27132 posted 9:38 am on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
I'm a web designer and we are currently working with a search engine optimisation company. They have told us to remove things such as the address from each page of the site and replace it with an image. They say this is because google sees it as duplicate content, to us though, this seems daft as most websites will have something like this.
Could you please advise if this is the case?
[edited by: ciml at 4:39 pm (utc) on Dec. 17, 2004] [edit reason] No quotes please, other than described by the Terms of Service [/edit]
Msg#: 27132 posted 5:14 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
Seems daft to me - I have a high ranking site based on a small family of Dreamweaver templates with common navigation, footer, advert, etc on every single page, and it does fine. Absolutely fine. DerekH
Msg#: 27132 posted 5:24 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
The SEO company are talking nonsense.
The only possible case where your address details on every page could be considered duplicate content is where there is no (or very little) other content on the pages. In which case, duplicate content is the least of your problems.
Like DerekH, I've also had a site ranking consistently well with the same headers, footers, etc in each page. In fact I would guess that most people in this forum can say the same.
Furthermore, there are obviously benefits from having your address on every page - increased consumer confidence, possibly increased sales generation (depends on type of site though), easier for people to find, etc etc.
Msg#: 27132 posted 5:27 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
It may see daft to many others but you should to listen to them. What they ask you to do may not always seem logical but it works for them.
If you do not trust their expertise you have to ask yourself if you should be working with them in the first place. Do they do a good job at getting results for other clients? Have you spoken to those clients?
Msg#: 27132 posted 5:55 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
I think that is exactly right derekh and co. - templates are fine. In fact I started thread this morning with the goal of trying to define exactly what is dupe content. It is here: [webmasterworld.com...]
Msg#: 27132 posted 6:10 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)
I see positive points to the suggestion but I don't know how in depth their experience is. Even though I have seen no penalties arising from such things that doesn't mean it isn't happening or will not be taken into account in the future. Seems a lot quicker to scan for than doing a whois check or C block. Sounds like they might be CTA.