I have been hearing people say that duplicate content is a bad idea on here for a while, and I am not one to disagree. But my question is, why? Is it bad because "ethically" it is just another form of spam, or is it bad because it actually hurts your chances of a high PR with google?
Is it bad because "ethically" it is just another form of spam, or is it bad because it actually hurts your chances of a high PR with google?
It is bad because it doesn't give the user who searches in Google relevant search results. For example: when site A and site B are identical AND take up the first search results, then Google hasn't been able to provide the best possible results in that search. Some other site that could have been very relevant ended up on page 2. Search engines strive to provide the best possible results to be able to keep people coming back and searching more. Google must figure out a way to prevent people from having several identical sites online when there should be only one. Otherwise the first page in the SERP might consist of ten sites from the same source. Many people "legitimately" create several sites and crosslink them because it is really needed for usability or for ease of administration. Let's just hope search engines are able to distinguish between the clean and the dirty. Have a look at this thread for more discussions: [webmasterworld.com...]
Msg#: 9267 posted 10:13 am on Feb 13, 2003 (gmt 0)
At the London PubConference, the Google rep told me that sites hosted at the same IP address that were "Like Themed" and linked would not be penalised for this co-hosting. However once duplication or over-similarity comes into play then penalties WOULD be applied.
I did not ask him whether the penalties for duplication for co-hosted sites would be different for a duplication offence but I suspect that both sites may suffer rather than just one of the two.
I would think that sharing an IP woulkd drasticaly shorten the odds of duplication being detected.
Duplication or excess similarity is a NO GO ZONE in.