Spine
msg:767227 | 7:12 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I think that can cause a problem, but I'd think that's only when there is next to no content unique to the page.
|
diamondgrl
msg:767228 | 9:26 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Almost surely not. Everybody else does the same thing as you. Look to other causes, like a 302 hijacking, perhaps.
|
Rollo
msg:767229 | 9:52 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I've seen sites with virtually no unique conent ranking very well, the only stipulation seems to be that they are content management sites. I see no such html sites so maybe the key is to have your dupe content in a single java or php file rather than reproducing it directly on each page.
|
2by4
msg:767230 | 9:59 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0) |
" I've seen sites with virtually no unique conent ranking very well, the only stipulation seems to be that they are content management sites." I don't think that has anything to do with this matter, my guess is that those contentless sites have simply had a lot of external seo work done on them, link campaigns etc. Almost every site out there has at least a shared footer and primary navigation bar, I'd look elsewhere for your explanation
|
Monksp
msg:767231 | 9:59 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I have looked into other causes and it is not 302 hijacking etc.. At this point, duplicated content caused by the navigation bar what just a shot in the dark. It does include some js but it probably only makes up 25% or less on most pages.
|
plumsauce
msg:767232 | 12:11 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
i have seen situations like this where x number of sites use the same *highly structured* navigation template, but have different content because they market different products be marked as *related sites* by google and their sister data user alexa. erroneous conclusion on the part of google, but it would not be the first time. their conclusion comes from analysing the structure as opposed to content. users on the other hand don't give a rat's ass about structure while searching, they want relevant content. they *may* care about structure if they stick around after arriving for the content, but that's a separate matter.
|
Spine
msg:767233 | 2:15 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I've seen sites with URL only I assumed because eacg page has 36k of code, with only 'keyword word word keyword 2' in the title, a header and then a price '$9.95" being different from one page to another.
|
oodlum
msg:767234 | 6:03 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| i have seen situations like this where x number of sites use the same *highly structured* navigation template, but have different content because they market different products be marked as *related sites* by google and their sister data user alexa. |
|
More likely those sites had a commonality in their inbound/outbound links. e.g. a webmaster uses the one template for a bunch of different sites then puts them all in a link triangle.
|
plumsauce
msg:767235 | 9:35 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
@oodlum no the owner knows better than that
|
DerekH
msg:767236 | 10:54 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
My own story might add to this discussion... I had a site on a free ISP that used to do really well.
Suddenly, last October, pages started to become URL only at the rate of 30 a week, until in early December, only the homepage was left with a snippet. I moved the site from a free ISP to virtual hosting, and with no other changes, the site reappeared in Google at the rate of 30 pages *a day* and since December has had 80-90% of the pages fully indexed and (touch wood) no URL only pages. Regards
DerekH
|
|
