|SEO for videos - when transcriptons repeat some content|
| 4:53 pm on Jul 18, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I have some existing pages (years old) that I would like to add some videos to.
The idea is that the video will present the same general information as the page, just in a different format. It will likely be watered-down, as compared to the page's text. It will probably refer to the page's text as a source of "more detailed information."
My question is this:
Usually you see a transcription of a video's spoken content low on the page that contains the video.
In my case, a significant amount of the video content will likely be sentences taken directly from the page.
If I put a transcription of the video on this same page, there will be a lot of "repeated" content.
Will this look strange or irregular to the search engines and should be avoided?
I realize that video transcriptions are mainly just for the search engines, so they know what the video/page topic is about, and in my case the page already has content.
But I would hate to make a clear, concise video (whose spoken script could easily be spun off by a competitor) without having the transcription somewhere in print on my site (for the search engines) so my page would be seen as the source for the script if others placed a transcript of their "lifted" video on their site.
Is placing the transcription on the page a needed/good/bad idea?
| 7:14 pm on Jul 18, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I think it would be ok if the text repeats what is in the video.
But the transcription shouldn't repeat text that is already in the text on the page.
I don't know if having a video that is basically an explanation of the text found on a page is really all that useful for your visitors though.
| 9:21 pm on Jul 18, 2011 (gmt 0)|
My opinion of the web is simply nobody reads anything. They may skim, but read, no.
A video, one that uses arrows and descriptive labels to animate the page's static images or actual animations of the process being described on the page, I think people will value that, especially the non-readers.
While I know 2/3rd's of the people viewing YouTube are just watching cat videos, YouTube is the second most popular search engine for some reason.
10 - 15 years ago people use to think if they found it on the web it must have some value and they read it, nowadays (especially with new generations of web surfers who grew up playing on-screen twitch games) I'd suggest it takes more than text to keep someone on page for a relatively generic topic.
| 9:29 pm on Jul 18, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|My opinion of the web is simply nobody reads anything. They may skim, but read, no. |
Well, you might be right...
I have a couple of pages with only text on them and they have an average time on site of over 4 minutes.
I don't think the New York times has a lot of videos for their articles (although CNN does have lots of videos and then just text transcriptions, but that is because CNN is primarily a television show that has lots and lots of clips).
anyway, I would just kindly suggest that as long as the text is not repetitive of the OTHER TEXT already on the page, I don't think it could hurt, could it?