|Will DMCA takedowns help my rankings?|
| 9:51 pm on Aug 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm about to begin a DMCA take-down campaign. There are hundreds of infringing pages out there, and about half of my 200 pages or so have been scraped to some extent (in many instances just a paragraph or two, in other instances entire pages or multiple pages spliced together). I'm starting with Google Search, submitting all infringing URLs to Google to have those URLs (or at least the infringing content on them) de-indexed. I fully expect that G will comply with my requests and de-index the infringing pages. Here's what I'm wondering:
Can I expect to see a material improvement in the rankings for my entire site on Google's SERPs as a result? Or should I expect page-specific improvements only? Or will all this make no difference at all? Is it fair to assume that the higher ranked the infringing page, the more likely I'll move up (i.e., if it ranked above mine I'll move up one notch, otherwise I won't)?
I guess what I'm getting at is whether G runs an algorithm that accounts for duplication of a site's content in toto, such that the greater the portion of my content that is duplicated and the more instances of duplication Google has indexed, the lower my site's position in the SERPs. If so, then when the dupes are de-indexed I should see a site-wide improvement in the SERPs -- sort of an acknowledgment that I am now more authoritative because G now knows that I'm the one who actually wrote all this stuff.
Keep in mind that I'm talking here just about requests to G to de-index infringing content, and not about filing DMCA notices with web hosts to actually remove the infringing content. (That will be my next step.)
| 9:56 pm on Aug 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There is a new article from Google about using valid DMCA complaints as a ranking factor. See [webmasterworld.com...]
However, in the past at least, I found it took more proactive steps to ensure a site got the deserved "credit" for their own content. Things like authorship mark-up, pubsubhubbub with fat pings to Google, and delayed RSS feeds were very useful for me.
| 10:09 pm on Aug 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
tedster, the new thread you've linked to wasn't up yet when I began composing mine. Wow, how's that for timing! These aren't blog or "news" posts of mine -- they're informational pages that have been up on my site for quite a while (but I'm within my time limit under the statute of limitations as far as the infringers who I'm complaining about are concerned). So RSS feeds and pings aren't really pertinent here. Authorship markup might be, however, and I've been intending to look into that.
And thanks for the thread-title edit. Better than mine.
| 11:34 pm on Aug 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I don't mess with submitting DMCAs through Google anymore. Using a formal DMCA notice I find that my sites get noticeable boosts soon after an infringing site or pages from an infringing site are blocked by the host. It might be imagination but I've done more than 20 DMCAs and see the increase in ranking nearly every time. However small, it is noticeable and there are no changes to the original site itself.
As far as authorship markup is concerned, Sorry tedster, I've seen sites eek past ours using our content adding markup dated years before the domain the content is on were even registered (Site says "Posted by admin 10-27-2008" but the domain was registered in 2010).
I do have a qualifier though:
If the site is a local site and it seems the owner isn't a webmaster and may have hired someone to build their site, I send them the notice first in a more personal manner "Hey, you have my content, here's how I can prove it and these are my intentions...."
If it's a competitive site that is obviously someone who scraped or copied/pasted from us and is trying to take a niche, I go straight to the host without warning to the owner.
I have no belief that Google can determine original authorship. If they can then they ignore it deliberately or by omission. We had content that Google didn't know about and now you can find map pages with the information we made public. Maybe they got smarter while we did the work, but that's not my opinion.
| 2:56 am on Aug 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The sites or pages that had your content, did they have a link back to the page on your site that the content is from?