|Are Google Static Maps Considered Dupe Content?|
| 4:36 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
With so much emphasis being placed on "duplicate content," is the usage of Google Static Maps considered to fall under that category, since they are used across the web and could be used in multiple locations within a site.
I know the Google Maps Dynamic API is available, but such programming is often not necessary for basic illustration. i would assume the usage of the dynamic API would be far less likely to be seen as duplicate due to its flexibility.
It is mysterious to me what is and is not a penalty in terms of the usage of maps, which are such common widgets that many sites make use of. I suppose we can only speculate if it is a penalty.
| 5:05 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I think that it depends what else is on that page apart from the Google Static Map - which is what should differentiate one page from another.
If all that there is on the page is Google Static Map, I would hope that this page is either blocked in robots or set up meta robots noindex as I would classify such page as "thin content".
| 5:23 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Thank you aakk9999, no the map is on unique pages with rich content.
I just wanted compare the effect compared to other comparable map libraries. I had read that Google gave more leeway for its own tools, to encourage their usage, though who knows?
Thank you again.
| 5:44 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It's always a matter of percentages. If the percentages of maps (or other thin or duplicate content) greatly outweighs the percentage of useful, rich, unique content, your page or site might not do as well as you'd hope.
| 6:40 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You are quite right netmeg. It is common sense, though some sites rely more on mapping and the visual than others ("a picture being worth a thousand words, and all"). Rich content is always preferable, but it seems that there is a bias towards the verbal in G. I read that even infographics are frowned upon a bit. In the end, we can agree that you want a good "user experience" but not so good that they are not in the "search mode" that may make them want to click ads! In other words, provide too much info, be too sticky and self-contained, and there is no reason for the user to go off-site, which is great for the user, but not so good for the publisher of expensive content--be it in the form of goods or information. IMHO.
| 6:50 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Rich content is always preferable, but it seems that there is a bias towards the verbal in G. |
Sure, unless you're talking about Image Search. No surprises there. As netmeg has said in another context (AdSense), "It is what it is."
As for Google Maps, they're like inline images used as illustrations. It's only reasonable that site owners should add value--in the form of original content--if they want their pages with Google Maps to rank well in Google's search results.
| 7:01 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|("a picture being worth a thousand words, and all"). Rich content is always preferable, but it seems that there is a bias towards the verbal in G. |
One can still make presentations for both by painting a picture with words. There is a happy medium. The key is in avoiding run-on sentences. They're easy to spot by excessive use of the words "and, or, but..." Think of it as changing colours (forms of expresssion). The sentence length is the sketched outline (of the topic at hand), and the pauses between sentences is the adding of colour (expression). It gives your story time to set and dry.
A concise phrase permits time for some individuals to form a mental visual component of an overall image (the article as a whole) before the next sentence begins.
| 8:55 pm on Oct 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Thank you all for your insightful input.
Thank you SevenCubed. As I am an editor, I know the value of the cadence of phrases. I like your analogy of the sentence sketch and the pause which invokes color.
The difficulty comes in editing wordy submissions that are not your own, but reflect important new perspectives. Literate perspectives, not unedited reviews which may be "ballot-stuffing" or "flaming" in nature, are important in my view.
However, Panda did not seem to like perspectives on a given subject since they may appear to be keyword stuffing. Panda considered many such sites "article farms." There have been a lot of false positives according to what I am reading for 3 years now. But that is a tangent... Nevertheless, review sites are doing very well, in general!
My primary question was relating to whether Google Static Maps were considered differently from other forms of illustration. Apparently, the consensus is that such is not the case.