Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.16.177

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Would this be considered duplicate content?

I am so stupid

     
7:38 am on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:237
votes: 0


I redirected a couple ghost URLs (pages gone for over a year but still spidered by Ink) to my index page. In searches, Ink lists those URLs with the title and description from my index, though the actual index page is completely MIA.

I just realized that since it's listing those URLs with the index content, Ink might be treating them as multiple copies of my index, which could have created a penalty for duplicate content. Does this sound possible?

7:27 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts:633
votes: 0


I just realized that since it's listing those URLs with the index content, Ink might be treating them as multiple copies of my index, which could have created a penalty for duplicate content. Does this sound possible?

Sounds very possible. The purpose of the multiple content editorial action is to not only stop people from stealing content off of external sites, but to stop people from using the same content and optimizing it differently on multiple pages.

7:40 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:237
votes: 0


Thanks Panic. If this is true, then that might be the reason a lot of other people's pages are MIA. We could all be the victim of innocent redirects that Ink misinterprets as duplication. Wouldn't be a problem if Ink didn't keep old urls in their database indefinitely. Poop.
7:45 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts:633
votes: 0


We could all be the victim of innocent redirects that Ink misinterprets as duplication. Wouldn't be a problem if Ink didn't keep old urls in their database indefinitely.

Did you use 301 redirects?

7:46 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:237
votes: 0


Yep, I sure did.
7:50 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2003
posts:633
votes: 0


Yep, I sure did.

Did you use a meta refresh, or robots.txt?

7:51 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:237
votes: 0


robots.txt
And it validates correctly.