Duplicate product descriptions and images

[FishingDad]

A Manufacture sells its goods to distributors. retailers and merchants. To support the sale of its goods the manufacture provides sales literature containing all the important relevant information about the said item, also with images professionally taken at great expense.

ALL distributors. retailers and merchants use this information to give to there customers to aid sales. This is just the way the manufacture and sale of goods has and always will be done.

BUT not in Google world, this is deemed just terrible, "duplicate". So now what distributors. retailers and merchants are told to do if they want to be in Google is;

Rewrite all the literature, so its now "unique". So that, for the sake of argument, this;

Screen size 107 cm (42")
Full HD panel (1920 X 1080)
HD TUNER (DVB-T / DVB-T2) AND FREEVIEWHD
Active motion 100hz for smooth moving pictures reproduction
USB for multimedia playback

Has to be rewritten for EVERY distributor, retailer and merchant, so each is "unique".

AND not just that, the lovely professional images the manufacture has provided, only the first to get it online can have that one. ALL the others have to take there very own picture of the (in this eg) "Sharp LC46LD266K 46-inch 1080p Widescreen Full HD LED TV".

If you read the hype you are to understand if you choose to use what the manufacture has provided to promote there goods, you will be punished, penalised. Classed as a scammer, scraper, spammer, affiliate or what ever other buzz word is hip at the time.

Really?..

Well heres the results for this eg TV

[google.co.uk...]

Don't see many if any the same, and manufactures of any goods usually provide a few photos only.

Is Google saying there's no place for the sale of goods other than our "Google Shopping" search? I am coming to that conclusion.

[netmeg]

Google is saying that all other things being equal, there's no reason to rank more than one or two pieces of the exact same content in their index. They may index all of them or none of them; there are no guarantees. So you have to find a way to add value, or else rely on other marketing channels (preferably ones you have more control over), and whatever you get from Google you get. Google doesn't want to make your site popular, they want to rank popular sites. So you have to make your site popular before you can expect decent ranking. If your business model doesn't support that, well, Google doesn't really care.

[Planet13]

So you have to find a way to add value, or else rely on other marketing channels (preferably ones you have more control over), and whatever you get from Google you get. Google doesn't want to make your site popular, they want to rank popular sites.

This!

[FranticFish]

Now turn it around and imagine that you want to buy a TV.

What would you think if every result you clicked on in Google had exactly the same description of the product, which was from the manufacturer? How useful would that be? Wouldn't you rather read something more like a product review that listed pros and cons, and allowed you to make an informed decision on your potential purchase after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of a number of similar products?

Filtering out identical (or too similar) text is a quick easy way to filter out affiliates that add no value to the customer experience. It's done to promote diversity of opinion on the product in Google's results.

[topr8]

Well heres the results for this eg TV

back to the original post ... am i missing something FishingDad? the link you posted was to an image search results page.

and you said this:

Don't see many if any the same, and manufactures of any goods usually provide a few photos only.

well i personally think, especially in the case of image search, why would anyone want to see lots of copies of the same picture? that would make no sense.

[FishingDad]

fact (făkt)
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

Editing "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences" to appease Googles need for "unique" would turn fact, into fiction.

Following some logic here it seems the above fact is ok to change;

Filtering out identical (or too similar) text is a quick easy way to filter out affiliates that add no value to the customer experience. It's done to promote diversity of opinion

well i personally think, especially in the case of image search, why would anyone want to see lots of copies of the same picture? that would make no sense.

So you have to find a way to add value

Facts are not usually up for an opinion, they are just facts. 1 + 1 = 2 I don't need nor want to see a spurious "review" about the benefits of 2 or how 1 has been joined with 1. I just want the facts.

Google is saying that all other things being equal, there's no reason to rank more than one or two pieces of the exact same content in their index.

So which ever site is first to publish the "unique" information is top and everyone following would be below. So there's no need or room for any competition then, there's laws against that in the UK.

PS

netmeg, can you please define "popular" and is this based on facts.

[netmeg]

If you want facts, then you probably don't want to be in the Google search business.

And no, first to publish doesn't cut it either. There's only 10 links on the first page (if that) and for most products there are WAY more than 10 people selling it, so Google (and the user, for that matter) has to look at other factors. Like user experience, and added value, branding, etc. Popular? Are your users looking for *you* (your company) or just the cheapest product they can find? Do you get lots of return visitors? Visits from sources other than Google? Is your site shared with others?

How would YOU determine which of a thousand vendors belongs in the top ten links? Interested to hear.

[FishingDad]

I don't know how, and nor does a single soul here nor anywhere else outside the very secret inner sanctum of Google. Its all guess work and trial and error, oh and following the "guide lines"

My point is from a customer/user point of view, so yes facts should be classed as important. Lets move away from products and look at mathematical equations, quotes from books, anything for that matter that is duplicated massively and unless 100% accurate is utter nonsense.

If Google has a fear of duplicated text or photos then IT has the problem, not the web designers. If a website can get to the top for a Shakespeare quote that has been slightly rewritten simply because its "original" or published on a website that is "popular". Or an image search for the mona lisa (try it, comes back with very dumbed down results to the point of which one is the original? GOOGLE DONT KNOW!) then in my opinion Google is broken, I don't think users have any problems with duplication of the unchangeable "facts", why would you?

[tangor]

This "duplicate" thing almost sounds like a hidden drive to serve brand names. Known corporate big box sellers, for example.

The "little guy" does not fare so well... even though the big box sellers use the same descriptions and images provided by the mfg. That, of course, is the ecommerce side.

Those that provide literary comment regarding "Mary had a little lamb" et al are buzz-sawed at the knees, even if their other commentary is unique and fresh (to the extent that a million folks will probably say the same thing on an intensely studied subject).

No win for anyone... then again (know I will get slammed) G is not the only SE on the planet---and users are beginning to understand that.

[martinibuster]

I don't know how, and nor does a single soul here nor anywhere else outside the very secret inner sanctum of Google.

I can understand your point of view because I used to share it. No longer. The black box is a myth.

No offense meant to you, but not knowing how the algorithm works is true for those who don't study the algorithms. Do not assume that everyone else is equally in the dark as yourself.

There is no mystery algorithm. The general outlines can be known. Many of the possible details are known. The algorithms are taught in universities around the world. Much of the research is conducted at universities and licensed. What's not conducted at universities is patented and that's a public record.

It is not guess work if you take some time to research information retrieval algorithms.

The saying that Google only ranks popular sites is a reduction of many things that make up the various algorithms that are at work. What goes on at Google is more complicated. However, in the end, building a popular site, creating popularity, giving people what they need, that is an approach that will serve you well, for building traffic, attracting links, and ranking better.

That's solid insight that netmeg gave you.

Good luck.

[netmeg]

I don't think users have any problems with duplication of the unchangeable "facts"

I do think users have issues with page after page of the exact same results; it's a poor user experience for Google to serve that. And even if they did, that still doesn't solve the problem of only ten links (if that) on the first page. Google's not afraid of duplicate content - they just don't want to waste their resources on it. I wouldn't either.

That's not to say that Google doesn't have issues in many areas - they do - but speaking as one whose content is scraped far and wide (and as someone who manages mid-range ecommerce sites for clients) I can't disagree with how they filter duplicate content. I would prefer they did more of it, not less.

[FranticFish]

How would YOU determine which of a thousand vendors belongs in the top ten links?

I don't know how

Google do, and the way they do it has evolved over years as they test on a user base of millions. Here's why they do it that way.

The specification of a particular item is a matter of fact, but - even for something as simple as a clothes peg - it is not ONE fact, but instead a collection of inter-dependent facts. Added to that...
- some parts of the specification might need explaining;
- some buyers might value certain types of functionality over others;
- manufacturers present their product in the best light, whereas independent reviewers (and resellers with integrity) are likely point out any shortcomings from their point of view.

When you are considering a purchase you want to see only the technical specs direct from the manufacturer and will make a decision based on that. That means you can go direct to the manufacturer's site and make your decision there. So why do you even care how Google does it?

The majority of people (myself included) prefer to also seek the views of others who might have owned the product - or at least tried it out - and will then make a decision where they weigh (a) what's important to them against (b) what they've learned from other people's experiences.

So, the suitability of any one product to a buyer, compared to others like it, is NOT really a matter of fact, but of opinion. Google feel that multiple opinions are more helpful than stating the same opinion over and over. So do I. So should anyone.