Duplicate content, or not ?

[JorgeV]

Hello-

Let's say I have a page (article), divided in sections (h2) and paragraphs (3-4 sentences).

Some times, a given paragraph is linked to my message board, for visitors to discuss about this particular paragraph. At the message board, the first message of the topic, is the paragraph itself.

In other words, it means that the paragraph appears one time inside the main article page, and a second time as the first message of a topic in the message board.

Is that a problem ? Is it duplicate content ? Is the topic "thin" content, since, it contains only a paragraph of text (until people posts more messages).

Any thoughts?

[htmlbasictutor]

Do you put said paragraph in quotation marks on the message board with a link to the original article? If so, then it should be ok.

[NickMNS]

What is the concern with "duplicate content"? Are you concerned about a penalty? There are no duplicate content penalties.

Google will crawl both pages compare them determine whether they are duplicates and then show one or the other. In this case I doubt they would even be duplicates as both pages will have significant difference. Google would thus determine which of the two pages to show a user likely based on the inferred intention. Just looking for info => show pageA. Asking questions => show pageB.

The only issue is if you see in your analytics that users are being directed to the wrong page and then dropping out. In which case you need to adjust the situation.

In my view the are only two potential issues with duplicate content:
1- Google directs users to less desirable page.
2- Google is wasting crawl budget by crawling and indexing two pages with the same content instead of crawling and potentially indexing more pages.

[JorgeV]

Hello-

Thank you for your remarks.

I like the idea of the quotation mark , I'll see how it looks like.

Thank you both,

[JorgeV]

Hello- again

In your opinion, should I use the <q> or <blockquote> tags?

From this page : [w3schools.com...]

The <q> is made for "short" quotation, which suggests that <blockquote> is for "longer" quotation, but W3Schools mentions that <blockquote> is for quoting from "another" source.

So which one is the most appropriate ?

[htmlbasictutor]

I would use blockquote with the cite and title attributes.
Ref for cite attribute [w3schools.com...]

Ref for title attribute
[w3schools.com...]

[JorgeV]

Thank you !

[Robert Charlton]

Whoa!

Blockquote content is treated like any other content by Google, so it doesn't address duplication issues, which, as Nick indicates, aren't penalized. It's possible, though, that dupe content might be filtered.

I also feel, regarding the above discussion, that citation of source doesn't make any sense, as you're after all linking right from the source of the content and then reproducing it... so what actually are you citing beyond what came just before, but on a different page? At best, that would give you an extra (awkward) link in your site navigation.

Google's John Mueller encourages expanding on quoted content... ie, adding detail and background that's useful to your visitors.

For me, the question about JorgeV's plan in the OP is...

a) whether JorgeV's arrangement of material, which is an intriguing approach, will in fact grow in depth as comments are added...
- and also...
b) how will the quoted paragraphs and new user-generated content evolve. The additions and comments on your quoted content are going to be what Google sees as the differentiation between one version of page or paragraphs from another.

To say it again another way... the expected growth pattern in the early stages of user interaction is of key importance. What's the expectation? Are the quoted paragraphs templated for users, and, if so, what are your pages like before users start adding to them with comments? t think that the anticipated growth pattern and user involvement is what will make or break the plan.

Obviously, the new content needs to outpace the original paragraphs quickly, or else you're just going to have undifferitiated pages that won't show in search until they grow... and it's probably wise not to quote too much. But starting with multiple quotes at the start may be puttintg youj at a disadvantage. What will initially attract traffic to your material?

In a regular forum (ie, one not following the above plan) the content is likely to be user generated content that's presumably unique in each thread, from the first post on. Even the first post of a news discussion thread on a forum (which might contain lots of quoted material), should ideally not be only a quote. From the very start, it would need some additional content and perhaps some "attitiude" to differentiate your page from other quoted material.

The danger in Jorge's proposed plan, I feel, is If you start with much duplicate content in place, you're likely to have a lot of filtering to overcome, and, until you get some user generated material in place, that's a very weak start.