Repeating content

Ok to repeat vs. waiting for Google to include new pages?

[moomelman]

Ive got a few new pages on my site and was contemlating copying them to pages (to related pages) already in the index and being freshened by Google. So they would be duplicated until Google picks up the new ones and then deleted.

Like others I have waited and waited for these new pages to appear but have yet to be picked up.

Is this a risky idea or would it hurt me the Google update takes place?

Thanks

[vincevincevince]

risky, for sure, but how about only letting them exist in one location at a time?

you could write a little script to move the every day via a 404 in php

widgets.com/08062003/page.htm today
widgets.com/09062003/page.htm tomorrow

and any request coming in on the old date pages can get a 301 ;)

it's innovative as ideas go, but am not sure about the long term effects

[Chris_R]

I am not sure I follow you do you mean:

1) Appending a page so it has more content at the bottom. Say you have a page on horse racing in march - are you saying add the page from april to the bottom? If so - I don't see a problem doing that.

2) Are you saying replace marches content with april? Again - I don't see anything wrong with doing that - except you will be missing april.

3) Are you saying to link to april from march? I think that you already should be doing this?

In any event - if you are doing something to help the useer - google won't PUNISH you for duplicate content - they may remove a page they see as duplicated, but it willl come back when it no longer is.

[g1smd]

widgets.com/08062003/page.htm today
widgets.com/09062003/page.htm tomorrow

I'm not sure if those dates are in ddmmyyyy or mmddyyyy format, but for sure I do know that those dates will not sort into date order when you sort by name either on your hard drive, on the site itself in FTP view, or when a user saves those files to their disk.

To manage your content more effectively, try using the yyyymmdd date order as then everything sorts into the correct order whether you sort by name or by date. Another useful application of ISO 8601 and RFC 3339.

[vincevincevince]

g1smd

i'm british, i stick by ddmmyyyy ;)

and you kind of missed the point

the point is that the page in both cases is the same page

in fact, the whole site would be changing subdirectory every day (powered by script), so that the content is always there on the net, but always moving URL, so would always get fresh...

ie, my Widgets FAQ page would be at
widgets.com/08062003/faq.htm today
widgets.com/09062003/faq.htm tomorrow

etc... so although the content has never changed, the pages appear new and will be hit by fresh and put in the index ;)

is that clearer?

<edit>
clarification #2
----------------------
from my index page the links would be rewritten to include today's date, in some format

widgets.com/TODAYSDATE/faq.htm

and that date would be constantly up to date, so that every day google will find a NEW faq.htm page url.

i could use a 404 trick to make it so that the date bit was ignored and the content of the real (only) faq.htm is returned whatever date is placed there.

i think the idea is actually genius.
</edit>

[DerekH]

vince-cubed wrote

"i'm british"
Happens to us all vince^3, but experience suggests that (like myself) you'll not be lauded and acclaimed, merely ridiculed.... <wink>

"i think the idea is actually genius. "
Then telling us most certainly isn't... There goes your intellectual property, your competitive edge and most possibly your libido...

Then again, us Brits are the most superb inventors.
And cr*p at making money out of it...

DerekH

PS - but seriously, good ideas will always be imitated and never beaten.

[g1smd]

Ha! The V3, Britain's secret weapon, and not based on anything that has gone before it.