.
:: *sigh* - someone found the cookie-cutters! ::
*checks calendar*
@NicheSiteLady & @NicheDown
It's called "cookie-cutter content";
when you basically copy a piece of content, change a tiny % of it, to rank for n+ terms.
developers.google.com/search/docs/es…
#SEO #BrandSwapping
:: *sigh* - someone found the cookie-cutters! ::
*checks calendar*
@NicheSiteLady & @NicheDown
It's called "cookie-cutter content";
when you basically copy a piece of content, change a tiny % of it, to rank for n+ terms.
developers.google.com/search/docs/es…
#SEO #BrandSwapping
https://twitter.com/NicheDown/status/1580540561865383937
Now, I know it says "affiliate",
but it applies for just about any type of site,
be it's monetisation via
* direct sales
* ad-rev
* affiliate payments
* referral fees
(The term MFA used to be applied (made for ads (affiliates))
developers.google.com/search/docs/es…
but it applies for just about any type of site,
be it's monetisation via
* direct sales
* ad-rev
* affiliate payments
* referral fees
(The term MFA used to be applied (made for ads (affiliates))
developers.google.com/search/docs/es…
So, the problem is - though it can (does!) work,
(bad Google, bad!),
it's possible that G will catch it at some point,
and may hammer a site for it
(so please - at least give people a warning!).
There are ways to handle it "better",
with reduced risk.
(bad Google, bad!),
it's possible that G will catch it at some point,
and may hammer a site for it
(so please - at least give people a warning!).
There are ways to handle it "better",
with reduced risk.
It's an established (very old) SEO approach,
based on ranking for specific keywords.
(I think it even predates "spinning" - as it was typically a simple S&R)
Several types of business/site/content tend to utilise it,
including Localisation, real estate and E-Com (variant prods).
based on ranking for specific keywords.
(I think it even predates "spinning" - as it was typically a simple S&R)
Several types of business/site/content tend to utilise it,
including Localisation, real estate and E-Com (variant prods).
Option 1: Increase the differences!
a) Alter keywords
b) Alter non-keywords/phrases (synonymise, add/remove bits of a sentence etc.)
c) Syntactic changes (break/combine sentences, remove/add some, swap order etc.)
d) Inject "variant" specific data in (dates, quantities etc.)
a) Alter keywords
b) Alter non-keywords/phrases (synonymise, add/remove bits of a sentence etc.)
c) Syntactic changes (break/combine sentences, remove/add some, swap order etc.)
d) Inject "variant" specific data in (dates, quantities etc.)
Option 2: Canonicalise!
Create a "primary version" (brandless).
That's your canonical.
Create "brand variants".
Canonicalise them to your canonical.
G will see you have N variants of X,
and will show what it thinks is the more relevant one when people search.
Create a "primary version" (brandless).
That's your canonical.
Create "brand variants".
Canonicalise them to your canonical.
G will see you have N variants of X,
and will show what it thinks is the more relevant one when people search.
Option 3: Get programmatic!
There's usually several different ways to say things.
If you know you are going to generate N variants,
get the writers to provide several versions of each sentence/paragraph/section.
You can then use these to create additional versions.
There's usually several different ways to say things.
If you know you are going to generate N variants,
get the writers to provide several versions of each sentence/paragraph/section.
You can then use these to create additional versions.
Personally - I advocate ALL 3 !
You should be taking a programmatic approach,
tagging parts of the content as optional (random inclusion).
... and pulling in additional data,
... and utilising canonicalisation (when/where applicable).
You should be taking a programmatic approach,
tagging parts of the content as optional (random inclusion).
... and pulling in additional data,
... and utilising canonicalisation (when/where applicable).
Taking such steps contributes towards avoiding G for longer, if not completely.
(Remember - it's not just about dissimilarity - it is meant to be useful/beneficial to the user)
The next thing is ... knowing what to do if G does find it,
dislike it, and kick your site down!
(Remember - it's not just about dissimilarity - it is meant to be useful/beneficial to the user)
The next thing is ... knowing what to do if G does find it,
dislike it, and kick your site down!
If G does hammer your site:
1) Look for a Manual Action in GSC
2) Look at what pages/terms are hit via GSC
3) Decide on a "fix"
a) Start 301 Redirecting variants to a primary
(or weaker/less valuable versions to the biggest earner etc.),
b) Noindex the weaker until rewritten
1) Look for a Manual Action in GSC
2) Look at what pages/terms are hit via GSC
3) Decide on a "fix"
a) Start 301 Redirecting variants to a primary
(or weaker/less valuable versions to the biggest earner etc.),
b) Noindex the weaker until rewritten
Once you've made the fixes:
i) If there was a MA, fire a Reconsideration Request
or
ii) You have to wait for whatever quality algo/filter that hit you decides you're good enough again (may take Months (and Months!)!)
(See why I say you should warn people about this?)
i) If there was a MA, fire a Reconsideration Request
or
ii) You have to wait for whatever quality algo/filter that hit you decides you're good enough again (may take Months (and Months!)!)
(See why I say you should warn people about this?)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
