.
:: *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.
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))
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.
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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).
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!
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
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?)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good content design is grounded in knowing what the user wants, and how they want it.
(I know the general rule is stuff like "write for an 8th grader" or "16yo" etc. - but that doesn't work when your audience is literally brain surgeons!)
The audiences language and knowledge "levels"
defines things like whether you can include:
* abbreviations
* topic/industry terms/jargon
* sentence length
* sentences per paragraph
* distance between references
* overall length of content
etc.
1/?
:: Crawling Large, Huge and Mega sites ::
:: Partial vs Full crawls ::
@JetOctopus has done a piece looking at some of the issues that can arise from not doing a Full Crawl,
or, as I'd phrase it, doing a really shoddy Partial Crawl.
Getting the idea of ToF/MoF (or early journey) content being equal to BoF/Conversion.
Due to some SEOs and the way G says things,
there's this stupid misunderstanding about ranking pages (not sites),
and not getting how X supports/improves Z.
2/?
From a marketing/consumer perspective,
that content enables early awareness/recognition of the company,
and starts building trust, rapport and emotion/loyalty.
From an SEO perspective, it increases topicality and Link value flow (internal links have been important for years)
3/?
There's also the wonderful confusion (read as *fucking annoying) regarding the "funnel".
For some reason - people seem to think there's only one.
In most cases - there's 2 "broad" funnels (marketing and sales).
And the "marketing funnel" is often several funnels!
.
:: Regular performance audits are good ::
:: Alerts on Priority content is better! ::
You should have a separate segment,
tracking priority pages: 1) Those that do contribute heavily to Goals 2) Those that ideally would contribute to Goals
And those are the bare-basics!
There's also optional things...
>>>
3/5 >>>
Optional elements would include things like:
* Read time (est. based on word count)
* Social action/share links
* Pull quotes (and share-excerpt links for social)
* Comments/Reviews (and indication of such at top)
* Sub-Images (non-hero, set as lazy etc.)
etc.
Logic says G not only have a method (at least one),
but use it too!
And I've asked (at least 4 times) for an indication of what the threshold is,
and whether it's based solely on "content",
or if it includes code etc.,
and been ignored/evaded - every single time :(
I don't think there is a "specific" threshold,
I believe it is variable - based on availability.
G can/does show duplicates and highly similar results in a SERP,
esp. if there is little else for them to show.
The more "options" to show (that aren't dupes),
the fewer G shows.