Cracking piece, what do you think?

Peterdalkey

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/4-steps-beat-niche-website-content-marketing/88477/

The Pontiac

Great article.

I have a question sort of related. I post up my product descriptions to my website, and I then copy and paste to my Facebook page. Will Google penalise me for having duplicate content?

Thanks.

The Pontiac

Great article.

I have a question sort of related. I post up my product descriptions to my website, and I then copy and paste to my Facebook page. Will Google penalise me for having duplicate content?

Thanks.

Peterdalkey

I learned recently that Google bots are blocked by FB!! So no fear there, I would have thought that as it is a different patform and clearly relevant, you would not be punished. If you were selling say Samsung TVs, many sites would have exactly the same model spec sheet!!

PaulPinnacle

Bots aren't "blocked by FB", so take care there Peter.

If privacy settings don't allow the bot onto the page in question it obviously can't crawl the information, but if it's a public post and Google picks up a link to it they will follow that link and index any information they find. Try Googling for a well known Facebook page and you'll see that Google can and do index those pages, or even more obvious if you Google the specific text used on a page you already know (take care that it isn't too fresh or the bots might not have picked it up yet).

As for the original question.... it's not ideal but it won't be doing terrible damage either. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it (assuming that if you check a search for one of the product descriptions it is your site being returned as the primary result?), but in an ideal situation you'd be better to avoid the repetition (both for users and search engines) and create unique valuable content for each channel and platform. In most cases you'd find a significant bump in conversions by tailoring the message used on Facebook, so change tactics to benefit from that rather than due to duplicate content concerns.

Peterdalkey

I am no expert but took my lead from this article!! http://www.searchenginejournal.com/matt-cutts-explains-important-social-media-signals-really/87277/

PaulPinnacle

That's about not extensively crawling social sites (due partly to privacy issues and more to the fact that others control G's access to the data - they can be fully locked out at any time, which impacts their results if they used that data) and using the signals picked up as part of the ranking algorithm. Every comment made on the topic confirms that Google don't include this signals as part of their (current) ranking factors. (Though the patents do clearly show that they do intend to use signals from G+ in the future)

As I said, very easy to confirm that they do index the pages and do return those pages as results in SERPs. Don't take my word, only takes 10 seconds to try it out.

tricky D

Parts of FB are definitely crawled and as PP says it's easily verified. To echo another of PP's points, the article makes no mention of the main content promotion channels, each of which have their own swot/pros and cons/issues. To go into those would require an article much longer than a few hundreds words.

Another issue with the article is the lack of reference to Hummingbird and Knowledge Graph kinds of matters which are now in play.

The Pontiac

Thanks for the advice guys!

Now I'm thinking maybe I will just post the product with 1 image, a link and no description. I really want potential customers on my website (product pages) as it has the 'zoom' image thing. That's really important for the type of product I sell.

Anyway, it's worth an experiment.. See if I get more hits!

PaulPinnacle

I wouldn't completely avoid giving a description without testing it, it might have far more of a negative impact on your click through rate and end up hurting you far more than the potential small risks of the duplication.

Very easy to A/B test it and see what impact it has on your users (can use FB Page Insights data or use Google Analytics Campaign Tracking). Once you know what kind of impact removing a description might have, you can then decide if you want to remove it, rewrite it or continue copy/pasting the one from your site.

Peterdalkey

There is a bit of techno dancing on the head of a pin going on here!! Of course he should describe the product on the FB page, any issue with duplication is so minor as to be irrelevant and all guidance on this given by Google, on this topic, is fuzzy in the extreme,

PaulPinnacle

It's only irrelevant up to the point that it becomes relevant... and at that point Google is potentially filtering his domain from the search results and instead displaying the Facebook pages.

This isn't the end of the world as the OP still has ownership, but the fact that the link is now pointing at a Facebook URL then goes on to impact on user behaviour and causes a drop off in customers coming to the product pages. At that point, it's a very real problem that directly impacts the bottom line of the business.

I'm not sure what the 'dancing on the head of a pin' is in relation to, it's actually quite clear. Lots of elements of digital marketing are debatable, this isn't really one of them.

In a perfect world, create completely unique content for every channel. Even better, tailor the content specifically for that platform or channel, test different methods against the target market there and building on this you'll improve results from campaign to campaign.

If you're not willing to add in that work, you have the two options of posting with copied description or posting with no description. As for the "of course" for the description, I'd question it. Having run analysis on multiple campaigns there are lots of industries where you're far better off avoiding a product description when posting and instead posting a smart comment, a leading question or even a joke along with the product image and link to product page. What works depends on the industry, the target market and (just as much) the person doing the posting and their ability to carry off whatever technique is being used (e.g. don't go for humour if it's not your thing).

As for guidance by Google... it's always fuzzy in the extreme. Even when what they say is very clear, the reality is always quite fuzzy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's just that when they comment on things like this they're doing so at such a high level that they simply have to leave out the hundreds and thousands of caveats that do apply.

Peterdalkey

Indeed. Despite the "on the one hand and on the other," it cannot be denied, you may well be right. But at least we agree that we have "fuzzy" as common ground.

The Pontiac

Cheers guys, just trying to take it all in now. As they say, no one really knows how Google SEO works, it's all a secret.

Nearly all my customers are coming from Facebook at present. I could turn on Google Adwords and get loads of traffic, but the site isn't ready for that yet. You really need to have a comprehensive catalog (which I don't for this industry yet).

Facebook has really surprised me with its effectiveness - absolutely brilliant. Twitter, on the other hand, is useless. Google Adwords is obviously very effective, but expensive. You need to have the website ready. You're paying for clicks, and they come fast, therefore you need conversions.

As for the duplication content on FB, I'll take all of the above advice and do a bit of trial-and error!

Great forum for advice!

Peterdalkey

if you have a business that works well with Facebook as a channel, I would max that out. Make sure to find a great post by sandin on the B&E forum on that topic, great results for a good plan well executed and at very low cost. I would next spend my bobs on quality SEO to boost organic results. Adwords can be very expensive and as competition increases, the price for a top position bid shoots up. Adwords rates are now up to 10 times what they were when we started out using them back 10+ years ago, for the same words.
Our current experience of Adword conversions/sales/costs make pretty grim reading, the gross margin generated is about the same as the monthly cost of the campaigns. Also, the average Adwords converted sale is only 55% of the equivalent organically generated visit/conversion.
We are industrial B2B and rank in the top 2 generally for organic results and at this stage only keep using Adwords on the basis that new customers will become repeat buyers over time!

Peterdalkey

I liked the piece by Bill Belew because it was direct, to the point and used none of the bulls*t lexicon that surrounds SEO/Digital Marketing/PPC etc etc Most of the content is short on vodoo and long on the slog involved unlike most of the US generated waffle that you see on the blogs and promo style pseudo newsletters so beloved by the yanks.

I have taken to registering/joining about 20 Linkedin groups associated with the industries we serve. What a pile of sh*te is posted as supposedly interesting industry news/discussions (self or company promo stuff in the main). It really has become a recruitment/CV showcasing Craiglist!!

I had hoped to see some critique on here of the Bill Belew piece from the experts on here. Does the silence mean he is about right?

The Pontiac

Peterdalkey wrote: »

if you have a business that works well with Facebook as a channel, I would max that out. Make sure to find a great post by sandin on the B&E forum on that topic, great results for a good plan well executed and at very low cost. I would next spend my bobs on quality SEO to boost organic results. Adwords can be very expensive and as competition increases, the price for a top position bid shoots up. Adwords rates are now up to 10 times what they were when we started out using them back 10+ years ago, for the same words.
Our current experience of Adword conversions/sales/costs make pretty grim reading, the gross margin generated is about the same as the monthly cost of the campaigns. Also, the average Adwords converted sale is only 55% of the equivalent organically generated visit/conversion.
We are industrial B2B and rank in the top 2 generally for organic results and at this stage only keep using Adwords on the basis that new customers will become repeat buyers over time!

Cheers Peter, I will read that post by sandin now.

Your post is great advice, I will heed it all!

PaulPinnacle

I can't fault the post that was linked, everything said in it was correct. Having said that, it really didn't say anything. I could write a "1 tip to let you win an Olympic Gold Medal: Run faster than your opponent" and it's true too, but there's zero value from it.

Do you feel you've actually learned anything from reading the post Peter? (I'm not saying you won't or that you shouldn't, just that I'm not sure what someone would learn)

Personally, I'd much prefer a post like this detailed SEO audit. That gives you tips and techniques that you might not be doing already. Gives technical information that you might not be aware of and gives nuggets of data on why various elements are important to give some context. To me, that's adding value and is a must read for anyone looking to learn about digital marketing. It's not 'short' (though relatively speaking it contains a huge amount of value so it is value packed), it is technical, but everyone who reads it (including other digital marketers, nobody knows IT ALL and learning from the views and thoughts of others is always helpful) will gain some value and some knowledge from it.

Peterdalkey

Had a look at the Grantland site analysis and found it incredibly self-serving and boring. I am looking for clear, concise information as to how best to optimise my sites so that I can sell more of my boring packaging products. I am a complete dork/fool when it comes to any knowledge on this discipline. I am prepared to listen, just not to the point where I am prepared to consume technobabble insider crap, unquestioned. While the content of the link may be of immeasurable value to others, how much did the end punter make at the bottom line? ... more sales? But clearly more cred and love.. useless to me!

What I will do is read it again in the morning to see if there are any real and useful lessons/ideas for me to take away from it.

PaulPinnacle

"Self serving"? That one baffles me a little. It's a free site audit carried out by someone purely to share the results with others. Sure, it gains him backlinks and a reputation as someone good at audits, but compared to the information he has shared publicly I think he has more than earned that. I'd certainly suggest this falls on the selfless rather than self serving side of things.

"Boring"? Well, sure. It's technical, it's long and it's not about any of the interesting stuff any of us 'enjoy' reading (well, I'm generalising there. Anyone involved directly in digital marketing will probably love reading the audit). That said, sometimes the focus needs to be on the nuts and bolts side of things and not just the glamours fun things.

"clear, concise information" - to be fair to the piece, it actually is pretty concise. It's just that it's lots and lots of concise information on a huge number of areas. Perhaps break it up into multiple small chunks, see how they individually apply to your own site and it might become a little more appealing.

"consume technobabble insider crap, unquestionaed" - It's hard to be concise and to justify/prove everything mentioned, so one of the two is always going to fall down there. The audit touches on the justification of some elements, ignoring many as a 'given' when it comes to SEO best practice. Happy to confirm that the advice given is of an extremely high standard and I can't off the top of head remember a single area where I disagreed with the advice given (very very rare). I'm sure if I read it more critically again I'd be able to pull up a few bits where I'd tweak and change things a lot, but if they didn't jump off the page it means they're relatively low priority.

"... how much did the end punter make at the bottom line? ... more sales?" - This was a free audit carried out for a site he didn't work for and who obviously haven't implemented any of the changes (though they should!).

More pertinent questions would be...
Will this improve the sites rankings? Yes.
If your site improved its rankings would you increase your bottom line? Yes.
Would the guidance that would improve that sites rankings if when applied to your site also improve your sites rankings? Yes.

For fun, if you'd like to PM me a URL of an ecommerce site (be it your own or any other) and the heading of a section of the advice that you don't see how it would help the bottom line... I'd be happy to link the two together and give specific feedback on it.

It's not that I care about that specific article mind (I've no connection to the author or the agency behind it), it's simply that it's good advice. We have plenty of stores that could (/should) be trading online and plenty that could (/should) be trading internationally when doing so. If we finally get to a point where we're taking advantage of that, it will be a major step to improving our economy. So from that point of view, I love to see more stores addressing things properly and doing the right things. The flip side is that as an SEO I make my living out of providing services to those that can't/don't want to do this type of work for themselves, so completely understand that some people simply hate the technical side of it and the number crunching side of it.

Peterdalkey

Paul
My mistake, I should not have been critiquing anything beyond my own knowledge of the subject, I guess I was just being argumentative, some might call it cranky! I respect that you have taken the time to compose a very measured response. I will look again at it with a more open mind, but I suspect that what is a nice meat and spuds dinner to you to you is, as you pointed out, unpalatable to the likes of me.
We actually do use outside SEO services to put “shape” on our sites and give us direction as to what we should be doing on an ongoing basis. We are starting to knuckle down to add regular new relevant quality content, but it is a tough slog when you have a pretty stable diet of the same boring industrial type products. I have been trying to learn enough to be able to separate the truth of what works from the chaff of bullsh*t that seems to come with this territory. Uneducated buyers generally get stiffed by opportunists with apparent expert status, I am reminded of how many of us were taken for a huge ride with the whole Y2K episode.
I genuinely pity those trying to make a living in the SEO sector, who are doing quality work, with hoards of new “experts” being disgorged into the market by all the short “ sexy new technology” digital marketing/social media etc etc courses.

cheers

Peter

PaulPinnacle

No need to apologise at all Peter, your view and opinion is a perfectly valid one. Just because mine differs (and I'm always happy to be vocal about my opinions) doesn't mean one of us is right and one wrong, it just means we're looking at it with different eyes and have different views of it. I learn just as much from hearing your concerns about a topic as you (potentially) might learn from hearing an expert speak about it.

I do feel very sorry for anyone looking for advice in the area. It is a minefield with a huge number of cowboys and chancers working in the area. Just look at the trouble Google ran into themselves when outsourcing work in this area relating to promotion of their videos for Chrome and it says it all. Having said that, it does make it very easy for people who actually know what they're doing to get consistent work, repeat business and strong referrals. Wouldn't feel too sorry for us

The bad name of the industry means you'll often meat opposition and scepticism, once you overcome that it simply means you've got increased value and loyalty.

If you've any questions on the piece in question, i.e. a "this bit strikes me as bull****, is it?", fell free to fire them up. It is tough to try and get your head around all of the jargon, the slang, the technical stuff... but when it comes to your bottom line, it can be extremely rewarding.

Peterdalkey

OK, had a go at it again and it is extremely comprehensive but some of the terminology/tech issues do require a certain understanding/education/expertise in the workings of web software. In fairness, it is quite nicely written and it is virtually impossible to write such an indepth piece without using the proper terms. I would expect that it's target audience is on the SEO/web supply side rather than the user/normal website owner (me!). it does however strike me as a very useful tool for a potetial customer to give to a SEO bod and say " Can you give me a proposal to do this, and then implement on my site!!"

I have saved it and will dip in and out to find ideas and direction. I fear I am like most customers " dont give me the labour pains, just gimme the baby!!"

The article I posted by Bill Bellew was easier for me to understand ( in terms of relevance) and the bullet points were well made and hit the spot. I suppose that because the WebGnomes piece was on a news rather than a business/eCommerce subject, much of the minutae are specific to that type of site.

brian_ire

Hi all,

Just thought i'd give my 2 cents on the original article. I have to really go against Bill on his first point about quantity: "Now, do more pages/posts, relevant and focused about that key-word phrase on your website than your competitor does and you will eventually beat them in the SERPs." This is a half-truth and quite dangerous to leave out as plain as that.

I've seen the effects that building multiple pages on your own domain focusing around the same keyword phrase can have. In nearly every case it has a negative result and we have had a lot of success de-optimise pages that all focus around a similar keyword phrase. Google wants to know what the most relevant page on your site is for that keyword phrase. It if finds 50 pages, all competing for the one phrase, in my experience it weakens the site for that phrase not strengths it.

The key for me has always been about building a site out in layers. With the broad keyphrase at the top of the mountain and each layer below it going into a more precise version of it.

So for example say I want to rank #1 for "mens cotton socks" - that's my money keyword. I wouldn't recommend building 50 pages on my site all talking about "men's cotton socks". I'll have one, that's linked down from "men's socks" and "cotton socks" and linked up from "men's red cotton socks" and "men's blue cotton socks".

Perhaps this is what Bill is referring to, but on face value I don't subscribe to the "just build more pages around one keyword phrase" as I've seen the negative impact it can have when it's taken literally like that.

Cheers,
Brian

dgerryd

For anyone that's into DIY for your own education about your websites ins and outs. From Annie Cushing's Audit Checklist bit.ly/audit-checklist.Its a lot to take in for a newcomer but worth digging into for your own ventures

Peterdalkey

brian_ire wrote: »

Hi all,

Just thought i'd give my 2 cents on the original article. I have to really go against Bill on his first point about quantity: "Now, do more pages/posts, relevant and focused about that key-word phrase on your website than your competitor does and you will eventually beat them in the SERPs." This is a half-truth and quite dangerous to leave out as plain as that.

I've seen the effects that building multiple pages on your own domain focusing around the same keyword phrase can have. In nearly every case it has a negative result and we have had a lot of success de-optimise pages that all focus around a similar keyword phrase. Google wants to know what the most relevant page on your site is for that keyword phrase. It if finds 50 pages, all competing for the one phrase, in my experience it weakens the site for that phrase not strengths it.

The key for me has always been about building a site out in layers. With the broad keyphrase at the top of the mountain and each layer below it going into a more precise version of it.

So for example say I want to rank #1 for "mens cotton socks" - that's my money keyword. I wouldn't recommend building 50 pages on my site all talking about "men's cotton socks". I'll have one, that's linked down from "men's socks" and "cotton socks" and linked up from "men's red cotton socks" and "men's blue cotton socks".

Perhaps this is what Bill is referring to, but on face value I don't subscribe to the "just build more pages around one keyword phrase" as I've seen the negative impact it can have when it's taken literally like that.

Cheers,
Brian

You socks analogy is great! I actually took that exact point from Bill that the challenge was to talk about socks from every aspect you can that makes sense, leaving no sock unturned, no design ignored, no material unheralded, extolling each design and type for it's respective benefits, fashion statement, and so on ad nauseam. The goal is establish your sock site as the most authoritative sock encyclopaedia-like destination. It is the road to that Nirvana, hewn with down and dirty keyboard slogging, that cannot be avoided. Striking the balance between valid keyword use and keyword stuffing is the creative talent that is needed, that is where the going gets very tough.

Peterdalkey

dgerryd wrote: »

For anyone that's into DIY for your own education about your websites ins and outs. From Annie Cushing's Audit Checklist bit.ly/audit-checklist.Its a lot to take in for a newcomer but worth digging into for your own ventures

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlgVNSddFpwxdEJrZmpQaFpQZFVTUHVLZ0psWjVNeUE#gid=28 found this link a bit easier to find!!

To follow her advice, which is nicely step by step directed, you do need to purchase and learn to use a wide variety of tools. I am not sure that it makes sense for a site owner to get that involved to this level , they should sub it out to an SEO expert and concentrate on content and the incidentals involved in actually running the business!
That said, it does again give you a very good idea as to the scope and scale of the issues that need to be understood and addressed and what your SEO should be doing for your money!!

brian_ire

Peterdalkey wrote: »

You socks analogy is great! I actually took that exact point from Bill that the challenge was to talk about socks from every aspect you can that makes sense, leaving no sock unturned, no design ignored, no material unheralded, extolling each design and type for it's respective benefits, fashion statement, and so on ad nauseam. The goal is establish your sock site as the most authoritative sock encyclopaedia-like destination. It is the road to that Nirvana, hewn with down and dirty keyboard slogging, that cannot be avoided. Striking the balance between valid keyword use and keyword stuffing is the creative talent that is needed, that is where the going gets very tough.

I think if you take Bill from that point, you'll be flying Peter! The thing that I think he missed (and perhaps on purpose because he wanted to keep the post simple) was the importance of internal linking in relation to the content. That there's no point in dumping 100s of pages/posts all related around one keyword phrase if its all just a rehash of the same point.

He's point that "Search engines cannot make subjective determinations on what content matter" then can only "count" isn't true. Again i'm quite sure he knows this but if he went into it, the post would lose its straightforwardness.

Internal linking and website hierarchy are what tell Google the importance of content. It knows that the main category page is much more important than a blog post I wrote, base on the structure of the site, menu links and internal linking.

Anyway I'll stop there, now off to write some more content

Peterdalkey

I thought I would share this as a small thank you gesture, bet we all know at least one "Simon Edhouse" http://m.tickld.com/x/i-wish-i-worked-with-this-manhes-hilarious#bmb=1

dgerryd

Peterdalkey wrote: »

I thought I would share this as a small thank you gesture, bet we all know at least one "Simon Edhouse" http://m.tickld.com/x/i-wish-i-worked-with-this-manhes-hilarious#bmb=1

That was the best read for a giggle I've seen on the internet in a while, classic it deserves a second read David is a pretty funny character.