The impact of duplicate PRODUCTS on Google?

[Jarvis]

I have been following the 'Duplicate Content' thread elswhere on this forum.
A lot of the discussion is based on finding solutions to Duplicating Products and suggests that the need is due to Googles poorer rankings for sites containing duplicate content.

I have created this seperate thread as I have a diferent angle on it.

I want to test the basis for that assumption.
I have researched a few SEO sites and really can't find any hard evidence of this being a fact.
It appears to me to be a bit of an urban myth.

The nearest I can get to fact is from the Google Wedmaster's Help page, which states,

Don't create multiple copies of a page under different URLs. Many sites offer text-only or printer-friendly versions of pages that contain the same content as the corresponding graphic-rich pages. To ensure that your preferred page is included in our search results, you'll need to block duplicates from our spiders using a robots.txt file.

My understanding is that it is 'Duplicate Pages' that cause Google an issue, NOT 'Duplicate Products'.

If pages are constructed to contain 'Manufacturer' or 'Colour' sorted pages, then these are going to have pages that contain different content.

True that some of the content is duplicate, but the pages themselves will be fundamentally different.

Has anybody on this forum got any hard evidence of whether this is right or wrong?

[leehack]

My understanding is that it is 'Duplicate Pages' that cause Google an issue, NOT 'Duplicate Products'.

On SPP setup a page contains the product, so that is a play on words surely? With duplicate SPPs across the site in a number of places, that would achieve both of the above points? It sounds like you are focussing on the listing page, where the concern has to be on the product page, which is the real key page IMO.

You'll need to block duplicates from our spiders using a robots.txt file.

I think that's the B&W evidence, can't be much clearer.

[Mike Hughes]

It's pages with duplicate 'content' that get removed and that doesn't just mean 'identical' content either.

Google's aims are relatively straightforward, to avoid including similar pages in the serps. It's very sensible really. If a user searches for 'widgets' you want to present them with several different options that rank well. Not the same or slightly altered content on different pages or websites.

There's been a lot of discussion about how 'similar' the content has to be for Google to see it as duplicate but no-one knows for sure and there's really no way to tell because Google are always introducing new algorithms and tweaking the ones they're already using. Testing is also impossible because Google often publicises the concept of something long before implementing it.

The key thing is that if you want to avoid pages being counted as duplicate then the content has to be significantly different. That's more than just a few different words here and there.

I do agree with you on ranking though. I don't believe sites with duplicate content suffer any penalties. Google doesn't see this as a sign of anything being wrong, it just doesn't want many copies of the same thing clogging up the results. As far as I know, all that happens is that all but one of pages that are essentially similar are removed from the index.

Mike

[Jarvis]

My thinking is this:

There are 3 suppliers, Supplier-1, Supplier-2, Supplier-3.
Each Supplier has 3 product ranges, Widgets, Thingies and Whatsits.

The cart has 6 sections:
Supplier-1 containing products, Supplier-1-Widgets, Supplier-1-Thingies and Supplier-1-Whatsits.
Supplier-2 containing products, Supplier-2-Widgets, Supplier-2-Thingies and Supplier-2-Whatsits.
Supplier-3 containing products, Supplier-3-Widgets, Supplier-3-Thingies and Supplier-3-Whatsits.
Widgets containing Duplicates of products, Supplier-1-Widgets, Supplier-2-Widgets and Supplier-3-Widgets.
Thingies containing Duplicates of products, Supplier-1-Thingies, Supplier-2-Thingies and Supplier-3-Thingies.
Whatsits containing Duplicates of products, Supplier-1-Whatsits, Supplier-2-Whatsits and Supplier-3-Whatsits.

Now by my reckoning that is 6 distinct pages each containing a unique combination of products.

Someone searching for products by a Supplier would reasonable expect to land on a relevant Supplier page.
i.e.; "Supplier-1" would return page "Supplier-1".
Someone searching for a particular Product would reasonable expect to land on a relevant Product page.
i.e.; "Widgets" would return page ""Widgets".

Surely Google is not ranking anything lower simply because a single product may appear in more than one page.
Is this not what is meant by "Relevance"?

[Rich Brady]

But on a Single Product per Page you would only have 1 Product on it...

For instance one of my clients sells Gore-tex Camouflage Jackets.

So the Product would go under Section called Gore-Tex and it's duplicate(s) could go under Camouflage, Soldier 95, hell even a Hunting, Shooting Fishing Section.

So there are 4 pages exactly the same. One original, 3 dups...

Some will argue that you should change the text in the duplicate fields, but then they are no longer duplicates and from a client point of view he doesn't want to have to write 4 different descriptions for the same product, he's got more imprtant things to do!

Too much time, this is especially pertenent for another client who sells Compatible Ink Cartridges. The same cartridge may fit 15 printer models and I don't care how creative you are there are only so many things you can say about an ink cartridge .

So, I was very grateful to see Gabe's code in the other thread and have already used it for U-Need-Ink..

[Mike Hughes]

Roger, as long as the pages are sufficiently different with unique content then they'll probably be included in the index. If Google decide the content isn't unique enough then they wont. It doesn't matter where they come from or how you're structuring your website it all boils down to how unique the content on the pages are.

Most of the discussion we've been having is about the impact on the product pages rather the section pages. As long as the section pages are unique enough there shouldn't be a problem with them.

The quote from Google also seems to be quite clear that you only need to do something about it if you'd rather one particular 'duplicate' page was in the index rather than letting them choose.

To ensure that your preferred page is included in our search results, you'll need to block duplicates from our spiders using a robots.txt file.

Mike

[leehack]

Surely Google is not ranking anything lower simply because a single product may appear in more than one page.
Is this not what is meant by "Relevance"?

As i said in my first answer, you are focusing too much on section listing pages, it is almost impossible for these to be classed as duplicate pages as they will often bear no resemblance to any other page. They often fair quite poorly in search engines too often due to a lask of any real content. The problem is at product level where we want the vast majority of searches taking people to. Although the thread you refer to has detailed a couple of ways that can be stopped. A section listing page, with duplicates from other places in your catalog has no issues at all in my book.

[RuralWeb]

Am I dreaming or did we not put all this to bed last week

[leehack]

LOL Mal, no ur not dreaming, it's another angle on the same thing .

[RuralWeb]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jarvis]

Mal, no, you are mistaken.
The other thread refers to how to address a perceived problem.
What I am questioning here is whether there is a problem at all.
Or at least to be able to scope and scale the problem if there is one.

Lee, I take your point about specific product pages.
What I am referring to in my example is a section listing of products.
"Extended Information" pages I realise would be 'at risk'.
Equally, Single Product Sections would similarly be an issue.
It is the 'default' layout of many products to a page that I suggest would not be an issue.

[RuralWeb]

Its pretty basic really - if two or more single pages has a significant duplication of content ie text then only one will usually be indexed. The page that is usually indexed is the older page to avoid competitor sites stealing content.

If you want to control which page you have indexed then you need to block the others AND make sure that the page you have created is not the same (in googles eyes) as any others out there.

[Jarvis]

I agree with what you say there Mal.
However, I think that you have highlighted the real issue.
The key word here is "significant".
What is significant?

I have a client's site that has some 60 suppliers each producing say, on average 30-40 products.
He has about 200 sections and subsections.
All the products are listed as products in manufacturer's sections.
These act as the 'master products'
All other sections are made up of 'duplicates' those products.

Let's say for arguments sake that each section has about 4 or 5 suppliers contributing to the page content.
Would that contribute as 'significant' duplication.
If it does, then my client and I would imagine a huge number of other Actinic sites, would have a major problem.

On the other hand, what sort of percentage of duplicate content would be considered 'significant'.
There has to be a threshold if the premise of penalisation for duplication is true.

[Duncan Rounding]

How long was that piece of string again.

[Jarvis]

How long was that piece of string again.

Three hundred