Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Duplicate Content Penalties

  • Subject: Re: Duplicate Content Penalties
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:15:19 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1139239424.589581.259790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <tXKFf.9708$1e5.230221@news20.bellglobal.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [--Fred--] on Monday 06 February 2006 16:37 \__

> "JimD" <jamesdaltrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1139239424.589581.259790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> This site rank highly for "St Barts", http://www.stbarth.com/
>> But has identical content to http://www.stbarthrealestate.com/ which
>> ranks nowhere for the same key phrase..
>> Both home pages have a PR5
>> I was under the impression that both sites would be penalised?
>> We inadvertantly (?) had a mirror site for reasons of ignorance, which
>> we thought we had been penalised for, but if the people above can get
>> away with this, perhaps this is not the case....
>> If anyone could shed any light on this?
>> Jim
>> www.premiumiv.com
> It's a roll of the dice, but the nice are not friendly. When they go bad,
> they go bad hard. You take your chances. The real problem is your
> competitors, or wanabee spam police, and if someone else wants to hurt the
> web site, they will report it.
> Personally, I went the way of mirror sites and got my knuckles crushed. I
> don't recommend it to anyone anymore.
> Fred

In  my  humble opinion and based on personal experiences (see below),  you
should  get rid of one of your sites using careful re-direction. Your  aim
should  be to weed out traffic to one of the sites, or else it is a matter
of  time until the existence as a mirror becomes obvious enough to justify

I still keep a tiny so-called 'mirror' alive and it contains approximately
20%  of my current site's content. I migrated from the old site (the  mir-
ror) over a year ago and did not want to break incoming links. I redirect-
ed  from several of my old pages to the new site (more major ones in  par-
ticular),  so  the  'old  versus new' notion  become  transparent  to  the

The  outcome: at present, the new site gets hundreds of referrals per  day
and  the  old one gets _less than one referral (on average) per  day_.  In
terms  of crawling, the old site continues to be crawled (sometimes heavi-
ly) by MSN, but it is almost disregarded by other crawlers which move much
more slowly. Some PageRank has remained alive in the old site.

I hope this serves as somewhat of a practical example. I separated yet an-
other section of my main site to create a stand-alone domain. The old sec-
tion  remained  in tact, but it redirects using HTTP refreshes  (imperfect
strategy,  but  a  good enough /ad hoc/ solution). The new site  gets  the
traffic  and the old section has lost that traffic. If it were not for the
redirections,  I think I would have been penalised. Identical pages cannot
appear  in tandem in page 1 of the search results. Not unless it's the CIA

Hope it helps,


PS  - I have other Webspaces available, for histrical reasons and  because
they  are easy to maintain and are in people's bookmarks. I use  re-direc-
tions  where possible and rel="nofollow" any indication of their existence

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:50pm  up 20 days 12:06,  11 users,  load average: 0.10, 0.44, 0.54
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index