3 ms·
demetris, that's exactly what we improved with a recent algorithm change: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algorithm-change-launched/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog
by Matt_Cutts 16y ago
demetris, that's exactly what we improved with a recent algorithm change: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algorithm-change-launched/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algorithm-change-launched/ . As you point out, that was a more straightforward change, and that's why we were able to launch that one first.
That said, if you wanted to share some examples where you're seeing copies rank higher than originals I'm happy to pass that on to the right folks. In fact, some of the right folks are already on this thread. :)
- gmosx 16y agoposts to google groups show up in devcomments.com, osdir.com, mail-archive.com, etc ranked higher than the original post in google groups.
- Matt_Cutts 16y agoHmm. That could be if Google Groups has changed the url structure, which could make crawling it harder. Or because USENET/mailing lists don't always have a centralized/canonical location on the web, which makes dupe content more of a potential issue. It's not the usual "Website X copied my website" scenario.
- sequoia 16y agoGetting on a tangent here, but Google has a hard time crawling Google Groups? Have you tried emailing support@google.com? Just kidding but in all seriousness how is it that a Google property has bad SEO?
- gmosx 16y agostill the sites mentioned above are arguably of lower quality than google groups, there is no reason to rank higher...