3 ms·
And, IME, these scraped sites often manage to rank above the canonical source.
by abathur 3y ago
And, IME, these scraped sites often manage to rank above the canonical source.
- heisenbit 3y agoIt is both infuriating and sad that Google can‘t figure out a way to compensate for this SEO spam. Is there an easier problem than doing it for SO (and yes, coding is a big enough problem for Google imho to be worth investing a little here).
- hinkley 3y agoWhich means they aren't applying any sort of primacy to the information. If three segments of the internet think the same piece of information is relevant, that should affect the score of all 3 copies, not just the largest segment.
- abathur 3y agoI'm not sure I'm reading you right--you're suggesting it should work this way? When content republished on some bizarre/sketchy/unaccountable ~adfarm outranks the site where it first appeared, users of Google's search service end up at higher risk of getting phished or infected with malware. Is there some benefit you see here that outweighs this downside risk?
- hinkley 3y agoApplying SEO to a copy of someone else's content gets you highly ranked on Google. I'm saying that at this point Google is doing enough processing that they should be able to detect duplicates after a fashion, and weight the oldest copy more heavily than duplicates.