5 ms·

This is absolutely right. The duplicate content flags alone will cancel everything out. I don't understand why people don't just read Google's own published gu

by mvkel 2y ago

This is absolutely right. The duplicate content flags alone will cancel everything out. I don't understand why people don't just read Google's own published guidelines ( https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-s...) on how to properly SEO one's site. It's not some dark art. Google themselves tell you exactly how they index and why. All you have to do is read the guidelines.

tobyhinloopen 2y ago
If the pages redirect and have a canonical irl, there should be no problem, right?
- dazc 2y ago
  There is always a possibility of a problem, even if you do everything right. If you are redirecting multiple urls to one page, for example, you may believe you are helping visitors reach the most relevant/helpful result but it could also look like you are trying to artificially boost that one page? Then there are the vagueries of a search engine becoming ever more dependent on ai where not everything makes rational sense and sites can get de-indexed at the drop of a hat.
  - dsizzle 2y ago
    Do you have any evidence that redirects are bad for SEO? Redirects are a normal part of the web and Google tells you they are fine with it https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/301-redirects https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
    - dazc 2y ago
      No, Google are infallible and never tell lies...
otherme123 2y ago
In that document they explain that duplicate content is not a big deal: just set a canonical, and respond maybe with a 301. I did this during a migration of a site that used '/<pk-int>/' and was changed to '/<slug>/' with corresponding 301. The SEO not only didn't punish the migration, but it seemed to like the change (except the Bingbot, that after five years still request the old Urls). The problem I see with the OP strategy is that the bot can hit a Url that still doesn't exist, get 301'ed with that technique, and the Url is reused afterwards for new content: following their example, somebody links to '/supplements/otherbrand-spore-probiotic', that gets a bot following that link 301'ed to '/supplements/spore-probiotic'. Later you actually add 'otherbrand-spore-probiotic', but that Url will never be visited by the bot.
- bentinata 2y ago
  What about using 302?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    What about 308?
default-kramer 2y ago
I mostly agree, but also... it kinda is a dark art? I just read the "Reduce duplicate content" section [1] because my gut reaction was "yeah, I agree, this guy is going to get SEO-penalized for this" but of course I don't actually know. And although my few years of experience dealing with this stuff still want to say "you will get SEO-penalized for this", Google's own guidelines do not: "If you're feeling adventurous, it's worth figuring out if you can specify a canonical version for your pages. But if you don't canonicalize your URLs yourself, Google will try to automatically do it for you. [...] again, don't worry too much about this; search engines can generally figure this out for you on their own most of the time. " [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide#reduce-duplicate-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-s...
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
The leaked documents are probably more useful than any "official" guide.
graemep 2y ago
If you look at the recently leaked documents Google often do not tell the truth, or the whole truth. 301s are what you are supposed to do with things like changed URLs, so I cannot see it being a problem in this case. A 301 is nor duplicate content - it is one of the things Google likes you do do to avoid duplicate content. It would probably be good to add a threshold to the similarity to prevent urls redirecting to something very different.
- lsaferite 2y ago
  I would use 308/307 over 301/302. Semantically, using a 303 redirect might be the most appropriate signal for what they are doing. They could redirect to a specific result page if it's a clear, unambiguous match and they could redirect to a search results page if there are other possible matches.
dsizzle 2y ago
Except there's no duplicate content - the site redirects
ryandrake 2y ago
> It's not some dark art. Google themselves tell you exactly how they index and why. All you have to do is read the guidelines. This reminds me of something similar in the mobile world: Apple's App Review guidelines[1]. They're surprisingly clear and to the point. All you have to do is read and follow them. Yet, when I worked for an App developer, the product managers would act as though getting through App Store review was some kind of dark wizardry that nobody understood. Them: "Hey, we need to add Feature X [which is clearly against Apple's guidelines]." Me: "We're going to have trouble getting through app review if we add that." Them: "Nobody knows how app review works. It's a black box. There's no rhyme or reason. It's a maze. Just add the feature and we'll roll the dice as usual!" Me: "OK. I've added the feature and submitted it." App gets rejected. Them: "Shocked Pikachu!" 1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- randomdata 2y ago
  I haven't work with iOS in a few years, so perhaps they are more consistent these days, but in the early days I built a web browser with a custom rendering engine to see if I could get it through review and it was accepted just fine. It was accepted just fine through several releases, in fact. According to the guidelines at the time, alternative browser engines (i.e. not WebKit) were prohibited. It should have been rejected if the guidelines were followed. But they weren't. It really was a dark art figuring out when and when they wouldn't follow them. I'm with your colleague on this, at least in a historical context.
  - wrs 2y ago
    Doing something not mentioned by the guidelines and hoping it gets through, I can understand. Doing something explicitly prohibited by the guidelines and hoping it gets through seems like an unwise use of resources.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      There seemed to be no illusions around in the risk of the gamble in the OP's case. The comment states it was discussed. The consensus simply felt the gamble was worthwhile – even if they ultimately lost. I was also well aware of and accepting of the risk in my case. I wanted to learn more about certain iOS features, and I was able to do so scratching an itch I felt like scratching. I would have still gained from the process even if it had been rejected. However, as it got approved, contrary to the guidelines, I also got a good laugh at how inconsistent review was and a nice cash bonus on top! You win some you lose some. Such is life.

by mvkel 2y ago

tobyhinloopen 2y ago

If the pages redirect and have a canonical irl, there should be no problem, right?

dazc 2y ago
There is always a possibility of a problem, even if you do everything right. If you are redirecting multiple urls to one page, for example, you may believe you are helping visitors reach the most relevant/helpful result but it could also look like you are trying to artificially boost that one page? Then there are the vagueries of a search engine becoming ever more dependent on ai where not everything makes rational sense and sites can get de-indexed at the drop of a hat.
- dsizzle 2y ago
  Do you have any evidence that redirects are bad for SEO? Redirects are a normal part of the web and Google tells you they are fine with it https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/301-redirects https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
  - dazc 2y ago
    No, Google are infallible and never tell lies...

otherme123 2y ago

In that document they explain that duplicate content is not a big deal: just set a canonical, and respond maybe with a 301. I did this during a migration of a site that used '/<pk-int>/' and was changed to '/<slug>/' with corresponding 301. The SEO not only didn't punish the migration, but it seemed to like the change (except the Bingbot, that after five years still request the old Urls). The problem I see with the OP strategy is that the bot can hit a Url that still doesn't exist, get 301'ed with that technique, and the Url is reused afterwards for new content: following their example, somebody links to '/supplements/otherbrand-spore-probiotic', that gets a bot following that link 301'ed to '/supplements/spore-probiotic'. Later you actually add 'otherbrand-spore-probiotic', but that Url will never be visited by the bot.

bentinata 2y ago
What about using 302?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- qingcharles 2y ago
  What about 308?

default-kramer 2y ago

I mostly agree, but also... it kinda is a dark art? I just read the "Reduce duplicate content" section [1] because my gut reaction was "yeah, I agree, this guy is going to get SEO-penalized for this" but of course I don't actually know. And although my few years of experience dealing with this stuff still want to say "you will get SEO-penalized for this", Google's own guidelines do not: "If you're feeling adventurous, it's worth figuring out if you can specify a canonical version for your pages. But if you don't canonicalize your URLs yourself, Google will try to automatically do it for you. [...] again, don't worry too much about this; search engines can generally figure this out for you on their own most of the time. " [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide#reduce-duplicate-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-s...

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

The leaked documents are probably more useful than any "official" guide.

graemep 2y ago

If you look at the recently leaked documents Google often do not tell the truth, or the whole truth. 301s are what you are supposed to do with things like changed URLs, so I cannot see it being a problem in this case. A 301 is nor duplicate content - it is one of the things Google likes you do do to avoid duplicate content. It would probably be good to add a threshold to the similarity to prevent urls redirecting to something very different.

lsaferite 2y ago
I would use 308/307 over 301/302. Semantically, using a 303 redirect might be the most appropriate signal for what they are doing. They could redirect to a specific result page if it's a clear, unambiguous match and they could redirect to a search results page if there are other possible matches.

dsizzle 2y ago

Except there's no duplicate content - the site redirects

ryandrake 2y ago

> It's not some dark art. Google themselves tell you exactly how they index and why. All you have to do is read the guidelines. This reminds me of something similar in the mobile world: Apple's App Review guidelines[1]. They're surprisingly clear and to the point. All you have to do is read and follow them. Yet, when I worked for an App developer, the product managers would act as though getting through App Store review was some kind of dark wizardry that nobody understood. Them: "Hey, we need to add Feature X [which is clearly against Apple's guidelines]." Me: "We're going to have trouble getting through app review if we add that." Them: "Nobody knows how app review works. It's a black box. There's no rhyme or reason. It's a maze. Just add the feature and we'll roll the dice as usual!" Me: "OK. I've added the feature and submitted it." App gets rejected. Them: "Shocked Pikachu!" 1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

randomdata 2y ago
I haven't work with iOS in a few years, so perhaps they are more consistent these days, but in the early days I built a web browser with a custom rendering engine to see if I could get it through review and it was accepted just fine. It was accepted just fine through several releases, in fact. According to the guidelines at the time, alternative browser engines (i.e. not WebKit) were prohibited. It should have been rejected if the guidelines were followed. But they weren't. It really was a dark art figuring out when and when they wouldn't follow them. I'm with your colleague on this, at least in a historical context.
- wrs 2y ago
  Doing something not mentioned by the guidelines and hoping it gets through, I can understand. Doing something explicitly prohibited by the guidelines and hoping it gets through seems like an unwise use of resources.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    There seemed to be no illusions around in the risk of the gamble in the OP's case. The comment states it was discussed. The consensus simply felt the gamble was worthwhile – even if they ultimately lost. I was also well aware of and accepting of the risk in my case. I wanted to learn more about certain iOS features, and I was able to do so scratching an itch I felt like scratching. I would have still gained from the process even if it had been rejected. However, as it got approved, contrary to the guidelines, I also got a good laugh at how inconsistent review was and a nice cash bonus on top! You win some you lose some. Such is life.