26 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
26 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Panda And Content Syndication

by yourreviewer
21 replies
Just read an interesting pdf on Google Panda in relation to content syndication.

I am not an SEO expert but nevertheless wanted to share this information with you all.

http://seobraintrust.s3.amazonaws.co...n-for-2012.pdf

If you prefer to watch the video or listen to the audio, here is the link,

2011 in Review AND a Plan for 2012

Specifically the document mentions the following,

"If you put a piece of content on your site, do not ask or allow anyone to use that content on another website except in very specific conditions, such as where you can actually control your rel=author tag on their copy so that they are giving you credit for it."

Interested in hearing your thoughts.
#content #panda #syndication
  • Profile picture of the author high_plains_drifter
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    Just read an interesting pdf on Google Panda in relation to content syndication.

    I am not an SEO expert but nevertheless wanted to share this information with you all.

    http://seobraintrust.s3.amazonaws.co...n-for-2012.pdf

    If you prefer to watch the video or listen to the audio, here is the link,

    2011 in Review AND a Plan for 2012

    Specifically the document mentions the following,

    "If you put a piece of content on your site, do not ask or allow anyone to use that content on another website except in very specific conditions, such as where you can actually control your rel=author tag on their copy so that they are giving you credit for it."

    Interested in hearing your thoughts.
    thanks for the link, will have a read

    but my god is that a horrible looking site
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5271865].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
      Originally Posted by high_plains_drifter View Post

      thanks for the link, will have a read

      but my god is that a horrible looking site
      Which site are you referring to? SEO Brain Trust? I didn't think it looked that horrible. Anyways I was more interested in the content than the look and feel of the site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5271924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
    I've been doing very well with writing for residuals, however, I'm really just beginning to dip my toes into writing for syndication--I have a feeling that I could seriously take things to another level with it.

    P.s. I just downloaded and plowed through "Tiffany Lee's" guide about it...follow her sig link...it's well worth your time...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5271901].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    Unfortunately, there are probably very few high traffic sites that will include the author tag in an article you submit. This might start to change as author profiles become more of a factor in search rankings, but I think that this could take a long time to see widespread adoption.

    And remember, it is the high traffic (and moderate but highly targeted traffic) sites that most syndicators are concerned with.

    I think that having it indexed on your site first, with a link to your Google profile on your site, should be sufficient. This, along with a link from the syndicated article to your site which of course you already have anyway.

    Of course, if you can persuade the syndicator to include the rel=author tag, that's all the better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
      Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

      Unfortunately, there are probably very few high traffic sites that will include the author tag in an article you submit. This might start to change as author profiles become more of a factor in search rankings, but I think that this could take a long time to see widespread adoption.

      And remember, it is the high traffic (and moderate but highly targeted traffic) sites that most syndicators are concerned with.

      I think that having it indexed on your site first, with a link to your Google profile on your site, should be sufficient. This, along with a link from the syndicated article to your site which of course you already have anyway.

      Of course, if you can persuade the syndicator to include the rel=author tag, that's all the better.
      Dan, thanks for the comments. I will be the first to admit, I know nothing about SEO. It's way too technical and complicated for me.

      I have never known about the author tag and right now, there aren't many websites that use them or allow them.

      Maybe it's a matter of educating the site owners or just including the tag at the end of the article so that they can copy and paste it without you even having to explain any of the technical stuff.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272055].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

      Unfortunately, there are probably very few high traffic sites that will include the author tag in an article you submit.

      Google says, "build your sites for your visitors, not for us."

      Then they tell us to add something to our sites.

      And if we do, we will be telling Google that we build pages for Google first, rather than our readers first. :p
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272236].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    If they copy and paste the article, they will likely copy the text. I don't know if copying text in a web browser copies the HTML source code, but I think the answer is no.

    Links do tend to get copied, because when you paste it into a document like wordpad or word the link is live, but I don't know if it will also copy any of the rel attributes associated with the link.

    If you send them the html version of the article and they paste that then it should work so long as they don't remove the tag.

    If they passively syndicate it from an article directory you may or may not want to take the time to contact them and ask them to throw the tag in there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272187].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rooze
    OK, I spent 90 minutes listening to the whole thing and there's some great information.

    In some respects it boils down to what source of traffic are you 'optimizing' for, are you optimizing for Google, or everything else. Because with some strategies, Google is going to penalize you when you don't optimize for them - specifically, article syndication and marketing.
    Article syndicators would maintain that Google is a secondary consideration in their strategy, and that's fine. However, Google 'optimizers' who are starved of organic search traffic try to throw their net into the syndication pool to see if they can drag in some extra visitors. According to the video, that's not a good idea. The hosts maintain that your content should exist uniquely on your own website and you should be protective of it and prevent its use on other sites unless you can exclusively control it, which most of us can't. The author tag is a partial solution, but for most eCommerce site owners it really isn't a practical solution.

    They're saying the full force of this policy hasn't yet been released, but that it's coming in 2012 - 'Snippet Wars' is the term they use.

    Interesting.

    Incidentally, before you jump on me, I'm just paraphrasing the video and not offering my own opinion on this
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272374].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      OK, I spent 90 minutes listening to the whole thing and there's some great information.

      In some respects it boils down to what source of traffic are you 'optimizing' for, are you optimizing for Google, or everything else. Because with some strategies, Google is going to penalize you when you don't optimize for them - specifically, article syndication and marketing.
      Article syndicators would maintain that Google is a secondary consideration in their strategy, and that's fine. However, Google 'optimizers' who are starved of organic search traffic try to throw their net into the syndication pool to see if they can drag in some extra visitors. According to the video, that's not a good idea. The hosts maintain that your content should exist uniquely on your own website and you should be protective of it and prevent its use on other sites unless you can exclusively control it, which most of us can't. The author tag is a partial solution, but for most eCommerce site owners it really isn't a practical solution.

      They're saying the full force of this policy hasn't yet been released, but that it's coming in 2012 - 'Snippet Wars' is the term they use.

      Interesting.

      Incidentally, before you jump on me, I'm just paraphrasing the video and not offering my own opinion on this
      Rooze, I think you summed it up nicely. I read the pdf and I haven't watched the video since it wouldn't play in my browser.

      This may be more relevant to Google optimizers than article syndicators, but I wanted to share the information nevertheless because there are a lot of folks here who do depend on search engine traffic and use syndicated content on their websites or look to publish their content on other websites.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272613].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
      Originally Posted by rooze View Post

      In some respects it boils down to what source of traffic are you 'optimizing' for, are you optimizing for Google, or everything else. Because with some strategies, Google is going to penalize you when you don't optimize for them - specifically, article syndication and marketing.
      I really hope that Google isn't going to try to turn article syndication into an either/or thing (you're either writing for Google, or you're writing for other forms of traffic, but not both). That would be a shame. After all, if it's done right, you can publish great articles that are informative and interesting enough to get syndicated, while also optimizing it for a few target keywords. That way, you're getting your content in front of targeted eyeballs and gaining the respect of the search engines.

      I haven't read the PDF yet, but just from reading the comments here, it seems like Google's going to be asking for things that really can't be done... After all, how can you really "protect" your articles, without turning it into a full-time job? How can you really ask every website that republishes one of your articles to include author tags? It doesn't seem possible :confused:
      Signature
      Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272788].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rooze
        Originally Posted by NicoleBeckett View Post

        I really hope that Google isn't going to try to turn article syndication into an either/or thing (you're either writing for Google, or you're writing for other forms of traffic, but not both). That would be a shame. After all, if it's done right, you can publish great articles that are informative and interesting enough to get syndicated, while also optimizing it for a few target keywords. That way, you're getting your content in front of targeted eyeballs and gaining the respect of the search engines.

        I haven't read the PDF yet, but just from reading the comments here, it seems like Google's going to be asking for things that really can't be done... After all, how can you really "protect" your articles, without turning it into a full-time job? How can you really ask every website that republishes one of your articles to include author tags? It doesn't seem possible :confused:
        Nicole,

        I think you've spotlighted the issue with your first paragraph. Not wanting to sound too Orwellian, but I think it's fair to say that Google would be happier with us all being 'slaves' and abiding by whatever rules they lay down for us. Article syndication is like slipping under the fence, it creates a flow of web traffic somewhat outside of Google's control, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if their longer term goals included making life difficult for article syndicators. You could argue that Panda 1/2 was the first step to reigning us in.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272921].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
          Originally Posted by rooze View Post

          Not wanting to sound too Orwellian, but I think it's fair to say that Google would be happier with us all being 'slaves' and abiding by whatever rules they lay down for us.
          Oh, of course they would! After all, the more powerful they are (or can convince everyone that they are), the better it is for their bottom line.

          That's why I don't freak out over Google's every whim or change. Sure, I'd like to get traffic from them. I'd be crazy not to! I'm on pages 1 and 2 for a good number of my keywords, but they're certainly not the bulk of my traffic. And, quite frankly, if they're trying to turn the tables on article syndication (which, IMO, is the best way to drive traffic) then phooey on them :p

          Like Tiff said, as long as I'm getting my resource boxes published (with all of the links intact, of course!), I'm happy. If Google wants me to hunt down webmasters trying to get them to publish an author tag, well, I'd rather spend my time writing more articles that are going to get syndicated and put in front of my target audience. It's a much better use of my time
          Signature
          Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273190].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rooze
            Originally Posted by NicoleBeckett View Post

            Oh, of course they would! After all, the more powerful they are (or can convince everyone that they are), the better it is for their bottom line.

            That's why I don't freak out over Google's every whim or change. Sure, I'd like to get traffic from them. I'd be crazy not to! I'm on pages 1 and 2 for a good number of my keywords, but they're certainly not the bulk of my traffic. And, quite frankly, if they're trying to turn the tables on article syndication (which, IMO, is the best way to drive traffic) then phooey on them :p

            Like Tiff said, as long as I'm getting my resource boxes published (with all of the links intact, of course!), I'm happy. If Google wants me to hunt down webmasters trying to get them to publish an author tag, well, I'd rather spend my time writing more articles that are going to get syndicated and put in front of my target audience. It's a much better use of my time
            I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is that it might be about to change.

            This is the scenario -
            Each time a piece of previously indexed content shows up on the web, the publisher gets a black mark. If the same publisher starts to get multiple black marks, because they embrace and utilize your syndicated content, then eventually they're going to be devalued - they'll loose authority. At which point their traffic will decrease and therefore your traffic too. The people in the video seemed to believe in a correlation between site authority and the amount of black marks google will allow you too accumulate before issuing a penalty. So the bigger, high authority sites will be more immune to the devaluing affects of duplicate content and syndication.
            The 'slap' if there is one, will be for the smaller niche sites, blogs etc. If they continue to accept syndicated content, they don't have the authority to ride with the number of black marks they'll be getting for showing previously published content.....so they'll slide off the map.

            I don't think Google treats this as 'spam' per se, I think it devalues the content, and the pages it's published on, as it has no need for multiple copies of the same content to show to its searchers. In a perverse way it actually makes sense.

            Many of us are successful now with syndication, but that doesn't mean it won't change as Google rolls out the new set of rules. Who would've thought that article directories were vulnerable when they first appeared? - it's basically an extension of the whole process of removing unnecessary content. (if it's to be believed).
            :rolleyes:
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273305].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    This is all theory at this point, of course (because author profiles are so new) but I don't agree that syndication is going to be a problem with Google. In fact, I see syndication becoming even more powerful for those that are able to execute it well.

    Why?

    Because Google is focusing more and more on quality. Imagine you write an article, which you publish to your website and Google associates with your profile. Next, you get this article syndicated to a number of sites which have traffic and Google sees as quality sites. This article, both on your own site and on the syndication outlets gets some degree of social interaction.

    Now, if Google handles author profiles well and matches each syndicated copy with your profile and tracks the social interaction across the various copies (again, this is new so it is theory) then they can use this as a factor in giving more credibility to your profile.

    Let's say a fairly large number of people +1 the article. Those are all +1's that get associated with an article that Google knows you wrote. Thus, the +1's get credited to your profile.

    I can't imagine any situation in which this is a bad scenario for you as a content creator.

    This is why I think that quality content + Google profiles + syndication can be very good for you in terms of SEO as Google places more focus on quality and social interaction.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272686].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Venturetothetop
      I haven't read the said article (so I'm expecting to get some heat) but I've said this before and I will say it again:

      Google have stated clearly that they aim to know more about you then you do yourself.

      This is just another way for Google to tag content to you, and build up more knowledge about you. They know via gmail and Google+ who your friends are, which people would like to be your friends, perhaps even what you like to talk about... via analytics people are freely giving them data about their sites, android monitors where you are and who you speak too, and now they are gathering data on people who perhaps have lots of content out there on various sites.

      It's good business for them, but I've been taught harsh lessons before about giving one company too much information about you. Even if it was to help my rankings, I'm to worried about the long term effects that one companies knowledge could hold over me.

      It's good business to spread your risks.... that is all I am saying...
      Signature

      [B]

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272832].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nm5419
      Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

      Imagine you write an article, which you publish to your website and Google associates with your profile. Next, you get this article syndicated to a number of sites which have traffic and Google sees as quality sites. This article, both on your own site and on the syndication outlets gets some degree of social interaction.
      The problem with that (rather sensible) theory is that every website that pulls in syndication is flagged with a duplicate content penalty. Get a bunch of those and you get a warning. Get way too many of those, you get sent to supplemental search results (which means nobody is going to find any syndicated copies to +1, tweet, share, like, or favorite).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5272951].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danr62
        Originally Posted by nm5419 View Post

        The problem with that (rather sensible) theory is that every website that pulls in syndication is flagged with a duplicate content penalty. Get a bunch of those and you get a warning. Get way too many of those, you get sent to supplemental search results (which means nobody is going to find any syndicated copies to +1, tweet, share, like, or favorite).
        This is because you are still under the misapprehension that Google does not like syndicated content.

        Google doesn't like spammers. Syndication is not spam.

        Spam is creating low quality content, spinning it until it is unrecognizable, and blasting it out to hundreds or thousands of low traffic sites just so you can get backlinks.

        Syndication is offering good content to targeted audiences by distributing your articles to quality outlets.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273098].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author rooze
          Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

          This is because you are still under the misapprehension that Google does not like syndicated content.

          Google doesn't like spammers. Syndication is not spam.

          Spam is creating low quality content, spinning it until it is unrecognizable, and blasting it out to hundreds or thousands of low traffic sites just so you can get backlinks.

          Syndication is offering good content to targeted audiences by distributing your articles to quality outlets.
          Syndication is not spam, but as far as Google is concerned it isn't useful to them. Google has tons and tons of content to serve up for every search. It doesn't need multiple copies of the same content. It has even said as much through it's spokesperson MC - we've been warned, people have been 'slapped' and I think more is coming.

          With respect, look at it solely from their perspective and you'll see it differently.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    Of course Google doesn't need multiple copies of the same content. That is not the same as saying that having multiple copies in their index will hurt your chances of ranking in their SERPS. If your content is relevant to a search query, they will serve up the best copy they find and filter out the rest. If not, they will serve up something else.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273232].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rooze
      Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

      Of course Google doesn't need multiple copies of the same content. That is not the same as saying that having multiple copies in their index will hurt your chances of ranking in their SERPS. If your content is relevant to a search query, they will serve up the best copy they find and filter out the rest. If not, they will serve up something else.
      Dan, please read my post above, it crossed in the mail.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    What Google says doesn't always match what Google does...

    They may poo article syndication, but so far in 2011, the sites I own that have been promoted with article syndication are seeing a 50% traffic volume increase in traffic over the last year, and a lot of that traffic increase is coming from Google.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5274140].message }}

Trending Topics