29 10, 2015

Google and Its Book Scanning Initiative – Trick or Treat?

By | 2018-05-01T08:26:50+00:00 October 29th, 2015|Categories: SEO|Tags: , , |

This Halloween, Google has toilet papered your entire yard and the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals just rang the doorbell, left a flaming bag of you-know what on your doorstep and ran like a bat outta’ Hell. Who are you?

You’re an author with a career worth of product, mostly published offline through traditional literary mediums. You have every right to feel that you’ve been wronged. I know I do.

While I don’t advocate for the trampling of anyone’s rights in favor of another (one of my pet peeves), the 2nd Circuit Court decision has some upside. Think Frankenstein and fire.  Let me explain…

poster-art-smallA Quick Overview

As you probably know, the objective of Google’s book scanning initiative is to scan every book available and make the contents available online for educational purposes. The book scanning initiative (the way I understand it) does not make copyrighted materials available online for free to those who wouldn’t otherwise have it available to them. This project is meant to aid libraries in copying their current catalog for use by library patrons who would otherwise have access to already paid for, hard copy versions.

The Authors Guild had taken great exception to the book scanning project, as one might expect. Citing existing laws on copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 107) The Author’s Guild has argued that Google’s book scanning initiative deprives writers of revenue from their work.

This court battle started way back in 2005.

The 10 year ordeal appears to be over. The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled with Google and its “fair use” defense. The “fair use” defense (admittedly greatly simplified here in the interest of expediency) argues that since the content is being used for educational purposes, it serves a greater good. Additionally, it does not “excessively damage the market” for the current copyright holder.

If you’re not a creator (or even if you are), you’re probably wondering what this means for your website or agency. Will the fire Google started be used for good or evil? Will users see a benefit or will my SEO efforts become a horror show?

The answer is yes, yes, yes and maybe. Let’s talk about the bad first.

More Panda Updates

There is no doubt that while Google may be providing a service through this massive book scanning effort, they’ll get their sweat equity when they use this data to fine tune their algorithm in their pursuit to rid the internet of duplicate content. While this means a better user experience for most (yeah!), it could mean sleepless nights for SEOs and website operators who have used nefarious means to add “new” content to their blogs or websites.

Imagine your agency gets a new client. That’s a good thing. What you don’t know is that this client has in the past employed an SEO firm that had resorted to using re-purposed content from rare books. The next Panda update comes and your client gets slammed. Guess who gets blamed? FIRE, BAD.

However, there’s a great deal of good news too. Consider this:

More Books for the Disabled

In a related ruling, the appeals court decided in favor of HathiTrust Digital Library and their application of “fair use”. A non-profit project, HathiTrust Digital Library consist of a consortium or university libraries with a mission to provide digital books for the disabled. FRIEND, GOOD.

Better Experience for The End User

Less fluff and more real content will result from future algorithm changes. That’s great news for users and all of us who do things the right way. FRIEND, GOOD.

More Work for Content Creators

This is a big maybe but, in theory, this could work to a writer’s advantage. As the algorithm detects new re-purposed copy, something of value has to replace the fluff copy that had previously been used.  FRIEND, GOOD.

In Conclusion

Like the blind man in the original Frankenstein movie, I probably won’t convince any traditional writer that that his or her rights are not being subjugated in favor of commerce and the rights of another. And in the end, you can’t ignore the fact that the “monster” enjoyed a big, fat cigar with a friend. It ain’t all bad.

And on a side note, I hear the new Panda algorithm can scrape poop from shoes.

14 10, 2015

Avoiding Duplicate Content – Get the Most From Your SEO Efforts

By | 2018-09-14T15:24:31+00:00 October 14th, 2015|Categories: SEO|Tags: , |

The Panda algorithm is just another example of Google’s effort to identify “thin” content and enhance the user experience. To clarify, the actual quality of the copy is secondary. The objective is to add content that is of value to the user. Quality of copy and value of content can mean two very different things. So for example, the word count of any page theoretically isn’t that important as it does not correlate to value or thinness.

What specifically constitutes duplicate content, then?

Yes, thin content would include republished material or very similar pages. But, that just scrapes (pun intended) the surface. In general terms, anything that may obfuscate a page ranking or make it difficult for Google to determine which page to index may be construed as a duplicate content issue. These could include (but are not limited to):

duplicate content elvis

  • Printer friendly versions of pages
  • Same URL for mobile site
  • www. and non-www. pages (no canonical tags)
  • Identical product descriptions for similar products
  • Guest posts

How can I solve my duplicate content issues?

Canonical tags can help solve many duplicate content issues. Proper use of rel=canonical tags can ensure that Google passes any link or content authority to the preferred URL. Your preferred URL will show up in the Google search results.

There is a clear, preferred method to eliminate mobile URL issues. Move to a responsive site. While you may feel that budget constraints make this a less desirable option, responsive design enhances the user experience – which is what the Google algorithm is all about. The seo benefits of responsive design make this an investment that will pay off immediately and well into the future.

Expanding your product descriptions can be a laborious task, particularly when one considers the sheer volume of products any one website may offer. You can bolster product description content in any number of ways. As well as expanding the product description verbiage, one can include specifications or details, include “related purchases”, or add testimonials from previous users. For items that require assembly, how-to videos are a great alternative.

If your site accepts guest posts, search online before posting any new guest content to ensure that the content does not reside elsewhere.

Creating New Content: Does Size Matter?

I’ve heard it said that Google determines the quality of its search results using the time to long click method. In other words, a significant factor in determining the value of a search result is the amount of time a user spends on a website after leaving the Google search page. Additional emphasis is placed on the user’s next move. So, if the user does not go back to google search to perform another search, the presumption is that the question was answered adequately. It doesn’t matter how long the user spent on the page that was served up as the result. If this is accurate, the length of copy is not important. If the content was lengthy but did not meet the user’s expectation, they presumably would return to re-search the topic. If the resulting article was short but to the point and adequately answered the user’s query, then they would not likely return to perform another search. Assuming the time to long click method is used, size does not matter so much as the actual value of the material to the user.

That being said, sometimes less isn’t more. Larger articles seem to rank better in my personal experience. This may simply be due to the fact that when writing a longer article, more information is being shared thereby increasing the likelihood that the user finds what they’re looking for. While not consistent with stated policy, why not err on the side of caution and not only include valuable information but as much of it as possible?