Duplicate Pages

I saw at google.com that penalties are imposed on sites duplicating
themselves - I saw plumb-warehouse.co.uk go to PR0 and now at PR4 but
not in the listings. It duplicates pages at ishop. It was at first
position on many keywords - now not there.

I am writing template software to build Web catalogs, see
zenoware.co.uk, and I intend to sell the catalogs to shops. I have a
very strong response - from 10 calls, 2 said they want to buy - I
started just this week. Zeno is very powerful software using XML/XLST
to build HTML.

I am wondering if the catalogs are the same, if google.com would
consider that duplication.

My original idea was to allow the sites to promote themselves via pay
for clicks and links, but I am thinking the search engines may be
useful.

My own site (redburg.co.uk) vanished from listings months ago, and I
basically gave up with search engines. My competitors all rely on paid
advertising, spending thousands every week at google.com.

Would someone know if I built say sites with the same catalogs, would
all be indexed? The product lines are all the same between shops, and
the only difference between sites is the HTML - content is the same -
provided by suppliers. Here I am talking about all sites not my ones.

It makes sense if HTML is only changing, to use XML (content based)
and then build HTML from a software engine, like Zeno.

Please reply.

On 3 Jun 2004 10:13:55 -0700, sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com (Trevor) wrote:

I saw at google.com that penalties are imposed on sites duplicating
themselves - I saw plumb-warehouse.co.uk go to PR0 and now at PR4 but
not in the listings. It duplicates pages at ishop. It was at first
position on many keywords - now not there.

I am writing template software to build Web catalogs, see
zenoware.co.uk, and I intend to sell the catalogs to shops. I have a
very strong response - from 10 calls, 2 said they want to buy - I
started just this week. Zeno is very powerful software using XML/XLST
to build HTML.

I am wondering if the catalogs are the same, if google.com would
consider that duplication.

My original idea was to allow the sites to promote themselves via pay
for clicks and links, but I am thinking the search engines may be
useful.

My own site (redburg.co.uk) vanished from listings months ago, and I
basically gave up with search engines. My competitors all rely on paid
advertising, spending thousands every week at google.com.

Would someone know if I built say sites with the same catalogs, would
all be indexed? The product lines are all the same between shops, and
the only difference between sites is the HTML - content is the same -
provided by suppliers. Here I am talking about all sites not my ones.

It makes sense if HTML is only changing, to use XML (content based)
and then build HTML from a software engine, like Zeno.

Please reply.

You'd need substantial difference between the sites. But, if they're
branded differently, use different prices, aren't all mirror images of
each other then I wouldn't expect you to have trouble.

BB

I am playing around with SEO and trying to learn as I go along, but what you
are saying is that if I duplicate a site on another domain, Google will rank
me lower?

The reason I ask is that from what I have read on this newsgroup our web
hosting domain http://hosting.fast-trak.net isn't the best if we were
targeting 'web hosting uk' for example, so we purchased a 2nd domain,
http://web-hosting-uk.org.uk as that would have a better start and copied
the content from hosting.fast-trak.net accross. We have to leave the
hosting.fast-trak.net domain as that is what our customers know and it is
also used in advertising etc but have we just shot ourselves in the foot?

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:27:44 +0100, "Dan Pickard"
<daniel.pickard@NOSPAMfast-trakDOTnet> wrote:

I am playing around with SEO and trying to learn as I go along, but what you
are saying is that if I duplicate a site on another domain, Google will rank
me lower?

They'd kick one or other of the sites out of the index.

The reason I ask is that from what I have read on this newsgroup our web
hosting domain http://hosting.fast-trak.net isn't the best if we were
targeting 'web hosting uk' for example, so we purchased a 2nd domain,
http://web-hosting-uk.org.uk as that would have a better start and copied
the content from hosting.fast-trak.net accross. We have to leave the
hosting.fast-trak.net domain as that is what our customers know and it is
also used in advertising etc but have we just shot ourselves in the foot?

More like in the head. You can (I believe, never actually done this)
rectify this by putting a redirect on your old site to the new site.
301 redirects are accepted by the engines, meta refresh types aren't,
and 302 redirects are viewed as being only a temprorary solution. I'll
let someone who has actually done this tell you the code to use though
(then I'll steal it, tee-hee-hee.....)

BB

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On 3 Jun 2004 10:13:55 -0700, sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com (Trevor) wrote:

allow the sites to promote themselves via pay
for clicks and links, but I am thinking the search engines may be
useful.



You'd need substantial difference between the sites. But, if they're
branded differently, use different prices, aren't all mirror images of
each other then I wouldn't expect you to have trouble.

One key aspect is that "branding" is done by the manufacturers and not
the retailers. It is actually the brand which is why a retailer takes
the account.

Retailers do not brand themselves, and even the outfitting of shops is
done by suppliers (often). The reason for using retailer by
manufacturers was for reasons for capital only.

With Web sales, retailers can only get accounts (to stop unstable
markets), but the descriptions, images, range names, etc are all the
same across all retailers.


When amazon.com sells Harry Potter, the product name, content
information is identical to every other book shop - the "branding" is
done by JK Rowling and her team.

The Web has given rise to centralised selling, which has never been
known before, and therefore the whole matter comes to marketing. You
could in theory have just one site selling a product line.

Marketing will then come down who can buy more advertising - the trend
with paid ads, and the expected paid inclusion.


I can give an example:

Basin tap is made in China - $5 a unit

Shipped to the UK in a batch - 10,000 taps - $50K shipment.

Branding causes the tap to be well known - importer sells tap to
retailers at £25 (about $50), shops sell at £50 ($100) - but the tap
only cost $5.

That is what branding does. An unknown import cannot be sold easily
and lacks the following:

- guarantee
- prospect of matching products (eg ranges)
- prospect of upgrades (rise with times)
- "keep up jones" image - ie not popular
- image value

This is why "brands" are protected so much.

BB

"Dan Pickard" <daniel.pickard@NOSPAMfast-trakDOTnet> wrote

I am playing around with SEO and trying to learn as I go along, but what you
are saying is that if I duplicate a site on another domain, Google will rank
me lower?

It is a well known technique to use doorway pages. There are variants
on this but the theory is as follows:

- build a content based site (hundreds, thousands of pages)
- build "doorway" sites which have a lot of keywords and some content
(not much) and then a link to the main site
- build a "mirror" - a copy - of the original site

Result:

someone enters a keyword - 10 sites listed - but three of them are all
yours. Therefore the customer thinks there are ten choices, but three
of them are all the same.

Example:

http://www.hudsonreed.com/loadmain/1/1.html
http://www.ultra-group.co.uk/loadmain/1/1.html

These two sites both come from a company called Ultra Finishing, the
content is the same. It is a major UK manufacturer.

This technique is so common, that companies actually sell services
making doorway pages.

Search engines dont like doorways and mirrors, and they can delist
your site. Google.com has a penalty system (PR0) for sites using the
above techniques.

The reason I ask is that from what I have read on this newsgroup our web
hosting domain http://hosting.fast-trak.net isn't the best if we were
targeting 'web hosting uk' for example, so we purchased a 2nd domain,
http://web-hosting-uk.org.uk as that would have a better start and copied
the content from hosting.fast-trak.net accross. We have to leave the
hosting.fast-trak.net domain as that is what our customers know and it is
also used in advertising etc but have we just shot ourselves in the foot?

"Dan Pickard" <daniel.pickard@NOSPAMfast-trakDOTnet> wrote

I am playing around with SEO and trying to learn as I go along, but what you
are saying is that if I duplicate a site on another domain, Google will rank
me lower?

The reason I ask is that from what I have read on this newsgroup our web
hosting domain http://hosting.fast-trak.net isn't the best if we were
targeting 'web hosting uk' for example, so we purchased a 2nd domain,
http://web-hosting-uk.org.uk as that would have a better start and copied
the content from hosting.fast-trak.net accross. We have to leave the
hosting.fast-trak.net domain as that is what our customers know and it is
also used in advertising etc but have we just shot ourselves in the foot?

Just use a redirect - you can use server side script for this.

On 3 Jun 2004 21:02:27 -0700, Trevor <sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com> wrote:

Retailers do not brand themselves,

Yet Sears, WalMart, Amazon and Target are "branded" in a sense. They've
"branded" not a product but a shopping experience...

On 3 Jun 2004 21:02:27 -0700, sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com (Trevor) wrote:

Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On 3 Jun 2004 10:13:55 -0700, sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com (Trevor) wrote:

allow the sites to promote themselves via pay
for clicks and links, but I am thinking the search engines may be
useful.



You'd need substantial difference between the sites. But, if they're
branded differently, use different prices, aren't all mirror images of
each other then I wouldn't expect you to have trouble.

One key aspect is that "branding" is done by the manufacturers and not
the retailers. It is actually the brand which is why a retailer takes
the account.

Retailers do not brand themselves, and even the outfitting of shops is
done by suppliers (often). The reason for using retailer by
manufacturers was for reasons for capital only.

With Web sales, retailers can only get accounts (to stop unstable
markets), but the descriptions, images, range names, etc are all the
same across all retailers.


When amazon.com sells Harry Potter, the product name, content
information is identical to every other book shop - the "branding" is
done by JK Rowling and her team.

Yeah well obvoiusly the book title's the same, the author's name's the
same, but does the page layout have to be identical? If so, get
another cart that lets you integrate it with the overall
style/theme/layout/whatever-you-want-to-describe-it-as as your site as
a whole.

The Web has given rise to centralised selling, which has never been
known before, and therefore the whole matter comes to marketing. You
could in theory have just one site selling a product line.

It will no doubt come. Here in the UK we're looking at losing all our
indie butchers and greengrocers, it'll soon be a handful of major
supermarkets handling it all. No doubt on the web eventually there'll
only be one outlet for books, one for cars, one for any damned thing
you can think of. But for now, though,......

Marketing will then come down who can buy more advertising - the trend
with paid ads, and the expected paid inclusion.


I can give an example:

You don't need to on this group.

Basin tap is made in China - $5 a unit

Shipped to the UK in a batch - 10,000 taps - $50K shipment.

Branding causes the tap to be well known - importer sells tap to
retailers at £25 (about $50), shops sell at £50 ($100) - but the tap
only cost $5.

That is what branding does. An unknown import cannot be sold easily
and lacks the following:

- guarantee
- prospect of matching products (eg ranges)
- prospect of upgrades (rise with times)
- "keep up jones" image - ie not popular
- image value

Also available spares.

This is why "brands" are protected so much.

I knew that. I did!

BB

On 3 Jun 2004 21:12:49 -0700, sales (AT) logicians (DOT) com (Trevor) wrote:

"Dan Pickard" <daniel.pickard@NOSPAMfast-trakDOTnet> wrote

I am playing around with SEO and trying to learn as I go along, but what you
are saying is that if I duplicate a site on another domain, Google will rank
me lower?

It is a well known technique to use doorway pages. There are variants
on this but the theory is as follows:

- build a content based site (hundreds, thousands of pages)
- build "doorway" sites which have a lot of keywords and some content
(not much) and then a link to the main site
- build a "mirror" - a copy - of the original site

Result:

someone enters a keyword - 10 sites listed - but three of them are all
yours. Therefore the customer thinks there are ten choices, but three
of them are all the same.

Example:

http://www.hudsonreed.com/loadmain/1/1.html
http://www.ultra-group.co.uk/loadmain/1/1.html

These two sites both come from a company called Ultra Finishing, the
content is the same. It is a major UK manufacturer.

This technique is so common, that companies actually sell services
making doorway pages.

Search engines dont like doorways and mirrors, and they can delist
your site. Google.com has a penalty system (PR0) for sites using the
above techniques.

Any idea how the above have got away with it?

BB