Check your article on sinkholes.
I have a copy of it on my site that has garnered 17,000 hits in the last 36 hours.
The nachi (free) websites ought to have a method to do that or make it possible for visitors to go to the links and articles.
Good idea Doug. Forwarding it to IT now.
On the new Inspector Pages - which is finally almost ready - we’ve created a utility to do just what you’re asking. Thanks for the suggestion!
Ya’ll are welcome. The sun shines on even an old dog’s rump once in a while.
I have a few nachi articles on my site as well. It is best from an SEO perspective to place an excerpt (summary) of a nachi article on your site, with a link to the original article back at nachi . Why? Google sees your summary as unique content and gives you a ranking bump, while simply copying nachi’s article might get you penalized for duplicate content in the eyes of Google.
The NACHI articles do work!
Exactly. This is definitely the way to go. Don’t copy it identically or you’ll hurt your rank. Summarize and link back to NACHI for the full thing or rewrite a good portion of the article and include the whole thing.
I don’t know anything about about SEO or what it even stands for…or what gets Google numbers or anything else. Don’t really care, much since the keywords “missouri home inspector” will normally find me on the first page of whatever search engine you’re using.
I’ve stuck to Nick’s advice from the very beginning (2004) and have not discovered a reason to change.
Just had a real estate company contact me and agree to pay me $20 per month just to have a link to their site. Sounded good to me. They are in Kansas City.
James - Well then keep doing what you’re doing because it’s working. It’s also nice having a 5 year old domain Search engines like longevity.
So I got another 4.5 years to go…lol
I got the same deal but first they wanted to link to ReMAX. I said there was no way in hell I would do that, I got to protect my reputation. Then they came up with me linking to a FSBO site, which is okay because when it is clicked on there are no listings and my girlfriend google ad shows up on the top. Her ad account is turned off now until she gets caught back up with her clients. A lot of lookers but very slow to buy.
I don’t believe Google punishes anyone for duplicate content. Old wives tale.
If they ever start, I’ll be the first @s$hole (I’m a natural-born @s$hole BTW) to order our IT Department to write a script that creates 500 identical sites for every non-member’s inspection website.
Does anyone know how many exact duplicate copies (word for word) of the U.S. Constitution there are on the internet?
They called me and offered $120 for the year.
I turned it down because I am trying to redesign some sites.
Never call anybody and asshole, assholes are useful
Nick ,I think Dominic dis-agrees on that.(do not think he will comment)
My personal opinion , not that I am an expert “compared to most”, is that it is better to have site content original rather than a copy or link.
The more copies ,the more the SEO value gets watered down.(unless there are links to the original ,in which case the originator benefits).
Perhaps changing around the content helps to fool the crawlers into thinking it is original and thus would be of more help to the web master.
My understanding also is that inbound links are good and outbound are bad.
Someone correct me if I am not getting it.
The more copies ,the more the SEO value gets watered down.
Here’s Google’s official stance on duplicate content: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66359 and http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/demystifying-duplicate-content-penalty.html
You’ll notice the problem isn’t in copying one page of content. It’s when your overall original site content is dwarfed by duplicate content. Most inspectors only have 4-5 pages of original content. If they duplicate all NACHI articles and put them on their site they’d have 10-20x duplicate vs original content. This is why it’s important to rewrite what you include. If you’re just copying a few pages, it’s not a problem.
Some key notes copied from the above (the last quote about removal is an extreme but I’ve seen it happen in the past):
Don’t create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
Avoid… “cookie cutter” approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.
(In the follow NACHI’s site is the massive authoritative site like Amazon)
In particular, deciding to build a site whose purpose inherently involves content duplication is something you should think twice about if your business model is going to rely on search traffic, unless you can add a lot of additional value for users. For example, we sometimes hear from Amazon.com affiliates who are having a hard time ranking for content that originates solely from Amazon. Is this because Google wants to stop them from trying to sell Everyone Poops? No; it’s because how the heck are they going to outrank Amazon if they’re providing the exact same listing? Amazon has a lot of online business authority (most likely more than a typical Amazon affiliate site does), and the average Google search user probably wants the original information on Amazon, unless the affiliate site has added a significant amount of additional value.
Google tries hard to index and show pages with distinct information. This filtering means, for instance, that if your site has a “regular” and “printer” version of each article, and neither of these is blocked with a noindex meta tag, we’ll choose one of them to list. In the rare cases in which Google perceives that duplicate content may be shown with intent to manipulate our rankings and deceive our users, we’ll also make appropriate adjustments in the indexing and ranking of the sites involved. As a result, the ranking of the site may suffer, or the site might be removed entirely from the Google index, in which case it will no longer appear in search results.