Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Luciana! If Logan and/or Matthew answered your question, mind marking one or both of their responses as a "Good Answer" (down in the lower-right of the responses)? It helps us keep track of things, and it gives them a few extra MozPoints.

Thank you Aleyda.

Hi Jon, The information showing up in the rich snippet has been taken from the very well-structured table that appears on the right-hand side of many Wikipedia pages. This data is very easy for Googlebot to read (because it's in a table), and regarded as trustworthy (because it's on Wikipedia). Depending on how Google interprets your intent, it may or may not borrow from this well-structured data in the rich snippet. For example, on the Wikipedia page for Optical Express, there is again a table that lists key data about the company: the year it was founded, who the founder was, and which products it sells, among other things. When I search for "optical express contact lenses", the Wikipedia entry doesn't have a rich snippet, even though contact lenses are listed in the product field in the table. If I search for a less commercially-minded term, like "optical express founder", I do get a rich snippet with information about the company and founder (see the two images I've attached here). So the point really is that there are no guarantees, and no direct control over the rich snippet, but you and your clients should definitely expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing in future, whenever Google is confident that a rich snippet provides a good answer. As for what you can do: your client won't have Wikipedia's authority, but you can use structured data, such as JSON-LD or Microformats, to make the meaning of your words more transparent to Google. This will increase the chance, at least, of meaningful rich snippets with information about your client's company or products. Tymen has linked to a couple of useful resources, which you should use to ensure that you're implementing the structured data correctly. 46K6eW5 FcNv710

Thanks so much for the insight guys! This is super helpful, and definitely gives me a solid strategy going forward.

The others are right, you should be looking for another company to provide you with unique posts for both UX and search engine reasons. I wouldn't expect that you'll find yourself with a penalty since it will look more like poorly managed syndication than anything else but at the same time, you're not going to get any value out of it. The best ways to handle it would be to use one of the three methods (preferably rel=canonical) that tell search engines that your content came from one of the other sites it has been posted on but of course, doing this essentially says "this isn't my content, please give me no credit for it" which begs the question... why pay for it?

Hi Emily! I hope you don't mind, but I glanced over the crawl report in your Moz Pro campaign to get a better sense of this (we admins get to cheat). I'm seeing the duplicate title warning, but I think you may be mistaken as to which groups of URLs are being flagged. Are you comfortable if I share the URLs here, or would you like me to PM you?

Did you ask Google to crawl and index your new URLs? You can do it from Google Webmaster Tools. Small thing, but it could help speed up the process.

This. Unless there's unique information on /oak-beams/ about oak beams overall that isn't also on /reclaimed-oak-beams/ and/or /air-dried-oak-beams/, you're going to have a difficult time ranking the brand new page.

Hm. I just clicked through your campaigns, and I'm not seeing that showing up anywhere. Where in Moz Pro are you getting that notification?

Hi there Lisa - Andrea with the Moz Help Team here. So if I pull up your site yes, I am seeing the title tags at 18 as well as carrying over from Yoast on 125. There's a great article here on multiple page title and description tags, and should be a relatively easy thing to fix!

Guess so - the worst that can happen to you with long meta descriptions is that they get truncated. If they are too short - you are not using the 2 lines that Google allocates you or (like in your case) that Google is just picking some text from your page. There is no guarantee that Google will use the meta description in the SERP's but you will increase your chances by making them longer; Dirk

It is considered duplicate. It isn't a huge deal if it's only a portion of the page, the bigger issue is that it will be essentially ignored on all but one of those pages - think of that section like a black spot that search engines won't "see". If it makes up the majority of your content on these pages you're going to have a bad time, but if it's just a small section amongst quality content I wouldn't be too worried from a ranking perspective. Having said that, a better way to deal with this type of situation is to have a separate page that talks about how your product/service works rather than duplicating the same bit of content page after page. It lets you go into more detail since anyone reading it obviously wants to know all about it, and it means much easier editing if this process ever changes, too. Something else to consider is that, admittedly with very little info to work with here, it sounds like your content may be falling into the common trap of telling users what you want them to know rather than offering the info they're looking for. For most users, exactly how your process works may be of 0 importance to them until they're comfortable with what you have to offer, at which point an "our process" type of page is perfect for their next step; "this sounds great, but do they provide xyz with it as well?". If this is correct for your users, that's even more reason to avoid duplicating this same bit of content on these pages - you'd be taking on the risks of content duplication for the sake of presenting users with info they may not care about at this stage of the buying process. If a separate page for this isn't an option for some reason, you might find Rand's WBF on essentially the same topic to be a helpful explanation. I know he's talking about duplication of external content but the concept is the same.

Recommendations from my other comments still stand.

The Google Search Quality Guidelines has an article about "Link Schemes". https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en

I don't think you would find a better company than Sonassi: https://www.sonassi.com/

What evidence is that based on John? Nobody uses my iPad and I haven't changed any preferences I never really look at the bbc sport page that it suggests, if I do look at the bbc site it will be the football section and my search would be for "bbc football" Many of the sites that I visit regularly never get suggested

I thought I had but i had just hit the thumbs up button instead

Guys, thank you so much for all of this insight! Everything you mentioned definitely makes sense. I'll be diving in and taking action based on all of this as soon as possible, and will report back if I have any follow up questions, and also to keep you posted on the progress. Thanks for such thoughtful responses!

Also remember the basis for it. The underlying principle is it can help the visually impaired read your site and understand what it is about.

Does it has any positive effect on ranking? (seo)