Kirill Gromov Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I added an entry in the application Pages: Content articles are cut off, but the source code is displayed full article content: This is fundamentally wrong decision cutoff content, because for this can be penalized by Google. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Dear staff. The problem is serious, why there is no response? @Lindy, @Matt, @Charles, @Rikki ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socceronly Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Mass Duplicate Content In IPS4 sounds like a feature request in the title. I'm not sure what is happening here, but I have never seen that in pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 I gave a simple example of a single record. If many records - to the site may be subject to penalties for duplicate content. This is a big problem, I do not understand why nobody cares for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigf136 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 8 hours ago, Performance said: Dear staff. The problem is serious, why there is no response? @Lindy, @Matt, @Charles, @Rikki ? Have you logged a bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think it's not a bug, it is fundamentally wrong work to cut content. On this nobody cares as long as the sites do not fall under sanctions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomac Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I agree, it's really strange decision. Also you can find it in Blogs (https://community.invisionpower.com/blogs/) - this page includes full article content, but it's impossible to expand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 I think the staff recognizes the error, but does not want to correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openfire Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I'm about to start a new project that I was planning on doing in 4.1, but this sounds like a pretty serious issue... Any word from the staff about this? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentype Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 18 hours ago, Performance said: This is a big problem, I do not understand why nobody cares for it Because you are wrong. Google doesn’t directly penalize you for having a piece of content in two places. If you don’t like this default behavior in Pages, just use a dedicated teaser field and use that instead of the full content in listing views. It is not done automatically, because the content is now full HTML and you can’t just cut that off at a certain point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 8 minutes ago, opentype said: Because you are wrong. Google doesn’t directly penalize you for having a piece of content in two places. Consider two situations: 1) I am wrong I have rights as a customer of the company to comment about the situation by support staff? I have every right, however, they decided to keep quiet. 2) Concerning penalties Quote Google doesn’t directly penalize you for having a piece of content in two places. From pages of Google Help: Quote Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar. Quote If your site contains multiple pages with largely identical content, there are a number of ways you can indicate your preferred URL to Google. (This is called "canonicalization".) IN IPS4 canonicalization is not used, so the content is considered a duplicate. And this is a bad tone for the site ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentype Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 10 minutes ago, Performance said: I have rights as a customer of the company to comment about the situation by support staff? I have every right … Do you? Can you show me the line from the contract that states, that IPS guaranties to answer any question you might have about the product in the forums? 10 minutes ago, Performance said: Google: If your site contains multiple pages with largely identical content … And this is not really the case here, when you have an article listing page with multiple articles or articles previews and then the individual article page which only contains that article block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storyteller Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 48 minutes ago, Performance said: IN IPS4 canonicalization is not used Wrong, look at the article view source and you will find the canonical-url. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirill Gromov Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 32 minutes ago, opentype said: Do you? Can you show me the line from the contract that states, that IPS guaranties to answer any question you might have about the product in the forums? I'm not saying that they must, therefore, not referring to their guarantees. However, a good tone in the company to be a commentary on the customer's question, the more important question. Moreover, there is a special staff member! 36 minutes ago, opentype said: And this is not really the case here, when you have an article listing page with multiple articles or articles previews and then the individual article page which only contains that article block. That is, do you think it is right to have a home page of database with full containing all the pages, or the topic with full contents of the article? 7 minutes ago, Storyteller said: Wrong, look at the article view source and you will find the canonical-url. Really? And if you look at the created topic that created when you add record to the database, there is also canonical-url, which indicates that the topic will take precedence over the article. This is a big mistake that searchers perceive is not good! Please understand this question before entering into an argument with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storyteller Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 24 minutes ago, Performance said: And if you look at the created topic that created when you add record to the database, there is also canonical-url Hm, sounds for more after all they use it. Maybe in a wrong way but to say " IN IPS4 canonicalization is not used" sounds wrong for me and I still can't see the question in there for me it's a statement. But as you mean I will be off and try to understand it sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.