Same content for HTML and PDF documents - Duplicated?

Webnauts · #1 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 10:27 PM

We are planning to provide the content of some articles and tutorials of our site in PDF format too, offering on those pages a download option for later reading.

Should there be a duplicated content issue there?

Duncan Pollock · #2 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 11:24 PM

I'm far from sure about the answer, but I think I'd be surprised if it was an issue.
For instance, I'm aware of how often the SERPs offer the choice of an html version if the listing shows as a .pdf file. This must mean that there are two URLs, each with the same content. What isn't so clear, of course, is whether the reverse (i.e. a .pdf alternative to an html page) applies.
I'll be interested to learn what one of our residents gurus has to say (and, ahem, you're usually one of them!).

Duncan

SEOforGoogle · #3 (**permalink**) 10-05-2006, 09:11 AM

As long as your site is the originator of the content, you won't be penalized by Google - they understand that humans like content delivered in diiferent formats.

greeneagle · #4 (**permalink**) 10-05-2006, 09:17 AM

I am going to agree with SEOforgoogle,

I haven't had any problem with an industrial Site I manage, in fact it seems to reinforce positions to some degree.

Another good play there is to make sure that the verbiage on both is different. A good technical editor shouldn't have a problem with that, and it's good insurance just in case - not to mention wagging a longer tail.

Ken

sonjay · #5 (**permalink**) 10-05-2006, 02:35 PM

I agree that it's probably not an issue, SEO-wise, but I still like to put all my pdf's in a folder that's disallowed in robots.txt.

I don't want the pdf showing up in the SERPs. I'd prefer that people follow the link to the html page on the site, where they can either read the article online or download the pdf. This way, at least they've made it to the site, and they have an opportunity to see what else is available there. If they just click the pdf link in the SERPs, they never even make it to the site, and they might well have no clue where the pdf even came from.

greeneagle · #6 (**permalink**) 10-05-2006, 03:00 PM

I absolutely do not put them in a disallowed folder. With clean code and verbiage differences...I have found they act as second sentry in the SEs and many times are preferred by visitors.

Ken

Webnauts · #7 (**permalink**) 10-07-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

I absolutely do not put them in a disallowed folder. With clean code and verbiage differences...I have found they act as second sentry in the SEs and many times are preferred by visitors.

Ken

You mean they will not fall into the supplemental results?

Hiops · #8 (**permalink**) 10-07-2006, 10:28 PM

I don't think it's gonna be an issue,because the content is on the same url, and I would put it into diallowed folder, because maybe some visitors prefer to see content in pdf format.
Article Directory

Webnauts · #9 (**permalink**) 10-07-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiops

I don't think it's gonna be an issue,because the content is on the same url, and I would put it into diallowed folder, because maybe some visitors prefer to see content in pdf format.

I don't understand you. It is not a problem, but I should add it in a disallowed folder, while visitors might prefer the pdf format?

Sure I will provide a PDF file. The question is, if I should exclude it from the SE index, to avoid duplicated content issues.

So what do you mean?

Hiops · #10 (**permalink**) 10-07-2006, 11:41 PM

I meant it should not be a problem with duplicate content, because they spot duplicate content on different sites, that's what I think, but I'm not sure about that. And if google can penalize for dup content on the same site, that would be ridiculos, but absolutely possible, because you never know what is on their mind. And bearing this in mind would be better to put it in disallowed folder to avoid dup content issuies.

greeneagle · #11 (**permalink**) 10-08-2006, 06:57 AM

John,

I have gone back and checked my results comparing the HTML pages vs their pdf counterparts and I have just a couple in supplimental.

The ones in supplemental are almost identical to the HTML versions in content. THe one's that didn't make the supplimental index have enough difference to avoid same site duplicate content problems.

I would think there are 3 good approaches here, depending on your Site needs and developers level of expertise:

1) Use CSS Printer Profiles on XHTML pages, avoiding "copies" all together.

2) Differentiated content between parseable "printer friendly" (eg pdf) format and HTML versions.

3) Same content using disallowing bot/crawlers to the pdf's.

4) Using the pdf versions only and allowing full indexing.

In my view, I have placed them in order of what I see as best practice.

Ken

**incrediblehelp** · #12 (**permalink**) 10-09-2006, 04:57 PM

I agree not really an issue, but to be sure do what sonjay has suggested.

Put them in a separate PDF folder and disallow the bots, to ensure no issues (supplemental or duplication) will ever arise. Remember algos change all of the time, just because today we have no evidence that this is a issue, doesn't mean in a year from now it wont be.