How to distinguish a site with copy-paste from an integrator site?
I read the other day an article about copy-paste sites and their issuance by Yandex , and thought about it ... Where should the line between the original pages and copy-paste should go? As they say, from the point of view of theory, theory and practice are one and the same thing, but in practice this is far from being the case. That's why I decided to share my modest experience in the implementation of the project of the site, which did not contain a single “piece of gag”.
I once had an idea, not even an idea - but an urgent need - to systematize information about the dissertation councils in force at that time. It was somewhere in 2012, when dissovetov was about 3200, and often the information on each of them was in the network, but was not directly, but all sorts of devious ways (some dissovety were on the websites of their organizations through the section "Postgraduate Studies" , others - through the "Science", the third - by some other unimaginable passages along the dark lifeless corridors of siteswith a shaman tambourine ). Since I understood that I am not alone in such a situation, which means there is a demand (and there will be a search in search engines), it was decided to create a website dissovety.ru and place on it all the information I found, systematizing it properly.
No sooner said than done!
')
I made the site on a familiar wordpress, so I immediately ran into a problem: I needed to make it so that I could find the councils by cipher, city, and scientific specialties. The way out was found simple and beautiful: a rubric was created for each city, scientific specialties were marked with tags (the tag cloud became an effective element of navigation and at the same time showed the multiplicity of dissovets added to the database for each specific specialty), the information about the dissovet was a separate post, in the title which was the name of the dissovet and its cipher.
Unfortunately, the site has lived only a few months (approximately from January to October 2013). It contained information about about 50 dissovetov (maybe a little more), plus about 80-100 dissovet still awaited their time, as was the reform, during which all dissovety were closed, and the VAK began to publish new lists (the first list contained a few more than 300 dissovetov, the second and third months later increased the total number to 600). By that time, I had already decided on my dissovet, thanks to which the need for such a site for me personally disappeared, plus a small number of active councils seriously simplified the search for what was needed - so the site quietly sunk intooblivion the lists of domains for sale.
However, from this project I made some conclusions.
Firstly, I quite logically expected that the pages of my site would go to the search results (by the number of the council or its name) at least after the page with the initial information. In practice, it turned out differently: the pages of my site invariably turned out to be higher (!) Of the source site. It seems to me that the explanation is this: my site was entirely devoted to dissovets, posts for each dissovet were clearly structured (of course, the search engine does not evaluate the quality of the text, but thanks to this each post was not very long, but not too short, plus naturally included in itself a lot of words that spoke about its value in terms of the topic of a search query). The structure of each post was approximately as follows: in the title is the name and code of the dissovet, in the text where where the institution is located, telephone addresses, full name of the academic secretary and chairman, specialties for which the dissocial board accepts work protection, and other useful information for dissertationists . If we talk about the pages - information donors, then the information I collected was poorly structured, often they had to be searched in different sections of the site.
Secondly, visits. The first month on the site was 10–15 dissovet: I was in no hurry to fill up, without fully understanding the logic of the material feed and the method of its collection (it took 30–50 minutes for 1 dissovet - to search for information and present it in accordance with paragraphs which I defined for myself as mandatory). The visits were random and one-time (and half of the traffic was “catching up” with me, just looking at my new posts, what they look like in the end. After a month or two, the search traffic went. I’m not saying that there were many of them: according to my calculations, he quickly went to the planned volume (based on the calculation of 1 visitor to 1 dissovet per day - at least, there was approximately such statistics on the dissovets themselves, with a slight correction to the attendance of the website). Somewhere around 4-6 months of the project’s existence, it turned out to be consistently higher primary sources (with that I definitely gave a link to the original page, from where I took the information, and absolutely no one referred to me!). And then - the abolition of the list and complete obscurity ...
Thirdly, the success of the site integrator model itself. On the one hand, for its filling it is necessary to make certain efforts (find the base of the described objects, think over their systematization within the framework of the CMS capabilities, establish some general schemes and principles for building information on the site, describe each object in accordance with them). On the other hand, with the right approach from the very first steps, the site integrator gives good results, and after filling it requires minimal effort to maintain itself (at this stage you can connect forums to start integrating user experience).
Since the project was launched and worked “on bare enthusiasm” (I set a time limit for myself - an hour a day), the financial costs for it were 0 rubles and the same amount of kopecks (I had a hosting with “free places” and a bonus in the form of free domain name). The site was not advertised in any way - well, maybe a few messages on Twitter for the whole thousand readers of that time, and Google and Yandex (here, index). As a result, I almost managed to make an integrator website (if the list were not abolished, it would be ready - by that time I had already found artists who, for reasonable money and a couple of months, would have collected information about each dissovet). Although I did a “website for people”, in this project I did not write a single word “ad-libbing”: everything that was there was taken from other sites, and in many respects - with exact formulations taken from the sources (processing if was, then insignificant - it all came down to a systematic display of information taken from the donor site).
Despite the fact that the project itself is no longer valid, after it there are several issues related to search results. Was it fair to occupy a higher position on my site compared to primary sources? If not, what positions should have been taken in relation to the source materials of the page of my site? If the site contains qualitative information taken from other sources in an orderly form and points to these same sources, that is, in fact, summarizes all the available information and makes it available in one place, then can its content be original, or to such a site need to apply filters?
And, finally, the eternal question: where exactly does the line between the original high-quality “sites for people” and all other copy-pastes lie?
PS The experience I gained turned out to be interesting and, in my opinion, positive, so now I'm thinking about launching a new project next year based on the same “integrator” idea (combining information about thousands of scattered objects in a user-friendly as)
I once had an idea, not even an idea - but an urgent need - to systematize information about the dissertation councils in force at that time. It was somewhere in 2012, when dissovetov was about 3200, and often the information on each of them was in the network, but was not directly, but all sorts of devious ways (some dissovety were on the websites of their organizations through the section "Postgraduate Studies" , others - through the "Science", the third - by some other unimaginable passages along the dark lifeless corridors of sites
No sooner said than done!
')
I made the site on a familiar wordpress, so I immediately ran into a problem: I needed to make it so that I could find the councils by cipher, city, and scientific specialties. The way out was found simple and beautiful: a rubric was created for each city, scientific specialties were marked with tags (the tag cloud became an effective element of navigation and at the same time showed the multiplicity of dissovets added to the database for each specific specialty), the information about the dissovet was a separate post, in the title which was the name of the dissovet and its cipher.
Unfortunately, the site has lived only a few months (approximately from January to October 2013). It contained information about about 50 dissovetov (maybe a little more), plus about 80-100 dissovet still awaited their time, as was the reform, during which all dissovety were closed, and the VAK began to publish new lists (the first list contained a few more than 300 dissovetov, the second and third months later increased the total number to 600). By that time, I had already decided on my dissovet, thanks to which the need for such a site for me personally disappeared, plus a small number of active councils seriously simplified the search for what was needed - so the site quietly sunk into
However, from this project I made some conclusions.
Firstly, I quite logically expected that the pages of my site would go to the search results (by the number of the council or its name) at least after the page with the initial information. In practice, it turned out differently: the pages of my site invariably turned out to be higher (!) Of the source site. It seems to me that the explanation is this: my site was entirely devoted to dissovets, posts for each dissovet were clearly structured (of course, the search engine does not evaluate the quality of the text, but thanks to this each post was not very long, but not too short, plus naturally included in itself a lot of words that spoke about its value in terms of the topic of a search query). The structure of each post was approximately as follows: in the title is the name and code of the dissovet, in the text where where the institution is located, telephone addresses, full name of the academic secretary and chairman, specialties for which the dissocial board accepts work protection, and other useful information for dissertationists . If we talk about the pages - information donors, then the information I collected was poorly structured, often they had to be searched in different sections of the site.
Secondly, visits. The first month on the site was 10–15 dissovet: I was in no hurry to fill up, without fully understanding the logic of the material feed and the method of its collection (it took 30–50 minutes for 1 dissovet - to search for information and present it in accordance with paragraphs which I defined for myself as mandatory). The visits were random and one-time (and half of the traffic was “catching up” with me, just looking at my new posts, what they look like in the end. After a month or two, the search traffic went. I’m not saying that there were many of them: according to my calculations, he quickly went to the planned volume (based on the calculation of 1 visitor to 1 dissovet per day - at least, there was approximately such statistics on the dissovets themselves, with a slight correction to the attendance of the website). Somewhere around 4-6 months of the project’s existence, it turned out to be consistently higher primary sources (with that I definitely gave a link to the original page, from where I took the information, and absolutely no one referred to me!). And then - the abolition of the list and complete obscurity ...
Thirdly, the success of the site integrator model itself. On the one hand, for its filling it is necessary to make certain efforts (find the base of the described objects, think over their systematization within the framework of the CMS capabilities, establish some general schemes and principles for building information on the site, describe each object in accordance with them). On the other hand, with the right approach from the very first steps, the site integrator gives good results, and after filling it requires minimal effort to maintain itself (at this stage you can connect forums to start integrating user experience).
Since the project was launched and worked “on bare enthusiasm” (I set a time limit for myself - an hour a day), the financial costs for it were 0 rubles and the same amount of kopecks (I had a hosting with “free places” and a bonus in the form of free domain name). The site was not advertised in any way - well, maybe a few messages on Twitter for the whole thousand readers of that time, and Google and Yandex (here, index). As a result, I almost managed to make an integrator website (if the list were not abolished, it would be ready - by that time I had already found artists who, for reasonable money and a couple of months, would have collected information about each dissovet). Although I did a “website for people”, in this project I did not write a single word “ad-libbing”: everything that was there was taken from other sites, and in many respects - with exact formulations taken from the sources (processing if was, then insignificant - it all came down to a systematic display of information taken from the donor site).
Despite the fact that the project itself is no longer valid, after it there are several issues related to search results. Was it fair to occupy a higher position on my site compared to primary sources? If not, what positions should have been taken in relation to the source materials of the page of my site? If the site contains qualitative information taken from other sources in an orderly form and points to these same sources, that is, in fact, summarizes all the available information and makes it available in one place, then can its content be original, or to such a site need to apply filters?
And, finally, the eternal question: where exactly does the line between the original high-quality “sites for people” and all other copy-pastes lie?
PS The experience I gained turned out to be interesting and, in my opinion, positive, so now I'm thinking about launching a new project next year based on the same “integrator” idea (combining information about thousands of scattered objects in a user-friendly as)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/298268/
All Articles