Note: due to the interest in this blog and the many excellent comments posted in response I want to encourage those finding this post for the first time to also take the time to review Chris Baggott’s comments in particular. He is the CEO of Compendium and I feel his responses are particularly useful as a counter balance to my points made in the following blog. Compendium blogs do a lot of good things for a lot of good companies. Although I still have concerns that I voice in my own comments below I do feel that Chris has done a great job of explaining and defending his company’s software and I encourage readers to balance my critique with his response. Chris is a real gentleman and has earned a good deal of respect from me for taking the time to answer in detail my, and others, questions and concerns.Thanks! Jeb
________________________________________________
I’m asked about
Compendium Blogware on a regular basis. The questions come from friends, associates, clients and prospective clients. They’ve all heard about Compendium and want to know my take. This is what I tell them…
First off, I am not eager to critique a local company, especially one that is doing well, which is why I have waited months to post this blog. But I feel I need to post my concerns in a public venue since others might benefit from it as well as Compendium since I think there is definitely a market for business blogging services and I think there are some fairly simple things they can do to fix the issues I identify. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to Compendium to not give them a forum to respond to my feedback and I hope they do on their own blog or using the comments below.
What is Compendium? They are an Indianapolis company founded by Chris Baggott, of Exact Target fame. Their service is providing customized business blogs on their proprietary blogging platform. The primary “twist” that gives them an advantage over free services like Blogger and Wordpress is that they provide keyword research and create “compended” URLs based around targeted keyword phrases. Here’s a couple examples from a blog for Monon Coffee here in Broad Ripple (great place btw!)
http://mononcoffee.compendiumblog.com/blog/broad-ripple-cafe
http://mononcoffee.compendiumblog.com/blog/broad-ripple-coffee-shop
See how the content is almost the same but the URLs are different. They are set up to show up as different pages in Google and target their respective searches- “Broad Ripple Cafe” and “Broad Ripple Coffee Shop“. And they do show up right at the top of their respective searches.
So what’s wrong with that? Well the real problem is that Google doesn’t like intentional duplicate content meant to manipulate search results and this is exactly what Compendium’s software does. It “compends” the same blog (content) under different static, keyword rich URLs as I demonstrated above.
Right now Compendium is essentially gaming Google’s algorithm but it may not last forever. They run the real risk of Google changing their algorithm to punish the Compendium blogs essentially pushing them down in Google’s listings. Google tweaks their algorthim about 400 times a year, so every day they run the risk of being “tweaked”. Since many of Compendium clients are on sub-domains of compendiumblog.com this could mean a big loss of traffic for their clients from Google. Not good.
In my experience Google will eventually eliminate any inefficiencies from their algorithm as they become exploited. The more successful Compendium is, ironically, the more they are at risk. While I think what Compendium is doing is novel it is essentially a Grey Hat trick. They are gaming a system for clients and it’s pretty clear from my conversations with some of their clients that most of them do not realize the risk Compendium is taking on their behalf. Compendium, however, does not see this as a risk.
Another reason their clients’ blogs get indexed quickly for relevant searches probably has something to do with the fact that many of the blogs are all a sub-domain of compendiumblog.com- i.e. clientname.compendiumblog.com- which essentially gives the blog a big push into the search engine waters. This pro could easily become a con should that main URL get blacklisted by search engines for duplicate content.
Compendium will argue that their compended blog pages are actually the best result for the related search even if there is duplicate content on them. I would disagree. Who goes to Google to make two different searches to pull up two different pages to find the same content? That is not what I use Google for- I want new, different information when I modify my search. (note: Chris’ response below does address this concern satisfactorily in my opinion).
How can Compendium fix this problem? First off, stop duplicating content under static URLs. Secondly provide content writing services for clients so they have real, relevant, not duplicate, content under every static URL. There are already other companies popping up to provide this valuable service of interviewing clients and ghost writing their blogs (not this one!). Some clients will self motivate, some really need help, provide this help and charge for it. This is potentially a huge market, go after that along with making the Compendium platform SEO friendly in a very White Hat (no tricks) way.
(note: another idea I had after posting this blog was to have their software only allow blog content to be compended in 10-25% of the static category/keyword URLs).
Chris, Ali and their team at Compendium have done a fantastic job of identifying their market and promoting their platform. I am really impressed with their sales strategy. I’ve met Chris a couple times and he is a genuinely nice guy with good ideas. This is not personal in any way, in fact, I have avoided posting this blog since I have conflicted feelings about critiquing a local company. But my main concern is that their service may be putting their clients at risk and is potentially a house of cards built on an ever changing algorthim. Maybe they will get lucky but I wouldn’t bet on it.
About Duplicate Content- here is a link to a blog on Google Webmaster addressing this issue. Not all duplicate content is bad but if it appears “intentional” with the aim of manipulating search results then Google can punish the site for this. Another Webmaster blog addresses this issue and includes this quote- “In the rare cases in which we perceive 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.”