[Kenyon]

Google bot scans and compares everything. If it finds the exact same content in two websites, then it is highly probable that the website with the lowest "authority" will get omitted from the search results. The bot assumes that the weakest website is copying content from the big website. It took me almost a year to find out what was happening, a SEO expert helped me to understand.

Hey chap

I think the answer may be a little simpler as the advice you received whilst not wrong is slightly generalised.

I attach a pic of the code from your last head-fi review.

This is telling Google that your Head-fi review is the original copy and so any others can be omitted from search.
You will also probably find that as a comment forum Head-fi will use rel:nofollow for links posted.

There are other tricks here for syndicated content seo that do not involve AI rewrites which again won't necessarily provide the ranking boost that you deserve through your multiple topic/keyword/description entries

 

[Barndoor]

My Trio has finally arrived as well.
Stock cable already binned.
1st song, hmm these are quite good.
4th song, hmm which is the treble switch!

 

[Singaravelan]

My Trio has finally arrived as well.
Stock cable already binned.
1st song, hmm these are quite good.
4th song, hmm which is the treble switch!

Haha! Mambo No.4 is the treble sparkle kicker!

 

[Barndoor]

Haha! Mambo No.4 is the treble sparkle kicker!

That is gonna be a challenge for old man eyesight and poor coordination, lol

 

[Ichos]

Hey chap

I think the answer may be a little simpler as the advice you received whilst not wrong is slightly dated.

I attach a pic of the code from your last head-fi review.



This is telling Google that your Head-fi review is the original copy and so any others can be omitted from search.
You will also probably find that as a comment forum Head-fi will use rel:nofollow for links posted.

There are other tricks here for syndicated content seo that do not involve AI rewrites which again won't necessarily provide the ranking boost that you deserve through your multiple topic/keyword/description entries

I don't understand much and why is this happening. I first posted the review in my website and then at Headfi so I don't know why Google understands the Headfi version as the original. Unfortunately I don't have a deep SEO knowledge.

If you have any advises please be kind enough to PM me.

Thanks

 

[sistoz]

I’m no expert, but these look already cracked
379,69€ | SHANLING ME600 2DD + 3BA 5 driver ibridi auricolari In-Ear IEM Hi-Res Audio MMCX 3.5 + 4.4mm Plug auricolari cablati corpo In acciaio inossidabile
https://a.aliexpress.com/_Evcp7Xj

 

[fidgeraldo]

Seriously, what’s wrong with Moondrop and their paints.

Hmm, what's wrong with his ears???

Cheers!

 

[4ceratops]

I’m no expert, but these look already cracked
379,69€ | SHANLING ME600 2DD + 3BA 5 driver ibridi auricolari In-Ear IEM Hi-Res Audio MMCX 3.5 + 4.4mm Plug auricolari cablati corpo In acciaio inossidabile
https://a.aliexpress.com/_Evcp7Xj

With probability bordering on certainty, I think you're right. I haven't had such a good laugh in a very long time! I would recommend to the promotional department at Shanling that they employ at least one sighted person in the chain of people starting with the photographer and ending with the webmaster...

 

[Barndoor]

I actually think it is a reflection, if you look at the other photos they have a mirrored finish on the underside

 

[Fonranion191]

I actually think it is a reflection, if you look at the other photos they have a mirrored finish on the underside

Good attention to details, what has got your attention to that detail??

 

[4ceratops]

I actually think it is a reflection, if you look at the other photos they have a mirrored finish on the underside

After looking at the pictures again in detail and after enlarging them, I have to admit that you are probably right and I need an ophthalmologist not the Shanling staff . I hereby deeply apologize to them and congratulations on the wonderfully confusing promotional photos

 

[Singaravelan]

Good attention to details, what has got your attention to that detail??

My guess: that treble-rich Trio settings shook up his other senses!
"Old man" my foot!

 

[Kenyon]

I don't understand much and why is this happening. I first posted the review in my website and then at Headfi so I don't know why Google understands the Headfi version as the original. Unfortunately I don't have a deep SEO knowledge.

If you have any advises please be kind enough to PM me.

Thanks

Unfortunately I am not an SEO specialist by trade so probably will have to refrain from giving solution advice as it would not be the most optimal & up-to-date. Saying that I have enough familiarity to diagnose these issues and offer some explanation as it seems a few people here have indicated they have had this issue.

It is happening as the Head-fi system is telling Google that the Head-fi review is to be taken as the original copy. Whilst posting first on your website can help for originality it is not the only, nor the most important factor.

The 'canonical' ref is the way you designate where original content is when dealing with multiple postings both on your own site and across others. It functions like a redirect does (some people just use redirects) but 'canonical' is only in respect of search engine ranking systems. This in theory allows you to post in multiple places with the original receiving the credit and stopping users from having to see the same content on different links. It allows you to build off the traffic and communities of other platforms without the large SEO sacrifice you spoke of before. (That isn't to say it is a flawless system that handles this type of situation perfectly - a lot of times it will show more than one link under a canonical ref if one platform has a far higher visibility/trust than the other (so maybe Head-fi & your website shows) - just that this is the intention)

I am not familiar with Head-fi's system but
1) you may want to make the canonical ref in the header of your own webpage reviews first before posting elsewhere - again no guarantee if multiple canonical ref exist (ie yours and Head-fi both claiming to be the original - as then google has to evaluate to see who truly provides the better info option for users weighing also the concept of originality.
2) you may want to check the settings when you create a review on Head-fi as I believe they offer some SEO options - I just have never looked at them so there may be an option to list your original website review as the canonical and override the auto Head-fi generated canonical claim.
3) understand that as you cannot edit the HTTP link or header on someone else's platform it becomes down to whether they allow for such behaviour on their terms/config. Eg MEDIUM auto creates the Canonical ref from where you import the content from.
It is important to note that no copy paste type editing into a comment field instead of an import of the content will automatically create this.
4) a quick check that can be made is to search Google for your webpage with a site: designation - this will show all the pages that are currently ranked/indexed. You can then click the show hidden/extra as you mentioned before on a Google search to see what pages are not being indexed and deal with them individually.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[Ichos]

Unfortunately I am not an SEO specialist by trade so probably will have to refrain from giving solution advice as it would not be the most optimal & up-to-date. Saying that I have enough familiarity to diagnose most issues and offer some explanation as it seems a few people here have indicated they have had this issue.

It is happening as the Head-fi system is telling Google that the Head-fi review is to be taken as the original copy. Whilst posting first on your website can help for originality it is not the only, nor the most important factor.

The 'canonical' ref is the way you designate where original content is when dealing with multiple postings both on your own site and across others. It functions like a redirect does (some people just use redirects) but 'canonical' is only in respect of search engine ranking systems. This in theory allows you to post in multiple places with the original receiving the credit and stopping users from having to see the same content on different links. It allows you to build off the traffic and communities of other platforms without the large SEO sacrifice you spoke of before. (That isn't to say it is a flawless system that handles this type of situation perfectly - a lot of times it will show more than one link under a canonical ref if one platform has a far higher visibility/trust than the other (so maybe Head-fi & your website shows) - just that this is the intention)

I am not familiar with Head-fi's system but
1) you may want to make the canonical ref in the header of your own webpage reviews first before posting elsewhere - again no guarantee if multiple canonical ref exist (ie yours and Head-fi both claiming to be the original - as then google has to evaluate to see who truly provides the better info option for users weighing also the concept of originality.
2) you may want to check the settings when you create a review on Head-fi as I believe they offer some SEO options - I just have never looked at them so there may be an option to list your original website review as the canonical and override the auto Head-fi generated canonical claim.
3) understand that as you cannot edit the HTTP link or header on someone else's platform it becomes down to whether they allow for such behaviour on their terms/config. Eg MEDIUM auto creates the Canonical ref from where you import the content from.
It is important to note that no copy paste type editing into a comment field instead of an import of the content will automatically create this.
4) a quick check that can be made is to search Google for your webpage with a site: designation - this will show all the pages that are currently ranked/indexed. You can then click the show hidden/extra as you mentioned before on a Google search to see what pages are not being indexed and deal with them individually.

Hope this helps a little.

Very helpful, thank you very much.

And all others please excuse the off-topic.

 

[sistoz]

I actually think it is a reflection, if you look at the other photos they have a mirrored finish on the underside

You are right! Now I see the reflection of the MMCX connector…anyway confusing photos