1

Instagram seems to be not indexed by Google, and I'm assuming this is so because Instagram wants it this way and Google obliges. So, Instagram content and the links within--if any are present either in Instagram profile description, post caption, or comments--they are not getting indexed and are therefore not giving any direct SEO juice to the linked content.

However, there are many Instagram clone sites. Some big ones just to name a few: - ink361.com - websta.me - gramfeed.com - many more clones...

I notice the content from these clones is more often indexed than content from instgram.com. I've sometimes "Google'd" for specific comments on some Instagram post, and the search results would be top 10+ clone sites all showing identical content (which they all pulled from the original Instagram posts via the Insta-API).

My question is simple: Keeping in mind that, for instance, ink361.com has 30-40million hits per month, does the indexed content and links on the clone sites give a relevant linked-to website much juice?

Improve this question
1
  • There is a difference between nofollow and noindex. Just because I use noindex, does not mean that Google does not crawl my site and calculate the value of any external link I might have. It is very likely that Instagram uses nofollow on their links. I just wanted to point out that there is a disconnect between indexing pages and whether links are calculated for value. – closetnoc Mar 11 '16 at 21:09
3

Links from duplicate and low-quality websites can be harmful, it's recommend that you disavow such sites from your link profile. Also worth mentioning that those clone sites won't even have 1% of the content that Instragram receives each day.

To clarify the 1%, what I mean is that Instragram is 'MASSIVE' in 2013 alone it was reported that 75 million people use the site a day from a pool of 400 million users. In 2015 it was reported that 50 million photos are uploaded daily.

If we calculate this average:

  • 58 million divided by 86400 seconds in a day = 671 uploads per a second

So if we were to predict how many photos are uploaded per a second it could be 671 on average, or even higher during peak times. Instragram will not allow anyone to 'FETCH' that amount of pages per a second, without blocking or banning. Also, even without these limitations its unlikely that the scrappers have the hardware to keep up, you would need huge amounts of bandwidth and data storage.

Improve this answer
3
  • Totally Agree with simon@That type of pages does not have juicy rank as much you think, may be they will penalize in future, and it's harmful :) – Goyllo Mar 12 '16 at 7:18
  • Thank you. Can you elaborate on "those clone sites won't even have 1% of the content" -- why so little? Is it due to API resource usage limitations? – Andre Bulatov Mar 14 '16 at 2:35
  • 1
    @AndreBulatov about the 1% I've added it to my answer :) – Simon Hayter♦ Mar 14 '16 at 10:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.