Duplicate Content: It's Not What You Think!

[jcorkern]

This is a direct quote from Matt Cutts of Google. "In general, the best way I know of to move sites from more supplemental to normal is to get high-quality links (don’t bother to get low-quality links just for links’ sake)."

This means supplemental results are due to improper links. It has nothing to do with Content in any way!

It is for low quality links. Just like i have been preaching from the start. Links are the driving force of link popularity engines. and Yahoo, Google, MSN, Altavista, And alltheweb are all link popularity engines.

Links account for 80% of top rankings, so this only leaves 20 % to content and onpage.

Duplicate content is NOT the issue, links are!

And the quote is from Matt Cutts Blog. Go and see for yourself.

 

[iceforever.diamonds]

if someone will be copying your entire blog posts, how will it affect your blog rankings?

 

[longroad]

I cant imagine it will affect YOUR rankings, hopefully it would affect theirs.. unless they have some great links, an old domain and alot of trust where they may actually outrank you. I'd hope that wouldnt be the case though.

 

[affearner]

Copying without citing you as their source might result to what longroad mentioned.

 

[austind72]

As Jim points out it's not really the article content but the overall page. There is one downside to duplicate content (i.e. the words themselves) - it isn't going to do you many favours in the results pages.

My experience is that if I use someone's article without changing the words then Google doesn't give it much authority. Why would they.

If the purpose of an article on your site is to help you in the results pages then having unique content is still a much better bet.

And having some one way links to the article itself is the clincher.

Cheers y'all,
Austin.

 

[affearner]

If the purpose of an article on your site is to help you in the results pages then having unique content is still a much better bet.

That's right. The thing to remember is UNIQUE CONTENT. I noticed however that it will save you time if you only change or rotate author's signature. Even though your article is the same for all directories, as long as your signature is different it will still give you the result that you want. That is easier to do than changing the whole article.

 

[iceforever.diamonds]

so it only mean there's nothing to be worrying about though... thanks for the hand...

 

[affearner]

Only one thing: There are directories that do not allow this. Although Jim pointed out that this is their loss but a submitter has nothing to do but abide by their rules; otherwise your account will be deactivated.

 

[iceforever.diamonds]

really it was confusing i thought making an article is really prone with duplicating content but this just gave me a good explanation...

 

[affearner]

Thanks to Jim He's the man!!!

 

[Chris83]

if someone will be copying your entire blog posts, how will it affect your blog rankings?

One to thing to keep in mind here is that RSS is exactly this, it syndicates your content to who ever wants to republish it. And as all the major sites and search engines use this it very much supports the fact that duplicate content is less of an issue than some folks like to make out.

 

[johnny6300]

Duplicate content back links

The thing that dismayed me about writing articles for the web is that the back links to my site generated by a published article appear to be ALL removed because they come from duplicated publication.

It's not that your article is removed by Google from the various publications that have published it, it is rather the fact that the back links to your site created by your article's Resource Box are removed from your website itself!.

Consequently, the article may be published 2000 times on the web, and that number will indeed show up when typed into the search engines.

But will you get 2000 back links to your site? No, because they are removed by Google's duplicate content filter. In fact, all you need is for your article to be published more than once, and presto!

The Boy Scouts of Google have eradicated both back links.

John

PS As much as I like to write, I came to the conclusion that article writing for publication on the web is a waste of time, if you are doing it to get back links so that your website's ranking is boosted.

 

[jcorkern]

I see thousands of resource links from the ones i submit, not all directories will put active links, some use no follow, but i have sites completely Dominating from articles in google, yahoo, msn, altavista ect.....

Your theory is 100% false. You can see them in all other search engines. and if you use google webmaster tools, you can see that articles credited as links.

But the biggest factor is top positions in the serps.

Hundreds of sites in the top 10 from articles, not just one or 2. But hundreds, and that is just what i have done and does not count the millions of others who do it on a daily basis across the web. This is not theory, but facts that can be proven and supported by documentation and results.

Here are some links credited in google on a link command : link:http://www.idndirectsatellite.com - Google Search


You will see the same article credited as a link on several sites(article directories). This is just one site. I can provide hundreds if you need to see them.

Jim

 

[genuwine4532]

Hello everyone,

I have been seeing in a lot of threads the misunderstanding of duplicate content. I am writing this to eliminate the misunderstanding so that fear of something does not effect your online marketing.

I guess the first thing is to cover the assumptions of the masses of what it is, and then show you the reality of it.

I will give you actual numbers and links so that you can check it out yourself. Then you can see for yourself with proof that there are a lot of people out there spreading ?Rumors? instead of facts.

Let?s get started. Most people think that syndicated articles or distribution to multiple places will get the articles removed from the index of Google or Yahoo. If this were true then 99% of articles, news releases, all RSS feeds would be removed from the indexes.

MSN, CNN, ABC, NBC, Google News, Yahoo News would all be violating their own rules.

They use the same news stories and syndicate the news from the contributing reporter/author, And if they are breaking the rules, do you think the algo?s of the search engines would catch 40 k occurrences of the same story? I am sure it would, and if these sites keep breaking the rules they would get penalized. In fact, they would have long been removed from the indexes.

Article directories use the same methods, they post ?Duplicate? articles to their directories from the same authors. And you can find hundreds of the same ?duplicate articles? indexed in the search engines at any time.

Here is a test for you, and I will not show you one of my articles so that I can not be accused of manipulating the results. Go to Free Articles and pick an article, any article(in fact do it on several articles) and copy the title of the article.

Then put that title in quotes like this ?Your Cold Could Be Something More? and paste it in Google and/or Yahoo In Yahoo, here is the search link with the results: “Your Cold Could Be Something More” - Yahoo! Search Results

Take a look. It is showing 1,400 times in Yahoo. Let?s check Google. Here is the search link for Google: ?Your Cold Could Be Something More? - Google Search and it is showing over 400 times in Google.

Now this article was released in 2005. Here is the publish date: Oct 22nd 2005. Now, If the search engines have had 23 months to filter out ?duplicate content? I am sure that at least Google or Yahoo would have removed them from their indexes by now. But they have not.

This is just one article. Do several yourself to see. There are millions of articles out there published on multiple directories and the directories are ok, they have not been punished and they are repeat offenders also by the public standards of Duplicate Content.

Now we will go over what ?duplicate Content? is and why it is in place.

Duplicate content is when you have an exact copy of a site. Page for page, file name for file name, image for image, code for code. And exact replica of a page or site. This was put in place for dynamic page spawners, duplicate websites, and doorway pages that were designed by blackhat seo?s and spammers that are trying to control the natural search results.

Again, I have tested this also. Take an exact copy of a site and try to push up an identical site into the top of the search engines with links. One will be removed from the index, not just one page, but the entire site. And yes, I have done this test 6 times with the same results every time.

Each article directory, Press release site and even the pages that host RSS feeds have different code, images, file names, java scrips and a multitude of other differences that stops them from getting hit by duplicate content.

There is more on a page than your article when a directory publishes your article. Search engines read all of the code, not just your articles text on the page. You do not have to worry about duplicate content with articles or press releases.

Hope this clears some things up! And remember, Hope is not a method? Nor is it a strategy. Study, test and stop buying all of the lies on the net. It is mostly common sense.


Jim

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<img src="http://www.5staraffiliateprograms.com/images/halloffame.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" />

Your words of wisdom will be added to the 5 Star Hall of Fame.

"I have been seeing in a lot of threads the misunderstanding of duplicate content. I am writing this to eliminate the misunderstanding so that fear of something does not effect your online marketing.

I guess the first thing is to cover the assumptions of the masses of what it is, and then show you the reality of it."

.
.
.

Hi Jim,
GREAT POST, I am wondering if you mind if I copy the nutshell to another forum I use for AM, there is on going talk there about this and I think it would help for people to read this.

Let me know!
Thanks

 

[jcorkern]

Hi Jim,
GREAT POST, I am wondering if you mind if I copy the nutshell to another forum I use for AM, there is on going talk there about this and I think it would help for people to read this.

Let me know!
Thanks

As long as the Admin here are ok with it, i am ok with it as long as there is a link back to 5 star forums.

 

[Larwee]

Thanks for your interest genuwine4532. This is a very popular and very informative thread. In fact, the post is a "Hall of Fame" post.

Jim has indicated that he has no objection, but he has made it clear here in his reply to you as well as in a message to me that he doesn't want it done unless there is a link to 5 Star.

You could put a teaser portion of the post in the other forum and then link to this thread for the balance.

 

[Linda Buquet]

Yes I'm OK with it too. When quoting other people's stuff, you should only quote a paragraph and then like Larry and Jim said, link back to the original source for people to read the rest.

 

[LesFex]

Hello Jim,

Thanks for giving such a clear idea regarding Duplicate Content.

 

[genuwine4532]

Duplicate Content: It's Now What You Think!

Thanks Larwee and Linda,

I would follow the procedure,
BUT
actually at this point the people at that other forum are so set in their ways, that the mere mention of this topic sends everyone into a TIZZY FIT.

Someone had posted a similar thread as Jim's about web content being the duplicate content Google is referring to and even posted Google duplicate content guidelines, which pretty much say the same thing as Jim and this was not welcomed info, I guess they want to sit and do rewrites!!

so I am feeling "whatever" at this point let them sit and rewrite their stuff for hours!

Sorry if I sound crass, but you guys know me from my postings I am all into helping as much as getting help, but I don't really have time to convince anyone.

PS: Just in support of Jim's info, I actually can see at least 2 of my EXACTLY THE SAME ARTICLES-posted to different sites on G page 1 (thanks to HUB and ezine)

 

[lovekissing]

incredibily amazing of you to be posting this one... i've read lots of forum talking about this stuff but no one has ever explained it so well...