Quote:
Originally Posted by rebroker
What you are doing is fine.
But, Google does have a duplicate content filter, and I'm sure if you run a search, you will notice most of the articles are placed into Google's supplemental index. This will, in most cases keep these pages from top rankings.
Bob
search engine optimization |
I took you up on your challenge Bob, and guess what? You are wrong. See the link:
site:successfulmowing.com - Google Search
Janeth has a nice site.
Google has indexed 173 pages on her website, and of those 173 pages, none of them are described as Supplemental Listings by Google.
So the very fact that Janeth has admitted that she has no original content on her site, explodes the idea that the duplicate content filter works the way everyone believes it works. Because if it worked the way people say that it works, Janeth's results would not be possible.
I was pleased to see this thread in that I agree with Janeth, but no one will listen to me as a source on this issue, since I offer article marketing services to the public.
Janeth and I know that she is right, and many of the rest of you think we are biased and illogical.
I also agree that the blog police are off-base on their arguments that Janeth should not own a site about something for which she knows nothing about. After all, how many people here do not have any real concept of how Google's duplicate filter works, and yet they sell
SEO services?
All personal digs aside. Journalists don't know much about anything either, but you know what? They do however do as much research as they need to do in order to build a story. Then they publish their story, and we "morons" read it and pat the journalist on the back for educating us about something we did not know about ourselves.
As a professional writer, I am just like the journalist. I learn on the fly, and put together credible information for others to read.
I don't have a degree in history, but I can put together an interesting and factual read on many historical topics.
A few weeks ago, the only thing I knew about horses was that they had four legs and a tail, and they were used in horse racing. But I was able to build my research and write an article about horses that the professional horse breeder thought was very well thought out , interesting and enjoyable to read.
Six weeks ago, I knew nothing about wine, but I wrote an article about the California wine country that my client told me even taught him about a few things about the wine festivals within 50 miles of his home, and yet, I have never been within 1000 miles of that part of the world.
What Janeth did was to teach herself enough about the topic to be able to put together a website that was able to provide quality content to HER READERS.
Just like a journalist, Janeth dug through the wealth of information on the topic and put together what she felt was credible information in a format that people wanted to read.
Why is that a bad thing? Are there really other sites on the web that could perhaps teach me more about the topic? John Deere might teach me quite a bit of accurate information about their mowers, but they are in the business of selling John Deere mowers... They will never tell me anything about a Snapper mower or any other mowers for that matter.
Honestly, the blog police in this forum who are claiming that Janeth has done a bad thing are "elitists", who believe that anyone who has an opinion different from theirs should be taken behind the barn and flogged.
I applaud Janeth for her efforts, even if you cannot bring yourself to do so.