Duplicate Content On Specific Domains

[cppgenius]

I have a duplicate content question from another angle. Article syndication. It is good to know that there is no penalty in the true sense of penalty for sites having duplicate content, the only penalty is the pages containing duplicate content will rank lower than the pages from the website of the original creator of the content. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I'm working on a website on a South African domain (.co.za) where articles from other sites (non .co.za domains) are republished to cater for the South African Internet market. In other words this website is publishing articles with the intention to bring relevant content to localised searches, i.e. searches for specific terms from .co.za domains only.

Does Google see this as duplicate content? Perhaps in a global eye, yes, but out of a local point of view, I can't really see how. If South Africans are searching locally for information only found on .com sites, then they will never find the information they are looking for. Do you think Google will penalise a site that delivers global content to a local audience?

I mean, isn't this a good thing for global sites, more exposure through local sites in markets that are currently underutilised?

[SemAdvance]

Duplicate Content "filter aside" I think you need to understand localized search results and how Google determines which pages to display.

1. The query term is the main consideration.

2. Google will look first for pages from the country that are on topic in regards to the query term.

3. Next it will search regionally for pages related to the term.

4. Nationally produced pages will be displayed next.

5. Finally internationally produced pages will be used to deliver the results.

This is the ideal methodology with which to display results, however each niche or category and to some extent even the keyword terms all have variations.

Google does a bit of this already if you search for products to buy that are large or very heavy. Use 'automotive transmissions' as a keyword term on Google (doesn't matter which country) and it should return results based on the notes above.

This also needs to take into account that this is based only on unoptimized pages and as with anything with a third party company your mileage may vary.

[bhartzer]

Does Google see this as duplicate content?

If the content appears elsewhere and is "indexable" then generally it's consider duplicate content. Generally speaking, the first page that's spidered is usually considered the source--then the others are ignored or discounted because they're duplicates.

I wouldn't necessarily try to change how you do business or what content appears on your site just because of Google. If it's helpful to your users then I would include that content on the site.

[cppgenius]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

I wouldn't necessarily try to change how you do business or what content appears on your site just because of Google. If it's helpful to your users then I would include that content on the site.

It is true what you say. I always have a simple rule when I do my designs. Apart from the obvious NO, NO's which you should not even make by bona-fide mistake, if you have your visitors in mind as first priority and your visitors get value from what you deliver on your site, then you can't go wrong. Not that I say SEO is unimportant, it is just that it should not be the alpha and omega of your website (and the same goes for Google).

Ok now you may ask, if this is your approach, why are you bothered with Google? It is merely a case of Google can't be ignored at all. Google is a strong source of valuable visitors for many sites and if there is merit in changing your designing habits, then I believe it is something you should concider.

Thanks for the replies so far. Confirmed most of my suspicions.

[kevan]

All,
I would be interested in replies on this matter. If I see an exciting web site name, I buy it, and then add it as a parked domain name on one of my sites. As the site is now a new name to the search engines, I know they are good at spotting this through whois, which I do not hide, is the new site now a copy of the original, with duplicate contents problems?
I run historical Pubs sites, for a bit of fun, and seem to be losing out to some of the sites that do this for revenue. I do not mind this, but my site is better than theirs, which bothers me. Can anyone advise on this, or why I am losing search engine share.
Site is essexpub.net, and pubsinlondon.net & londonpublichouse.com & essexpub.com & pubsgen.com etc etc, All the same site at present.
Thanks
Kevan

[espectations]

Hi,

Firstly you need to build the site for your customers and not for the search engines - this implies that as mentioned, you need to take into consideration the importance of the material for your clients' local target market.

I have clients that are regional distributors exporting products to SADEC countries.

As a result we prefer to have them positioned in the Google.com rather than Google.co.za - reason being that the customers across the border do not necessarily search for suppliers using Google.co.za - they tend to use Google.com - we can see this from our stats.

We requested permission from the international suppliers to rewrite their published material to suit the locals. So we use the basic information but it is re-written for the local distributor and optimized accordingly. It is a bit of work but well worth it. Remember that jargon also comes into play - for example Internationally "mobile phones" are used and locally "cell phones" are used. Re-writing content gives you the opportunity to make these changes and optimize the articles accordingly.

So suggest to your customer that they do the same as it is not just sorting out the duplicate content issue but also good public relations.

Re the use of promotional domains - as far as I know there is little or no value in it except if someone wants to protect their brand.

When doing something do not just look at the effect it will have in the search engines but also on your marketing efforts (both online and offline) including the building of your brand. Nowadays everything goes beyond search engines and you might do better spending time on building your existing brand than add promotional domains which might dilute your branding efforts.

[businessdata]

Originally Posted by cppgenius

I have a duplicate content question from another angle. Article syndication. It is good to know that there is no penalty in the true sense of penalty for sites having duplicate content, the only penalty is the pages containing duplicate content will rank lower than the pages from the website of the original creator of the content. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my experience over the last ten years and especially over the last two, Google is getting very mercenary when it comes to duplicate content. I have seen sites hit with the -31 penalty because of too much duplicate content. When dishing out penalties, Google looks at a whole range of metrics, and allocate negative 'points' for each. When a site accumulates enough 'points', its gets penalised. The problem is that once the penalty is in place, you have to ensure that the site is whiter than white before the re-inclusion request is looked at seriously. Duplicate content means negative 'points'. Period. How many 'points' who knows, they change the algorithm maybe hundreds of times a month.

I advise all my clients to steer well clear of any syndicated content if they want to stay up in natural search on Google. Google grows in market share by the month - unfortunately you can't ignore their webmaster guidelines even when there is slight divergence from the best interests of your visitors. Sad but true.

[Conficio]

You actually answer your own question

Originally Posted by cppgenius

articles from other sites (non .co.za domains) are republished to cater for the South African Internet market.

Look at it from a search engine's (Google's) perspective. The content is the same, so when anybody searches for it, then why not show the original instead of the copy, even if it is collected for the South African market.

Look at it from the users perspective. If I search for it, even when I'm in SouthAfrica, why not read the original? It is as accessible on the Internet as your copy.

Compare this to the News Paper business. There it was useful, if a news paper syndicates a column or some other news, because I can't browse or buy dozens of news papers to find that one story about this South African basket ball player that now is a big shot in the US league.

Think about how you can add value to the content, like any news paper editor would do when picking up an AP story. Think how you add the relevance why you pick the story for republishing. This creates additional content, makes it not duplicate content and is good for your users and the search engines alike.

Just my perspective.

K<o>

[cppgenius]

Originally Posted by Conficio

Look at it from a search engine's (Google's) perspective. The content is the same, so when anybody searches for it, then why not show the original instead of the copy, even if it is collected for the South African market.

Look at it from the users perspective. If I search for it, even when I'm in SouthAfrica, why not read the original? It is as accessible on the Internet as your copy.

The site in question is LIAFIN.co.za which caters for healthcare, beauty, sport and fitness related content. We find that many South African users tend to use the "pages from South Africa" option on Google.co.za when they do searches for the keywords we optimise our pages for, which means .za domains will receive preference above all other domains, unless I have this wrong.

One of the reasons why I use syndicated content is because I often don't have the time to write my own content. I know and realise that it is far better to write your own content, because it is unique in the first place and like you mentioned, you can pick up a good story and build a unique article around it, or discuss it on your website. When I come across a very good article, which I believe will be useful to the visitors of our site, then I believe it is very convenient for local users to find it on our website, especially if they are already signed up for our RSS feed. We keep our ear on the ground picking up good and interesting content, in other words we do the searching for our visitors.

The South African Internet user cannot be compared to overseas Internet users, many of them still do not know how to use a search engine properly. On the one hand you help your customers find what they need and you expand your own brand by publishing it on your own site. It is more a case of adapting your site for an inexperienced non-technical audience. I know Google remains Google and do not listen to the complaints of the Mickey Mouses of Internet Marketing, but it seems a bit unfair to penalise sites when they use good quality syndicated content to add value to the online experience their own visitors.

[businessdata]

Originally Posted by cppgenius

..but it seems a bit unfair to penalise sites when they use good quality syndicated content to add value to the online experience their own visitors.

I agree entirely, but Google do not give a rats a#*! about what is fair or not to the webmaster. Their policy is 'the web is everyone's, your site is yours, but our index is ours and we will do with it as we wish'.

Anyway I wouldn't get overly worried out the duplicate syndicated issue, so long as:
1] you also have plenty of relevant, quality and original content on your site
2] you are not accumulating too many other negative 'points', i.e. at odds with the Holy Google Webmaster Guidelines, that might push the bar off.

[incrediblehelp]

I guess I am not understanding the issue exactly here. cpp you are re-publishing content from other websites on your website right? And your wondering if this is consdered dup content? If so then yes it owuld be, regardless of what country your targeting.