Articles are not duplicate content

[KeeKee]

OK I see it now. My thought was yes the author got credit but only at the end.
When I first see a blog the name up there by the picture is who I think wrote the article so you in essence told me you wrote the article at the top then I get told someone else wrote it at the bottom .
I think the beginning should have something about who provided the information.
And I think the 'author: admin' should be 'author: a persons name'.
While I play with website software my opinion is more from a surfers point of view.
Scraping...I wouldn't want anyone to scrape my site, but then it's not worth scrapping right now LOL.

[alienpest]

I wish people would stop calling it a duplicate content "penalty." It is just that one of the two articles will end up lower in the ranks.

It is not stealing when someone uses an article from one of the ezines set up for just such a thing.

I don't do it myself, because I want my stuff to be completely original, but I always like it when someone picks up one of my articles from an ezine, and leaves the bio in tact. I have picked up a lot of links this way.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by KeeKee

OK I see it now. My thought was yes the author got credit but only at the end.
When I first see a blog the name up there by the picture is who I think wrote the article so you in essence told me you wrote the article at the top then I get told someone else wrote it at the bottom .
I think the beginning should have something about who provided the information.
And I think the 'author: admin' should be 'author: a persons name'.
While I play with website software my opinion is more from a surfers point of view.
Scraping...I wouldn't want anyone to scrape my site, but then it's not worth scrapping right now LOL.

I am sorry that it didn't meet your standards but I am not going to register every author in the blog software so it shows them as the author at the top of the blog. They got a link from the blog and it shows them at the bottom of the page the same way it did on the site where we got the article. If the author has a problem with it I'll remove his link and article.

You're more than welcome to start contacting them and you may want to contact the free article sites as well as they have the contact information at the bottom of the page.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by alienpest

I wish people would stop calling it a duplicate content "penalty." It is just that one of the two articles will end up lower in the ranks.

It is not stealing when someone uses an article from one of the ezines set up for just such a thing.

I don't do it myself, because I want my stuff to be completely original, but I always like it when someone picks up one of my articles from an ezine, and leaves the bio in tact. I have picked up a lot of links this way.

Thank you.

It seems people first want to call it a penalty and second want to decide who can post on what blogs and how they should go about posting on them.

They just make up the rules as they go along and act as if I care what they think.

[amabaie]

I just can't resist jumping in here, because this is not only an interesting thread, but one we might still be debating years from now. First, I find this statement incredible:

Originally Posted by Tig

I've done this myself before, and it has worked for a while, but every major search engine has a "report spam" feature. If even one person uses that link against one of your sites, you are very likely to get blacklisted. That happened to me and I'm still fighting to get one site off the blacklist after several months, even though I've completely taken off the free content and rewritten everything.

Although I have to assume it is accurate, would not every article directory be banned to Kingdom Come?

We have to ask what we mean by "duplicate content"? Or more to the point, duplicate in what context. In the context of indexing the page, clearly Google could care less. Duplication plays no roill in whether to index or not. In terms of showing the results in the SERPs, well, that depends. When putting the article title or some line that appears in every instance in quotation marks, for that very specific search, Google will show many results. So will Yahoo. But for a shorter-tale, more competitive search phrase, will Google show multiple instances? I am pretty sure I have seen this, but I also am quite certain that Google looks for ways to curtail such happenings.

Or are we discussing the context of link juice. Just because Google shows a page as indexed and even turns it up in very specific searches, does not mean the page passes along any link juice. A couple weeks ago I blogged about how (see Yahoo was violating the nofollow convention ) because it was reporting backlinks from blog comments that had nofollow attributes. A couple days later I was checking another website's Google backlinks and wouldn't you know it, I found a number of nofollow links reported. This means either the search engines are indexing the links but not counting them as link juice (they might still use them for relevancy purposes) or they have quietly stopped respecting the nofollow attribute they created. Where am I going with this? Articles might be consider duplicate content for some purposes and not for others, so be very careful what conclusions you jump to.

[KeeKee]

Dear that was not an attack of any sort just how my brain works. I've seen it both ways and like you said long as the author doesn't have a problem......... neither do I.

[ACross]

Originally Posted by texxs

It's not plagiarism or anything like it if the author has published it and set conditions for it's re-use and the end-publisher(s) are complying with these terms.

In fact, it's helping these writers.

However using their work and not complying with their terms is a lot like dining and not tipping.

Just my 2 cents . . .

I'd take that analogy a bit further...

I think it's a lot like dining, then ducking out without paying the check!

As for the PC vs Mac... market share figures don't really tell us anything about which computer is better.

The PC rules only because IBM allowed "clones" and Apple did not. PCs became very affordable, while Macs stayed expensive. Had it been the other way around, the Mac would have the lion's share of the market.

It would have been real interesting to see who would have the larger market share had both companies allowed the "clones". But, of course, we'll never know.

Blogs: It's your blog and you can put anything on it you want. If you follow the search engine guidelines, you will be fine. If the visitor doesn't like what they see, they don't have to come back.

On any site, blog or otherwise, if someone is using your content without permission, contact their web host. In the US, mention the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and most hosts will shut down the site first, and ask questions later.

Last, but not least, here's a link to Google's Webmaster Help Center's with information about duplicate content: Duplicate content

Live Long and Prosper
-ACross

[WebFadds]

Hello -

Good thread with interesting thoughts. Some more points:

• Janeth responded to my point that Google does penalize duplicate content by saying, "Do a search for some titles with quotes and look at all the sites with the same articles." That does not prove Google doesn't penalize duplicate content. For example, if before you posted duplicate content you were on the first page for the key term "lawnmower", then even though your site returned with other duplicates after searching for "titles with quotes," it is routine for Google to move your SERP way down in the ranking for particular keywords like "lawnmower," etc.
• If copyrighted material is used without the permission of the author, then scraping is illegal. If the article has been released for reuse, it is not illegal.

Thanks for the discussion.

- Scott

[janeth]

Originally Posted by amabaie

I just can't resist jumping in here, because this is not only an interesting thread, but one we might still be debating years from now. First, I find this statement incredible:



Although I have to assume it is accurate, would not every article directory be banned to Kingdom Come?

We have to ask what we mean by "duplicate content"? Or more to the point, duplicate in what context. In the context of indexing the page, clearly Google could care less. Duplication plays no roill in whether to index or not. In terms of showing the results in the SERPs, well, that depends. When putting the article title or some line that appears in every instance in quotation marks, for that very specific search, Google will show many results. So will Yahoo. But for a shorter-tale, more competitive search phrase, will Google show multiple instances? I am pretty sure I have seen this, but I also am quite certain that Google looks for ways to curtail such happenings.

Or are we discussing the context of link juice. Just because Google shows a page as indexed and even turns it up in very specific searches, does not mean the page passes along any link juice. A couple weeks ago I blogged about how (see Yahoo was violating the nofollow convention ) because it was reporting backlinks from blog comments that had nofollow attributes. A couple days later I was checking another website's Google backlinks and wouldn't you know it, I found a number of nofollow links reported. This means either the search engines are indexing the links but not counting them as link juice (they might still use them for relevancy purposes) or they have quietly stopped respecting the nofollow attribute they created. Where am I going with this? Articles might be consider duplicate content for some purposes and not for others, so be very careful what conclusions you jump to.

Most article sites have high pr and are very large sites. Could it be the internal pages passing the pr back to the home page that causes them to have such high pr?

How much of an article site would you have to copy to get a high boost in pr?

Correct me if I am wrong but every page has to start with pr. If Google is not blocking the pr from duplicate content then the number of pages in the site duplicate or not would boost the pr.

Articles could be good for more than just the traffic.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by WebFadds

Hello -

Good thread with interesting thoughts. Some more points:[list][*]For example, if before you posted duplicate content you were on the first page for the key term "lawnmower", then even though your site returned with other duplicates after searching for "titles with quotes," it is routine for Google to move your SERP way down in the ranking for particular keywords like "lawnmower," etc.
- Scott

I've not seen this happen but have just started using the article content. It could happen and we also need to keep in mind that everything I've done is for non-competitive markets. The game could change if you were doing this for a dating site or more competitive industry.

I could start adding more and more content to the site and see what affects it has on the site. As I said before I am not using this site for anything so testing it want hurt anything.

The content being added to the site was for nothing other than the visitors who were finding the site.

I also don't mind setting up some stats that we could watch if anyone wanted to do it.

[edhan]

Originally Posted by WebFadds

Hi -

I think the problem comes when several sites use the exact same article(s) word for word. Google does pick this up and penalize you.

- Scott

If it is as what you have said, then those articles from Article Sites being used in blogs or sites will be penalized? I have not witnessed it yet but it is very normally for users to pick articles from articles resources and place them in their sites for relating topics.

Can anyone verify that using articles from article sites will be penalize by Google?

[WebFadds]

Originally Posted by edhan

If it is as what you have said, then those articles from Article Sites being used in blogs or sites will be penalized? I have not witnessed it yet but it is very normally for users to pick articles from articles resources and place them in their sites for relating topics.

Can anyone verify that using articles from article sites will be penalize by Google?

Hi Edhan -

Here is a post on Duplicate Content rules at the Official Google WebMaster Blog:
Deftly Dealing With Duplicate Content

Note this quote:

"Syndicate carefully: If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article. Even with that, note that we'll always show the (unblocked) version we think is most appropriate for users in each given search, which may or may not be the version you'd prefer."

Yours - Scott

[janeth]

Originally Posted by edhan

If it is as what you have said, then those articles from Article Sites being used in blogs or sites will be penalized? I have not witnessed it yet but it is very normally for users to pick articles from articles resources and place them in their sites for relating topics.

Can anyone verify that using articles from article sites will be penalize by Google?

I've not seen any proof but this article was past to me on WWS Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Deftly dealing with duplicate content

Keep in mind that Google has claimed to be doing something they were not doing in the past.

[alienpest]

If you find an article on an article directory site, placed there because the author wants to increase his or her exposure, and pick up some backlinks by allowing others to publish it, and it is an article that will benefit your readers, it might not ever rank, but what the heck, you put it there to provide information. The worst that could happen as far as page placement is concerned, is that it doesn't get indexed. The rest of your site is not penalized.

[edhan]

Originally Posted by alienpest

If you find an article on an article directory site, placed there because the author wants to increase his or her exposure, and pick up some backlinks by allowing others to publish it, and it is an article that will benefit your readers, it might not ever rank, but what the heck, you put it there to provide information. The worst that could happen as far as page placement is concerned, is that it doesn't get indexed. The rest of your site is not penalized.

Thanks WebFadds and Janeth for the link.

I have to agree with alienpest that if I find an article that is good info for my readers, I will use it on my site even though it might not be indexed and the rest of my site should not be penalized for it. I always remember that when comes to website, I always do it for visitors and not really for search engines. As long as it benefits the visitors, then it should be okay though it might be penalized as duplicate content for that page.

[jonisolis]

I thought that we are suppose to design for people first and search engines second. Well, isn't finding articles on the same subject as your site and posting them so your readers can find them helpful to your readers? People write and post articles just for this purpose. They want people to post them as long as it is done in the right way - with their links and bio intact.

[Roshni]

Can you plz suggest is duplicate article approved in article directory? And is it beneficial in search engine ranking?

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by maniactive

Of course it's a bad thing!

You admittedly know nothing about lawn mowers, yet you're presenting yourself as an expert on lawn mowers.

Further, you have no way of discerning whether the articles you scrape together represent accurate or useful information.

This practice is deceitful. And dishonest.

Those are what we call "Bad Qualities."

I hope you're not using wikipedia for anything at any time... No one cares or knows how much the author / editor knows, as long as they can cite a source. And who even checks the sources to see if what they said accurately came from the source they cited. Granted, the information in wikipedia can be correct, and sometimes not, if higher-up editors are diligent on a good day...

However, the principle itself of passing along information that one just researched, or passing along an entire article that attributes the author and doesn't steal credit -- it's a win-win situation for everyone.