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.

[LinksAndTraffic]

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.

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by amabaie

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.

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.

David,

I was thrilled to see you jump in here. You have made some very good points.

I believe people are misunderstanding the duplicate content filter at Google and giving it mystical powers that it does not use. The proof is out there for people to see, if only they cared to take the time to look.

But, I insist... Don't take my word for it. Watch this video from the WebProNews website -- an interview with Matt Cutts of Google.

As you will hear in the video if you listen, Cutts said that there are two ways that Google would prefer us to build links to our websites: link baiting and article marketing.

Some people have argued to me that Matt Cutts is a liar, telling us exactly what we want to hear, and taking advantage of our willingness to follow his advice to launch a sneaky, underhanded retaliation against us, at a later date.

Maybe it is true, maybe I am gullible. But, I honestly believe that Cutts would never deliberately mislead us on this.

I honestly believe that when Cutts told us that we should use link baiting and article marketing to build inbound links to our websites, that it was advice that we would be fools not to follow.

Sure, Google's algorithms will slice and dice how they display those articles in their search results, but I believe that most people lose sight of the truth, because they cannot disect how Google utilizes all of those articles in their search results.

I have read in Cutts' blog more than once proclamations from commenters that Google banned them because of... "whatever". Then Cutts went in and addressed the specific suggestion, only to point out that people misinterpreted the reasons for the banning. The site owner thought they were banned for using reprint articles or whatever, and Cutts explained that the real reason they were banned was because of some blackhat technique they had used on their site.

I believe that Cutts tells us the truth, where he can safely share the truth with us, without fear of unfair manipulation. But the public is ill-informed as to all of the factors that could affect their website, so they blame their problems on some mystical creature in the vast unknown of Google for their problems.

In absence of real knowledge, many people create theories of why something has happened, then they proclaim the news to the world. Then the public buys into the myth and proclaims the myth to be true, to all whom they meet.

In my mind, the greatest of the Google myths is that reprint articles are dimished by the duplicate content filter at Google. If it was not a myth, how come I still have over 900 keywords in the top 20 results at Google for one domain? I use article marketing as my primary method of promotion (95+%), yet I still rank well.

With the duplicate content filter working the way so many claim, how can I rank so well in Google? It must be magic, eh?

[sofomor]

Its about quality and brand. Would you feel proud if others copy your content and post on their websites or you copying others? Its about originality, if a reader lands on your site and after reading few lines shouts "hey i have already read this article....blah, blah". What happened? you just lost a visitor forever (until unless you build your reputation). Imagine your site ranking with already 2-3 ranking sites with exactly the same content (as you said duplicate content penalty aint working) and if a visitor considers site A, JUNK, he may consider all three sites JUNK (including yours).

Suggestion: You will be doing great if you get a content writer and get your OWN and ORIGINAL content (link able).

Thank you

[jonathanleger]

Originally Posted by maniactive

There's a bigger problem -- it can be summed up in one quote:

"I’ve got a blog about lawn mowers and since I know nothing about lawnmowers --"

Newspapers do this all the time. They include syndicated content from the Associated Press, columns from "self help" gurus, etc. The editors of the newspapers probably do not hold degrees in psychology, and small-town newspapers especially are not likely to be educated about handeling international crises in Zimbabwe or Darfur. Yet these newspapers publish articles regarding those subjects all the time.

I must agree with the OP -- you can judge the general quality of an article by how it was written. It doesn't take a degree in small engines to be able to know if an article on lawn mowers is good or bad.

Jon

[chrisJumbo]

I noticed that the lawn mowing site isn't monetized. Is that something you are planning on? I did notice a link to your wrist band site, does it send some traffic your way?

[chirosche]

How can you see where supplemental pages are?

Thanks

[janeth]

Originally Posted by sofomor

Its about quality and brand. Would you feel proud if others copy your content and post on their websites or you copying others?

If they give me the credit and link back to me they can have at it.

Originally Posted by sofomor

Its about originality,

I've seen good information that no one will ever find unless someone else finds it and post it on a site that people will see..

Originally Posted by sofomor

if a reader lands on your site and after reading few lines shouts "hey i have already read this article....blah, blah". What happened? you just lost a visitor forever

And you've studied this?

Do you have proof of this?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by LinksAndTraffic

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.

Thanks so much.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by chrisJumbo

I noticed that the lawn mowing site isn't monetized. Is that something you are planning on? I did notice a link to your wrist band site, does it send some traffic your way?

I've been unable to find anything to sell on the site. It does not send anything to the wristband site because it is the wrong type of traffic.

The site gets around 200 unique visitors at this moment and I think if I played with it a little I could get it up to 1,000 without any problem.

[alienpest]

I think a few people got their feathers ruffled before they new the facts.
1. There is no duplicate content penalty. Only a question of which version ranks best.
2. Some articles need to be in places where different folks can find them. A new technique for sweating copper pipes, might be just as important in a do it yourself forum as in a plumbing journal.
3. This is basically just syndication, as Jonathan mentioned.
4. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, and as a content provider for others, I am both flattered, and linked when someone uses one of mine!
5. There is also a sub argument going on about generalist versus specialist. Specialists tend to dislike generalists. I could go on with that one for hours!

[jawn_tech]

Google does address the issue of duplicate content.

What Google is looking for in these instances are such things as having several sites that are basically the same, with the intention of manipulating search engines.

The case we're talking about here though, the very aptly named title of this thread -- "Articles Are Not Duplicate Content", I think is a sound case and appears to be proven. The evidence supports that articles indeed are not duplicate content.

And just to think people used to give me a hard time that I had suggested having the same content in a footer across all pages is not a 'punishable offense' no matter how much proof I offered.

[jawn_tech]

Regarding the MAC VS. PC off-topic argument ----

I had to take a few moments to clean up this thread from the hijacking.

C'mon.

***Start your own thread***

Thanks.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

C'mon.

***Start your own thread***

I thought we would be talking about the types of cars we drive before long.

I wonder how many articles it would take to have the same affect on PR as writing and posting your own articles?

[kevsta]

im wading with Janeth with regards to which version will rank. the one with more/better links will rank.

if you guys havent seen Jon Leger's "Search Engine Myths" you probably ought to hunt down a copy. it's well worth a look, if nothing else because the guy ranks #4 for "search engine optimization" and blatently explains how he does it, plus a lot more besides including this duplicate content penalty myth.

..and there is a whole lot of bull which is oft repeated as fact all over forum land IMO. ..less here than most places to be fair.

edit. lol. hi jon. i managed to miss your post in the middle of the thread. i'll let you take it from here

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by janeth

I wonder how many articles it would take to have the same affect on PR as writing and posting your own articles?

Considering that PR is just based on links, I'd say just about exactly the same time.

[cw1865]

Unique article creation will still behoove you. I have had some success drafting articles for generic, specific and long-tail keywords. The standard that I use is that I personally would read the article if I came across it. If you continue to create content that people will want to read, you will be well rewarded.

[alienpest]

This has been a great topic. Well done Janeth! I think most of your "naysayers" have left the building. I haven't tried doing anything with with articles from the article directories, but I have a few extra url's around and plenty of hosting, I may just give it a shot!

[dnelson]

If you post articles on your site and they are related to your site then there is nothing wrong with it provided that you give credit to the author (reprinting the resource box information). The whole idea is that you should be striving to provide something useful to your readership. It may be impossible for you to write the relevant information that your readers need, and rather than send them off your site, let them read good articles onsite.

Regarding the duplicate content filter, the worst that can happen is that your version of the article does not get a high ranking for the search terms of that article. But if your goal was to make your site more interesting and sticky, then you don't have to worry about it. This is article marketing from the perspective of a publisher.

From the perspective of an author, what is the harm if your article is reprinted elsewhere with a link back to you. These links are more natural than reciprocal links and the method of acquiring them is less demeaning than link-begging. As someone has noted Matt Cutts said that article marketing is fine, and even if he didn't say it, it remains a legitimate "white-hat" method of online marketing.

Donald Nelson

[Martinscholes]

Originally Posted by maniactive

There's a bigger problem -- it can be summed up in one quote:

"I’ve got a blog about lawn mowers and since I know nothing about lawnmowers --"

So if someone publishes a magazine (on or off line)on -say- racing cars, they have to be a racing car driver?

Or if you publish a magazine (on or off line) on health choices, you have to be a doctor?

The answer to that is no. You do not.

[Martinscholes]

Originally Posted by janeth

The blog is here http://www.successfulmowing.com/ and there is a link back to the author on any post I used that were not my own. I originally tried to research information and post it on the blog but without have the items here for me to look at it was really hard.

And I had people asking for more information and even had dealers contacting me and asking me to post about certain topics. I was not making money with the site but hated to walk away from it and decided to go with free articles.

That's a nice site.

I think the problem might be that some of us still hark back to the day when the Internet was trolled (and I use that word deliberately) by people who thought the World Wide Web should be "not for profit" and should be filled up with amateur 'Hello Kitty' style sites. And who slammed anyone trying to -for example- publish on the web and use it for horrible commercial purposes. (Ooh, those EVIL Capitalists!)

I have some news. Those days never really existed, except in the imaginations of a few misguided college kids, who were the original trolls, IMO.

And do, please, remember the Internet was originally started to ensure that the military could still fight if part of the communications network was knocked out.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

That's a nice site.

I think the problem might be that some of us still hark back to the day when the Internet was trolled (and I use that word deliberately) by people who thought the World Wide Web should be "not for profit" and should be filled up with amateur 'Hello Kitty' style sites. And who slammed anyone trying to -for example- publish on the web and use it for horrible commercial purposes. (Ooh, those EVIL Capitalists!)

I have some news. Those days never really existed, except in the imaginations of a few misguided college kids, who were the original trolls, IMO.

And do, please, remember the Internet was originally started to ensure that the military could still fight if part of the communications network was knocked out.

Thanks for the post, there are times that I think about leaving the forum and then there are people like you that make me enjoy being here.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

That's a nice site.

I think the problem might be that some of us still hark back to the day when the Internet was trolled (and I use that word deliberately) by people who thought the World Wide Web should be "not for profit" and should be filled up with amateur 'Hello Kitty' style sites. And who slammed anyone trying to -for example- publish on the web and use it for horrible commercial purposes. (Ooh, those EVIL Capitalists!)

I have some news. Those days never really existed, except in the imaginations of a few misguided college kids, who were the original trolls, IMO.

And do, please, remember the Internet was originally started to ensure that the military could still fight if part of the communications network was knocked out.

haha,.. the hippy internet. Yes I've seen those types of people too... They're still around thinking that money results in unequal chances. Everybody gets what they "need" (that's not neccessarily the same thing as what they "want"). If the internet really was "not for profit" they had exactly what they need,... a small comunity that they can control.

If you allow me,... the internet was not made for the military,. that's Darpanet you´re talking about. The internet is more like an evolutionary spin off that got popular,..

And to make sure that this post doesn't get deleted , getting back to the original subject of the thread,...

Janeth, your blog is a bit confusing as it says "author: admin" next to your picture, right below the title of a post. Only in the end of the article it says who really wrote it. That should really say: "Posted by: admin",.. shoudn't it,..

[nozzmoking]

I've nothing constructive to add to this thread, but just wanted to say thank you for all the valuable information posted. This one thread has answered so many of my questions. Bill Platt's posts were particularly helpful.

WTG Janeth!

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by janeth

And who are you to tell me what I can and can not start a blog about?

And to Janeth I say - please stop multiple postings - or somebody may think that you are link dropping. You are experienced enough to put all your replies in one post. Thank you.

And before I get accused of going off topic - simply use content marked 'available for publication'.

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by janeth

I’ve seen a lot of people post on forums about duplicate content and I disagree with the information being posted.

I’ve got a blog about lawn mowers and since I know nothing about lawnmowers I went to some free article sites and got free information and stuck on my blog. Those articles rank on the major search engines and bring in traffic. I created another site about silicone wristbands and again used free articles for the information. Those articles are starting to rank and bring traffic into that site.

Duplicating an entire site when you are also duplicating the code would be a problem. However if you are posting an article onto an existing site then your code and links are different and the site is not duplicated. Not only will that post rank but if you put enough links to it will out rank the original article. I’ve seen it happen and I’ve also seen one article rank right behind another.

This means that when you write an article there is no reason to write one for your site and another to submit to the search engines. You only need to make sure your site has more incoming links going to the article.

I don't think this will rank better. The main site from where you have copied will get credit and all the duplicated content will be filtered by search engines.


See like this:-

This is actual phenomena When one article is written for first time and published in web. That page will index first and stored in search engine database. If again search engine spiders get the same content then they compare with indexing time and date and second one will be ignored or filtered


Reason for ranking your site

May the main site article has been removed or if that site content temporarily not available

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

That should really say: "Posted by: admin",.. shoudn't it,..

I didn't think about doing that but yes that would fix the problem.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

And to Janeth I say - please stop multiple postings - or somebody may think that you are link dropping. You are experienced enough to put all your replies in one post. Thank you.

And before I get accused of going off topic - simply use content marked 'available for publication'.

I am posting in response to the post above mine and quoting that post. If it is a problem I'll find another forum to post on.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by subhzash

I don't think this will rank better. The main site from where you have copied will get credit and all the duplicated content will be filtered by search engines.


See like this:-

This is actual phenomena When one article is written for first time and published in web. That page will index first and stored in search engine database. If again search engine spiders get the same content then they compare with indexing time and date and second one will be ignored or filtered


Reason for ranking your site

May the main site article has been removed or if that site content temporarily not available

nope. the one with the best IBLs will rank higher. (in most cases, maybe not with wikipaedia or the like)

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

And to Janeth I say - please stop multiple postings - or somebody may think that you are link dropping. You are experienced enough to put all your replies in one post. Thank you.

And before I get accused of going off topic - simply use content marked 'available for publication'.

You quoted a post I was responding to that was off topic to the thread. The thread was about articles not being duplicate content. The poster tried to make a personal attack and then turned around and gave me one of your stupid little red rep. points.

Then the thread gets back on topic and a stupid ass mod. Comes in and takes it back off topic again. I would not let you moderator a kinder garden class for me. And it is mods like you that have caused the post count to drop so low. Chris asked me one time why I stopped posting on the forum, now you know the reason.
And just for the record link dropping is dropping links not responding to a post.

Can you show me the links I dropped?

[ctabuk]

Janeth, is everything OK? - you simply have a tendancy to multiple post.

Simply try

To X I say, ...............

Y ......................

Far simpler. Now would you agree that articles marked 'Acceptable for publishing' will deminish the whole problem with duplicate content - or why not simply edit huge chunks and that way it is extremely doubtful that anyone will know.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Janeth, is everything OK? - you simply have a tendancy to multiple post.

Simply try

To X I say, ...............

Y ......................

Far simpler. Now would you agree that articles marked 'Acceptable for publishing' will deminish the whole problem with duplicate content - or why not simply edit huge chunks and that way it is extremely doubtful that anyone will know.

I respond to the post and I respond to them one at a time. Do not come in and think that you will take the thread off topic and put it back on topic in the same post.

You have a tendancy to take threads off topic.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

And to Janeth I say - please stop multiple postings - or somebody may think that you are link dropping. You are experienced enough to put all your replies in one post. Thank you.

I'm sorry David but I disagree. I don't believe anyone should be expected to put all their thoughts into one post... especially where there's 2 pages.

This has been an interesting thread and I'd like to see it continue to be interesting and on topic.

Dave