Articles are not duplicate content

[ctabuk]

Let's leave it there.

Duplicate content - OK you want to fill a blog or a website with fresh and meaningful content. But all the good stuff has been written. Well according to Google then it recognises that duplicate content will happen. If TV adverts were Google feeds then none would get shown. So, what is wrong with cut and paste with vast tracks of fresh content added in?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Let's leave it there.

Duplicate content - OK you want to fill a blog or a website with fresh and meaningful content. But all the good stuff has been written. Well according to Google then it recognises that duplicate content will happen. If TV adverts were Google feeds then none would get shown. So, what is wrong with cut and paste with vast tracks of fresh content added in?

You come in and take the thread off topic, accuse me of something and now you want to drop it.

Can you show me who took this thread off topic.

[Peter (IMC)]

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'.

Even online somtimes emotions can get the better of people, but is this really necessary? A Mod shouldn't allow personal opinions about people to be a factor. You didn't participate in this thread and all the sudden this?

Sorry, but I do not agree with this post.

[crankydave]

Please folks. Let's remain on topic and not let a good thread get derailed.

Thank you

Dave

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Let's leave it there.

Duplicate content - OK you want to fill a blog or a website with fresh and meaningful content. But all the good stuff has been written. Well according to Google then it recognises that duplicate content will happen. If TV adverts were Google feeds then none would get shown. So, what is wrong with cut and paste with vast tracks of fresh content added in?

Why should content be available in only one place?

On tv there are I don't know how many news stations that all pretty much report the same news. Just every one does it in their own way.

Of course you take a risk when publishing articles, and Google will decide based on the democratic nature of the web which site will show up in what position. But they´re not against people republishing articles.

Just because duplicate content is something they have to deal with does not mean that republishing articles is against their guidelines.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Please folks. Let's remain on topic and not let a good thread get derailed.

Thank you

Dave

Sorry dave, I hadn't seen all the replies that came after. It's kind of difficult sometimes when threads get filled with posts faster than I can read.

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Why should content be available in only one place?

On tv there are I don't know how many news stations that all pretty much report the same news. Just every one does it in their own way.

Of course you take a risk when publishing articles, and Google will decide based on the democratic nature of the web which site will show up in what position. But they´re not against people republishing articles.

Just because duplicate content is something they have to deal with does not mean that republishing articles is against their guidelines.

'
Just because duplicate content is something they have to deal with does not mean that republishing articles is against their guidelines.'


Maybe - but what about Intellectual Property and Copyright?

[jScott_Harris]

Google news makes its living off of duplicate content. It looks at how popular an article is and determines if it needs on the front page. Every newspaper out there re-publishes content from the AP, moreover does the same thing, as does RSStatic. Thats the point. You can't copy another site verbatim, but sharing articles is great for both the publisher and the writer. Look at the entire iEntry network. Every article on WebProNews can be found on 1 or more iEntry sister site and that has never hurt any ientry sites. iEntry is one of the largest repositories of content on one network there is and its working.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Maybe - but what about Intellectual Property and Copyright?

We've covered this maybe ten times all ready.

The articles are coming from free articles sites where the article owner is asking you to put the article on your site for a link.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

'
Just because duplicate content is something they have to deal with does not mean that republishing articles is against their guidelines.'


Maybe - but what about Intellectual Property and Copyright?

I agree,. stealing content to which you have no right is wrong. But many writers allow their content to be republished. So there's no problem there.

[Martinscholes]

Actually TV stations do this all the time. They syndicate programmes. Sometimes stuff I want to watch.

We now have the odd situation in the UK where BBC Freeview channels broadcast old ITV stuff and BBC freeview channels broadcast old ITV stuff! Not that I get the chance to watch much TV, however!

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by kevsta

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

Absolutely correct. It is not the website that posts the articles first that get the best ranking in google, it is the copy of the article that has the most IBLs.

My site gets crawled by google daily, and most of the time when I put an article out for reprint, it is documented by google on my own site days or weeks ahead of the site that ranks higher than my site in the search results for that article.

The Wikipedia benefits in the same way, but ironically, Wikipedia is most often relying only upon internal IBLs, from within their own site.

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

'
Just because duplicate content is something they have to deal with does not mean that republishing articles is against their guidelines.'

Maybe - but what about Intellectual Property and Copyright?

I know you are a mod, but you are really going off the rail to try to prove that your comments are on topic and meaningful to our conversation.

We are not even talking about stolen content in this thread, as you seem to be insinuating. This thread is about the validity of using reprint articles, defined as "content that the author has given webmasters advance permission to use on their own websites", as a legitimate method of promotion, search engine marketing, and giving our readers what they want.

Your asking about Intellectual Property and Copyright seems to suggest that you think we are discussing the use of stolen content. We are not.

In a previous post, you also said:

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Duplicate content - OK you want to fill a blog or a website with fresh and meaningful content. But all the good stuff has been written.

Bull shoots!

"All the good stuff has been written..."

With that implication, I guess I should just hang up my writing pen and stop writing for a living!

After all, anything I have written has already been said by someone else - by your suggestion. Or at the very least, what I have written in the past and in the future is not worth reading, since by your suggestion, "all of the 'good stuff' has been written."

Even your employers have editors who create new content everyday for their newsletters and their website. Maybe they should just fold up their website and go home too. (While they are at it, they might even want to delete all of my reprint articles that they once thought were worthy for use on their website: link)

As a professional writer, I take offense to your comments!

To steal words from Ann Richards (well, it is not actually stealing since I am citing the original source), you seem to have been "born with a ... foot in your mouth."

[janeth]

Some one else just blog about duplicate content ranking well and even posted some screen shots.

Optimizing for Product Colors: Long Tail Gold or Duplicate Content? - Get Elastic Ecommerce Blog

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by LinksAndTraffic

I know you are a mod, but you are really going off the rail to try to prove that your comments are on topic and meaningful to our conversation.

We are not even talking about stolen content in this thread, as you seem to be insinuating. This thread is about the validity of using reprint articles, defined as "content that the author has given webmasters advance permission to use on their own websites", as a legitimate method of promotion, search engine marketing, and giving our readers what they want.

Your asking about Intellectual Property and Copyright seems to suggest that you think we are discussing the use of stolen content. We are not.

In a previous post, you also said:



Bull shoots!

"All the good stuff has been written..."

With that implication, I guess I should just hang up my writing pen and stop writing for a living!

After all, anything I have written has already been said by someone else - by your suggestion. Or at the very least, what I have written in the past and in the future is not worth reading, since by your suggestion, "all of the 'good stuff' has been written."

Even your employers have editors who create new content everyday for their newsletters and their website. Maybe they should just fold up their website and go home too. (While they are at it, they might even want to delete all of my reprint articles that they once thought were worthy for use on their website: link)

As a professional writer, I take offense to your comments!

To steal words from Ann Richards (well, it is not actually stealing since I am citing the original source), you seem to have been "born with a ... foot in your mouth."

Greetings, thanks for the input - we are both writers - if you actually read my posts I do make the inference of the word 'But all the good stuff is written, well without appearing pedantic there are certain topics where volumes have been previously written and seeing how I was the guy that devised (with faglork) the whole concept of RSS feeds direct into websites to add fresh content then I do know a little about this. I am a published author and I invite people to add their content and links to my blogs. I will do my utmost to assist any poster to achieve high serp - but copyright and fresh content all legally two entirely different aspects. I'm on your side - just try stepping outside of the box and look at what I try to do to assist people.


This is 2 years old - but I would be very interested in reading your thoughts on this

Google Addresses Duplicate Content - PlagiarismToday

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

and seeing how I was the guy that devised (with faglork) the whole concept of RSS feeds direct into websites to add fresh content

And Al Gore invented the internet. lol

[root123]

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

Seems to me the possible case also.....

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by janeth

And Al Gore invented the internet. lol

Al Gore is also mad that we don't give him honest credit for his work: Who Invented RSS

Faglork does not even attempt to take credit for establishing the format. Here is what he says on his website: "In short: I specialize in creating XHTML-driven, standards-oriented, accessible and SE-friendly websites. Not more, not less."

No where does Faglork claim responsibility for helping to create the standard, or having created the standard.