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.

[ctabuk]

What faglork and I did was to find a way of feeding Google Alerts directly into a URL page for constantly updated news feeds based on relevancy of topic - most likely 'duplicated content'!

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

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

It is hard to build credibility in your point of view, when you are always exaggerating your own importance and historical accomplishments.

[janeth]

Check this new thread Persoanl Attacks By Mods. On WPW

[ctabuk]

Originally Posted by LinksAndTraffic

It is hard to build credibility in your point of view, when you are always exaggerating your own importance and historical accomplishments.

Ah, so it's a double act - OK your turn - quote examples and go back in the forum 5 years and you will find the thread. Next!

[janeth]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Ah, so it's a double act - OK your turn - quote examples and go back in the forum 5 years and you will find the thread. Next!

Just give us a link to the report (that was not written by you) that says you invented it.

[ctabuk]

I think you are getting confused by the idea of invention and conception of use - I never said I invented RSS - I said that faglork and I devised the concept of using a system to transfer Google Alerts into a constant feed for new content.

[alienpest]

This was a great thread, I followed it with great interest, but it seems to have gone downhill fast! The discussion of varying viewpoints on the nature of syndicated content was helpful, but that seems to be over now.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by alienpest

This was a great thread, I followed it with great interest, but it seems to have gone downhill fast! The discussion of varying viewpoints on the nature of syndicated content was helpful, but that seems to be over now.

You can post your thoughts on a mods personal attempts a killing a good thread here Persoanl Attacks By Mods. On WPW

[LinksAndTraffic]

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?

Now we can return to our original topic in a positive way.

There is no evidence that Google directly penalizes articles that are reprinted elsewhere on the web.

Many people suggest that Google does, but in reality, they only penalize copies of the articles that do not have any of their own IBLs.

Any copy of the article that has its own IBLs, can appear in the google results, sometimes ahead of the original posting location.

Copies of the article that do not have any IBLs, frequently end up in Supplemental Listings. However, it must be noted that some of those Supplemental Listing pages will escape Supplemental Hell when they acquire their own documented IBLs.

[janeth]

Along with the duplicate content we have to keep in mind that the links and other information on our page can also help us rank.

For example, if you have a blog or site that shows the past post like this http://www.ranked1.net/blog/category...ne-wristbands/ (:

Then it will rank because it is only taking bits and pieces of each article. And I would think the content is now original and no longer has to compete against the original articles and it also adds more pages to our site and allows for more backlinks and more pr.

And since we are not showing the full article there are no outgoing links to the articles until we click on the link.

Did that make sense?

[alienpest]

Sometimes I use my blog to let people know that I have a new page or a new topic up on one of my sites. When I do, I will normally quote part of the page in the blog. I reiterate that Google, has no duplicate content penalty. It is only that one or the other of the pages will rank more highly than others. In most cases, 40 or 50 words of introduction, or explanatory notes will make it "original" to the search engines anyway. I have had the same article rank highly in three different places, with an emphasis on different key words and phrases. The latest technique for pruning a tree is of interests to both arborists, and "do it yourself" home owners. There is no reason for not having it in places where both groups could find it.

Even if the page doesn't rank well, it might still be of help to your users, and that will help you. If they come to your garden site, thinking that this type of site might have articles on tree pruning techniques, and find the article there, they stay on your site longer, and might even take a trip to your product pages.

Even pages that fall into Google Hell as it has been called, can be beneficial. I have seen this on long tail type things, where there may not be a lot of searches, but the ones that occur are targeted.

[LinksAndTraffic]

Originally Posted by janeth

Along with the duplicate content we have to keep in mind that the links and other information on our page can also help us rank.

For example, if you have a blog or site that shows the past post like this http://www.ranked1.net/blog/category...ne-wristbands/ (:

Then it will rank because it is only taking bits and pieces of each article. And I would think the content is now original and no longer has to compete against the original articles and it also adds more pages to our site and allows for more backlinks and more pr.

And since we are not showing the full article there are no outgoing links to the articles until we click on the link.

Did that make sense?

I will agree that this kind of linking can provide value back to your blog, if that link resides on a page that either has or will have some pagerank of its own (or more specifically, its own IBLs).

That page currently has a gray bar, but in the future, it might have a PR0 or even a PR4. The gray bar simply means that it has not yet been archived by Google, as of their last PR Toolbar update.

(PageRank actually has 12 ratings, gray bar and PR0 thru 10)

On the next Toolbar update, it might have a PR0 or better. But until it has its own pagerank, I don't believe the link offers any value in search engine marketing, although it can hold value for helping you gain clicks from real people.

Here is where the funny thing comes in. One cannot simply look at that page and say that it will never have any PageRank. The only observation that can be made is that it does not have any PageRank today.

As long as that page gains its own IBLs, from other pages with PageRank, at some point in the future, either from its own domain or freom a third-party domain, then the page will start registering some PageRank, which will make the links on that page useful in the SEM game.

I always try to keep in mind the concept of backbuilding links in order to influence PageRank.

I know that a page that links to me that has no PageRank does not offer much value in the Google game, but a page that does have now or, at some point in the future, will have in the future its own PageRank, will be able to offer SEM value to my site.

For example, if SiteProNews publishes one of my articles, that page holding my article needs to gain its own pagerank, and on SiteProNews, it usually does. Some of my articles published at SiteProNews.com have decent PageRank, so those pages are actually passing real PageRank over to my sites. For example, this one has a PR3. This one has a PR4.

It might be deceptive of me to call this "backbuilding" since I did not build any links to these particular pages. But links were built to those pages by people who seem to have appreciated the content of the articles.

When you are using articles as a method to strengthen your search engine placement, it really is important that the pages that house your articles will eventually gain PageRank of its own.

It does not matter how long it takes for the PageRank to build, but the more PageRank a page has, the more PR love juice it will be able to pass back to your website.