Duplicate Content Issues

[subhzash]

Hi All,

Can anyone tell how to protect my content from others. My website content has been copied by some other website owner and now that website is listing in top position.

Please suggest me how to protect my content.?
How search engine solve duplicate content issues?

I believe that content which is published first in web will be considered as original. Is I am correct??

Thanks in advance for your reply


Regards
Subhzash

[tushar123]

I guess this would solve your problem, Google Report a Spam Result

Cheers!

[kgun]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Hi All,

Can anyone tell how to protect my content from others. My website content has been copied by some other website owner and now that website is listing in top position.

The Google spam report may solve a part of the problem.

Originally Posted by subhzash

I believe that content which is published first in web will be considered as original. Is I am correct??

What about this: Activeminds Blog - A New Search Engine Approach - February 18th 2007

[inertia]

I always figured that if they picked it up on your site first then the copier will get the penalty?

[GlowHost.com]

Maybe a plagiarism warning banner from these guys would help a little?

Copyscape - Website Plagiarism Search - Web Site Content Copyright Protection

I find people using our content all the time with this tool.

[naz]

Originally Posted by inertia

I always figured that if they picked it up on your site first then the copier will get the penalty?

I have always thought the same.. If I am writing an article for syndication I always put it on my site first for at least a month before I submit it. Has worked for me as far as I can tell. Perhaps if the site that stole it has better ranking, gets spidered more etc it will sometimes win. Which sucks!
I would definately tell Google and send a cease and desist letter to the site owner then a DMCA report to their host if they won't remove it.

[halfmexi]

Last year we found a new site that stole our new Spanish translated SEO page and they made it into a 7 page site - word for word. Luckily after a few emails back and forth with their ISP we finally got them to remove the information within a week.

We were lucky that the ISP didn't want any trouble... the violators told their ISP they were just testing their site and weren't going to keep any of the pilfered content (unless they didn't get caught probably).

Anyway their site was crawling up the Google ranks - doesn't matter if your content is online first, sometimes the bots decide how to rank it - we were one page, they were an entire site, that could have given them a weight advantage with Google.

Does anybody know if this is fact?

BIL

[advancedmerchant]

There was another thread on this last Wednesday, - 70378-another-website-has-copied-my-content.html,
another one the Wednesday before that - 70158-hijacking-other-sites-traffic-content.html

Maybe you should have waited unttil Wednesday to post this (just kidding)

SEO responded with a code snippet that can help:

Originally Posted by SEO

I had a website hijacked a few years ago (2 websites actually)...

One of them displayed my site within a frame on their site and displayed their Google Adsense code above all of my pages. A code very similar to the one you have posted above helped me with that problem (although by the time I figured it out it was too late, the damage had been done).

I also had somebody else doing a 302 meta refresh to one of my websites.

I found some helpful information on these pages:
Stop 302 Redirects and Scrapers from Hijacking Web Page PR - Page Rank
How to Find a Hijacker using 302 Redirects and Report Them
How to Report a 302 Redirect or Web Page Hijackings and Scapers
How to Stop Content Theft
How to Find a Scraper Directory and Report them to Google

For a "break out of frames script" such as the one mentioned by 'advancedmerchant' look here:
I Hate Frames

Or here is a good one:
<script type="text/javascript">
if(top!= self) top.location.href = self.location.href
</script>

I hope this helps... I know how disheartening it can be when some mongrel hijacks your website.

[deepsand]

Perhaps WPW needs to establish specific forums for certain subjects, such as Plagarism, so that these already asked & answered questions are not repeatedly re-asked.

Also, the editors of the daily e-letter really do need to stop featuring the same subjects ad nauseum.

[ron angel]

There is a not too nice way but revengeful way of dealing with this sort of thing which just might work.... a long time ago somebody was linking to a picture on a site I had and using all my bandwidth.
I asked them to stop but they refused my requests. I noted from my site logs that this picture was viewed a lot at a certain time of day.
I replaced the picture on my site with a hard core porn one renamed to the same name, just legal at the time, after removing the link to it from my site on odd days at the relevant times. I think he got the message (probably from his site users as well ) after a week he no longer linked to it.
comming to the point an updated way of doing this for those with the programming knowledge would be to embed script into the pages of similar type that is used by google & others to change adds remotely on the target site. If the page & source code were copied exactly they might not notice your extra inactivated code until that is the porn or whatever stuff came up in the middle of the page when turned on & off from your end.I am not sure exactly how to do it but I am sure somebody will. It is not possible to do this maliciously to an innocent site as they would have to have taken your page with the code in it & put on their site for it to work.Of course I am not suggesting that anybody should do this for one minute its just an academic thought....

[deepsand]

Firstly, by so doing, you also caused that image to be displayed to those visitors that you considered to be legitimate, thus self-disparaging your site.

Secondly, by placing that image online, and not restricting access to it, you gave implied permission to all to view it.

The better solution here would have been to devise a method of controlling access to said image.

[ron angel]

"you also caused that image to be displayed to those visitors that you considered to be legitimate, thus self-disparaging your site."

Not quite....
"after removing the link to it from my site on odd days at the relevant times".
so while it was porn it was not linked from my site....
"Secondly, by placing that image online, and not restricting access to it, you gave implied permission to all to view it"
I politely asked the site owner at the time not to link to it more than once but was ignored.

[pattayabridge]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Hi All,

Can anyone tell how to protect my content from others. My website content has been copied by some other website owner and now that website is listing in top position.

Please suggest me how to protect my content.?
How search engine solve duplicate content issues?

I believe that content which is published first in web will be considered as original. Is I am correct??

Thanks in advance for your reply


Regards
Subhzash

You asked three questions:-
1) How to protect content. Generally text can be copied, but you can put in some "no right click here" code to stop rictures being copied and to stop people accessing your HTML and thus getting the address of your pictures. I have installed this code on most of the pages of my site.
2) As others have suggested, complain to Google.
3) My understanding is that it is not necessarily the first site to have the information that automatically gets priority in Google - it may well be the site with the greater PR.

pattayabridge - Pattaya Bridge Club, Thailand

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ron angel

"you also caused that image to be displayed to those visitors that you considered to be legitimate, thus self-disparaging your site."

Not quite....
"after removing the link to it from my site on odd days at the relevant times".
so while it was porn it was not linked from my site....

In which case you inconvenienced those users who wished to view that image.

Originally Posted by ron angel

"Secondly, by placing that image online, and not restricting access to it, you gave implied permission to all to view it"
I politely asked the site owner at the time not to link to it more than once but was ignored.

Still, allowing unrestricted public access to an online resource constitutes implied consent.

While I am not here defending the action, or lack thereof, on the part of another, you must realize that the burden lies with you to sequester resources that you do not wish to share with all.

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by deepsand

In which case you inconvenienced those users who wished to view that image.


Still, allowing unrestricted public access to an online resource constitutes implied consent.

While I am not here defending the action, or lack thereof, on the part of another, you must realize that the burden lies with you to sequester resources that you do not wish to share with all.

That was about 3 years ago or more when bandwidth in the uk was very expensive now anybody can link to ( and a lot do) to anything they like on my current site they want to,also I think it helps my seo rating.

[subhzash]

Thanks all for suggestions. From all the above posts i can say that content can be protected by these ways

1. Installing "no right click" code
2. Other publishing statement like"This content is protected my copyspace"
3. If some one copies then we can complaint to google as well as to ISP


Anything more. Please suggest me


Regards
Subhzash

[subhzash]

Can anyone tell me how to check my local content(without publishing in net) is unique?? Is there any tools??

[ron angel]

[QUOTE=pattayabridge;384135]You asked three questions:-
1) How to protect content. Generally text can be copied, but you can put in some "no right click here" code to stop rictures being copied and to stop people accessing your HTML and thus getting the address of your pictures. I have installed this code on most of the pages of my site.

That will not stop somebody who understands even a small amount of how to make a web page. I have wanted to save a picture or send a link by email of its location for personal use in the past on sites with pages set in this way. no problem to save page to hard drive or find it in cache files or whatever then open with html editor or program like front page to have access to the necessary code.
unless you have found a foolproof way. If you have, put link to page
on here & I will attempt to get code as will everybody that sees link!

[erikko]

Originally Posted by GlowHost.com

Maybe a plagiarism warning banner from these guys would help a little?

Copyscape - Website Plagiarism Search - Web Site Content Copyright Protection

I find people using our content all the time with this tool.

i have that but that isn't sufficient enough that's why i put some javascript that disables right click

[inertia]

Originally Posted by ron angel

There is a not too nice way but revengeful way of dealing with this sort of thing which just might work.... a long time ago somebody was linking to a picture on a site I had and using all my bandwidth.
I asked them to stop but they refused my requests. I noted from my site logs that this picture was viewed a lot at a certain time of day.
I replaced the picture on my site with a hard core porn one renamed to the same name, just legal at the time, after removing the link to it from my site on odd days at the relevant times. I think he got the message (probably from his site users as well ) after a week he no longer linked to it.

Hee hee! Quality! Whether you disagree with this "prank" or not i think it's pretty damn funny!

You can use htaccess to stop people linking to your images.

[sofomor]

on a funny note, the solution to your problem!

FLASH

Thank you

[janeth]

Originally Posted by subhzash

I believe that content which is published first in web will be considered as original. Is I am correct??

The site with the most and best backlinks will show up first.

[inertia]

Originally Posted by janeth

The site with the most and best backlinks will show up first.

So if i copy one of your blog posts and get more links to my version then mine will out rank yours? Wont mine just be supplementalised because i stole from a page that had been cached previously?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by inertia

So if i copy one of your blog posts and get more links to my version then mine will out rank yours? Wont mine just be supplementalised because i stole from a page that had been cached previously?

Nope.

I've seen it happen over and over again.

I'll pm you.

[sheena]

Thanks for the suggestion. I think there is no solution for duplicate content and even you installed a code or complaint it to google, duplicate content is still there. I believe that there is no such things as original content and all the content we made is came from other site but still we are the one to control from copying it from other site.

Originally Posted by subhzash

Thanks all for suggestions. From all the above posts i can say that content can be protected by these ways

1. Installing "no right click" code
2. Other publishing statement like"This content is protected my copyspace"
3. If some one copies then we can complaint to google as well as to ISP


Anything more. Please suggest me


Regards
Subhzash

[Tolis]

Hi All

Does anyone know any tool that will check my site to discover the duplicate description on my web pages?
I see that Goolge finds some pages with duplicate description but it takes time to check every page

[advancedmerchant]

I am STILL Laughing at ron angel's swapping the stolen image to porn to get them to stop stealing! What a teriffic idea! You just redirect YOUR pages to the correct and renamed graphic, and replace the old one with hard-core!

I think this is a FANTASTIC way to pay back copycatters!

I take exception to deepsand's statement, that by publishing it, you give implied consent to copy: "allowing unrestricted public access to an online resource constitutes implied consent." TELL THAT TO GETTY IMAGES. There is a whole thread on how they chase after anyone who uses their thumbnails - 56384-invoiced-getty-images-unlawful-use-images.html

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Tolis

Hi All

Does anyone know any tool that will check my site to discover the duplicate description on my web pages?
I see that Goolge finds some pages with duplicate description but it takes time to check every page

Use Copyscape - Website Plagiarism Search - Web Site Content Copyright Protection

[Tolis]

Thank you janeth but this is not what I am looking for. I want to check the duplicate description in my site itself

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by Tolis

Thank you janeth but this is not what I am looking for. I want to check the duplicate description in my site itself

Just find a unique line of text from page on your site & put in google or other search engine as "find exact text"

[crankydave]

While the pron image may have been one way, changing the image to an "advertisement" for you can also be rather interesting.

I had a few images that were being hotlinked from "private" myspace profiles. Lots of hits and bandwith. I simply changed them to an advertisement for me and the hotlinks got removed real quick. One of them that decided to be "stubborn" about it ended up with a monstrous image that took a forever to load advertising me.

Dave

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by crankydave

While the pron image may have been one way, changing the image to an "advertisement" for you can also be rather interesting.

I had a few images that were being hotlinked from "private" myspace profiles. Lots of hits and bandwith. I simply changed them to an advertisement for me and the hotlinks got removed real quick. One of them that decided to be "stubborn" about it ended up with a monstrous image that took a forever to load advertising me.

Dave

You reminded me with this post, a guy was advertising on ebay and
linked to a picture of the same thing on my site in 4 different adds!
this time I put my website address across the bottom of the picture
as you did. ebay removed his account! did not effect me as I do not have ebay account.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ron angel

You reminded me with this post, a guy was advertising on ebay and
linked to a picture of the same thing on my site in 4 different adds!
this time I put my website address across the bottom of the picture
as you did. ebay removed his account! did not effect me as I do not have ebay account.

And you may have gotten some targeted traffic out of the deal.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Add in your robots.txt the following rules, to prevent your site from being indexed by the most popular content theft bot:

User-agent: Bitacle bot/1.1
Disallow: /

User-agent: Bitacle bot
Disallow: /

User-agent: Bitacle *
Disallow: /

User-agent: Bitacle*
Disallow: /

User-agent: Bitacle
Disallow: /

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

While the pron image may have been one way, changing the image to an "advertisement" for you can also be rather interesting.

I had a few images that were being hotlinked from "private" myspace profiles. Lots of hits and bandwith. I simply changed them to an advertisement for me and the hotlinks got removed real quick. One of them that decided to be "stubborn" about it ended up with a monstrous image that took a forever to load advertising me.

Dave

But you still can stop that adding in your htaccess file:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^http://(.+\.)?myspace\.com/ [NC,OR]
RewriteRule .*\.(jpe?g|gif|bmp|png)$ /images/nohotlink.jpe [L]

or can display a 403 Forbidden error code instead of an image. Replace the last line above with this line:

RewriteRule .*\.(jpe?g|gif|bmp|png)$ - [F]

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by crankydave

And you may have gotten some targeted traffic out of the deal.

Dave

As you seem to appreciate my way of doing things here is how a character (we will call him mad hacker x) would go about things
written in the guise of my alter ego of writer see:
The EMU Files for some of similar stuff....
first he would copy the pictures from the website he wanted to use place on a usb stick. get a hooded jacket & pair of dark sunglasses go to an internet cafe being careful not to bump into things due to the glasses & making sure he did not draw attention to himself. pay at the counter in cash while speaking with a foreign (to the country he was in) open a free picture hosting account with false details, upload the pictures,then clear the cashed files on the browser. leave the cafe by rear fire exit after pretending to use toilet where he could change into different coloured jacket & glasses.return home ( we will leave out the bit about how he gets home as you have got the idea) then all he has to do is link to the pictures without anybody knowing.
bruvver (emufiles)

[crankydave]

LOL @ Ron

@John...

Thanx John. Actually, some were sending me converting traffic so I didn't want to prevent them all.

BTW... Doesn't that method serve different content to the bots than the visitors? Cloaking?

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by crankydave

BTW... Doesn't that method serve different content to the bots than the visitors? Cloaking?

Dave

Cloaking? That does not sound good at all.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

LOL @ Ron

@John...

BTW... Doesn't that method serve different content to the bots than the visitors? Cloaking?

No David. It just disables hotlinking.

Here is some info what hotlinking is: What is Hotlinking? Bandwidth Theft? Stop Hotlinking and test your Hotlink Protection with our Hotlink Checker from altlab.com.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Cloaking? That does not sound good at all.

Cloacking is not necessarily always bad. The Long Road To The Debate Over "White Hat Cloaking"
But I never had the need to cloak.

[crankydave]

Thanx again John.

I didn't, and still don't want to disable hotlinking altogether. Hell, I even hotlink to my own images. Sometimes it serves my purpose. It's when it doesn't I get "creative".

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Thanx again John.

I didn't, and still don't want to disable hotlinking altogether. Hell, I even hotlink to my own images. Sometimes it serves my purpose. It's when it doesn't I get "creative".

Dave

Gotcha Dave. Good point. As far you do not have any problems with that, its ok.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by advancedmerchant

I am STILL Laughing at ron angel's swapping the stolen image to porn to get them to stop stealing! What a teriffic idea! You just redirect YOUR pages to the correct and renamed graphic, and replace the old one with hard-core!

I think this is a FANTASTIC way to pay back copycatters!

I take exception to deepsand's statement, that by publishing it, you give implied consent to copy: "allowing unrestricted public access to an online resource constitutes implied consent." TELL THAT TO GETTY IMAGES. There is a whole thread on how they chase after anyone who uses their thumbnails - 56384-invoiced-getty-images-unlawful-use-images.html

In the case at hand, the image in question was not "used," but merely linked to; that's a distinction with a legal difference.

To be "used," within the present content, the image would need to have been copied.

The link, on the other hand, merely allowed users to look at the original image, in a manner precisely identical to that employed by the owner. Where such link appeared is irrelevant, as the results are materially identical.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Thanks all for suggestions. From all the above posts i can say that content can be protected by these ways

1. Installing "no right click" code
Subhzash

I would strongly advise against arbitrarily blocking all "right-click" functions; many of them are of no potential detriment to the goal of protecting page content, but are of great value to the use. I cannot begin to count the number of times that I have been hampered to the point of exasperation owing to such benign functions having been rendered unavailable.

Rather, I would suggest that you examine the "right-click" functions provide by each browser, test for the browser being used, and block only those specific functions which are of concern to you.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

In the case at hand, the image in question was not "used," but merely linked to; that's a distinction with a legal difference.

To be "used," within the present content, the image would need to have been copied.

The link, on the other hand, merely allowed users to look at the original image, in a manner precisely identical to that employed by the owner. Where such link appeared is irrelevant, as the results are materially identical.

Not exactly correct.

It is considered, legally, as bandwidth theft. Illegal.

In the case of copywrited material, doesn't make a difference of how the material is delivered (ie hotlink), without permission, illegal.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Not exactly correct.

It is considered, legally, as bandwidth theft. Illegal.

In the case of copywrited material, doesn't make a difference of how the material is delivered (ie hotlink), without permission, illegal.

Dave

While it may be possible to make a case for "theft of services," depending on the jurisdiction, and the extent to which 1) the plaintiff suffered economic loss, and 2) whether or not he were able to and did take measures to mitigate such loss, that is quite a different matter from whether or not permission to access is present.

Under US Law - the mileage of others may vary - the Internet is deemed to be a public space, such that, just as in a physical public space, there can be no reasonable expectation of not being seen or heard. That material may or may not be copyright protected is immaterial.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

While it may be possible to make a case for "theft of services," depending on the jurisdiction, and the extent to which 1) the plaintiff suffered economic loss, and 2) whether or not he were able to and did take measures to mitigate such loss, that is quite a different matter from whether or not permission to access is present.

Under US Law - the mileage of others may vary - the Internet is deemed to be a public space, such that, just as in a physical public space, there can be no reasonable expectation of not being seen or heard. That material may or may not be copyright protected is immaterial.

In any jurisdiction, "theft" is theft. Not hard to make a case.

Copyright law is another matter altogether.

Note: None of my comments are intended to be legal advice.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by crankydave

In any jurisdiction, "theft" is theft. Not hard to make a case.

Copyright law is another matter altogether.

Note: None of my comments are intended to be legal advice.

Dave

Is it really that simple?

How does the link in question differ from any other IBL? What differentiates an "allowable" IBL from an "unallowable" one?

Carried to conclusion, does not your contention render every IBL "theft?"

As such conclusion is presumably not your intent, then must it not clearly be the case that each such dispute stand on its own merits, and be resolved according to the specific facts & legal jurisdiction?

[DONtk]

There is a web site you can check out it's called /www.copyscape.com I just found it the other day supposed to be pretty reliable. They were written up in the Wall Street Journal and several other newspapers like Business Week and the Boston Globe. Look good to me.


DON
San Francisco, the city made for discovering, over & over again!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Is it really that simple?

How does the link in question differ from any other IBL? What differentiates an "allowable" IBL from an "unallowable" one?

Carried to conclusion, does not your contention render every IBL "theft?"

As such conclusion is presumably not your intent, then must it not clearly be the case that each such dispute stand on its own merits, and be resolved according to the specific facts & legal jurisdiction?

"Every" IBL, as you put it, does not serve additional content on the site where it resides. They do not steal bandwidth simply by the page being viewed.

Dave