Duplicate Content - Dispel the myth!

I agree. All the content you keep on your site the better. You don't want to link build and you want to content build so the links come in by themselves. This is the best way. you deserve rep.

 

Exactly and if anyone did - we wouldn't have 2,343,983 article sites, 3,452,823 directories and 1,938,231 rss-to-html feeds on the net!

 

So I guess one has to decide whether he/she would prefer traffic from article backlinks or traffic from the search engines.

What do you think about putting the original article up on your website and then rewording a few others to make them each unique and then submitting them to the directories?

 

I don't usually do that. I usually have my content and then write another totaly different for other sites. Rewording can be detected by google and google will still filter out which it sees as dup content. However If you have a article on your site and all the article directories have it as well with the link pointing to your page Google will know you were the creator and yours is the original. That doesn't mean the others won't get indexed.

 

Well just since I was in the neighborhood, it is NOT A PENALTY. It is part of the retrieval aspect of the system. So it is actually a ‘filter’ not a ‘penalty’. There is a difference…

Anyways, there was an interesting tidbit in a recent Google Patent ( if it’s in use or not, who knows) that I thought I would add;

Dealing with Duplicate content – from the patent ‘Phrase-based searching in an information retrieval system’

Just for fun…. Carry on

 

Your right. I accidentally use them interchangeably at times which isn't good as it throws the wrong opinion out.

 

I agree that vocabulary should be as accurate as possible but it might as well be a penalty if your page is just going to fall into the "the rest are duplicates so you don't want to see them anyway" search result.

Wow, was that an awkward sentence or what.

 

Well there is a difference. Penalties can be long lasting and so can filters but usually a filter is caused by a specific thing which if fixed the filter is usually lifted.

 

In simplest terms..it is FILTERING the returned results... NOT penalyzing a PAGE or SITE... get it?

It is merely a part of the document indexing and retrieval process... I would advise everyone to hunker down with some Google patents and learn more about Search Engineering...it will do you far more good than hanging around witing for PR updates (ugh)

 

LMAO ... oh yah, I've heard of those famous PR updates that do all sorts of wonders for yah!!!!

 

Try though I might, the Cult of PR is alive and well... who cares about ranking and traffic...

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=1136514#post1136514

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=155289&page=3

I have tried... but it never goes away... Oh well... as long as my competitors (and my clients) are chasing PR... I should be happy... since I am chasing RANKINGS... go figure... ugh

 

well, i have seen the pages don't go away. some do go supplemental and come back out. some never do go supplemental. but like ive said on other forums, there's only about 40 or so sites that really matter in the three big SE's. as far as the G! webmaster tools goes, it can tell what words are in the links pointing to pages in my sites and it includes every last keyword ive targeted. just wain't for the next update to what unfolds.

so the links do count, just some more than others but the best way to to it is rewrite the article.

and as far as dup content goes, it means to copy a whole site, html and all. this was what was happeneing to all those affiliate urls outranking the original site. that's the real meaning of dup content that and a whole site being copied like stated before and getting deindexed. that's plagarisim and this is what copysacpe is for and only for. copyscape isn't for checking dup content penalty cause it takes exact html code from what ive seen

the only reasons a page is supplemental is not cause it has the same text, but because of lack of links, for within or inbound from other sites or it's burried way too deep in the site, which is what happens to most articles anyways

 

I don’t believe that Google or any other SE penalizes a site if there is duplicate content. The reason is this, 2 years ago I bought a site, and some of its pages were articles taken from other sites some even without the bio from the author. The previous owner of the site just added content to his site without worries about copyright issues.

One of the articles was “What is the difference between windows hosting and Unix” and this page was getting a 1 or 2 clicks a day from Google for searches in that context. This site was about 1 year old at the time, and the article was written by the webmaster of a much older and reputable site then the one I bought, but Google was listing both sites on the same page and one above the other on its search results.

So from this experience and other I don’t really believe there is a penalty for duplicate content. But yes, I also don’t think that submitting your articles to article directories will help you much, some years ago, when articles was not so in fashion, it is true, some article writing could really help, it gave the author credibility and a good article was shared among webmasters. Now if you post an article on a directory, no one reads it, you don’t even expect it to be read, you just want the link back, so writing and posting on a directory is quite futile.

If you want a good link, go to a site which has articles, check for an article which needs refreshing, ask the webmaster if he is interested on rewriting the article, if he likes your writing he might replace the old version of the article with your version. This is a win-win situation, he gets fresh content and you get a link from a page that was already there.

This will be the future of linkage, and there is already some websites working as brokers on this field.

I will post this with some revison on my Blog!

 

i agree with m ost of what you say. like i said, there is a right way to go about and think about alll of this and it goes like this:

article marketing = vistors now, backlinks later.

 

I appreciate your contribution here, Quebec. What a creative idea. What if you go to a website you like (one that will provide a good backlink for you) and offer to write a good free article (instead of rewriting an old one).

 

I disagree.

While this may have worked before when writing articles on a website meant knowing html code or writing for somebody that posted your articles on their website, it doesn't hold much weight now that my grandma could write an article and send it into cyberspace. Blogging has changed everything. Anybody can write a great article, but getting anybody to see the article may be the hard part.

I think many people under estimate the power of a link.

I hear over and over again that "content is king", but have you ever had greatly written articles posted on a web site with no inbound links? You may get 1 or 2 hits from people stumbling upon your domain but you won't get any hits from the search engines.

The fact is that the "google bot" flows through links like electricity flows through an electrical cord. Just like electricity finds less resistance through a larger cord so to will the google bot find less resistence indexing your site the larger the link structure you have across the web. It is only logical.

Also, how would it benifit a search engine to penalize duplicate articles. Doesn't a good article pretty much get quoted over and over again anyway on news sites and blogs? And you can't tell me that publishing your original content on your site first will mean it will have more weight in the SE's than a more established authority site.

OK, so you post your article on 100 article directories and a month later you check your links and only 10 show up as being indexed by google. This doesn't mean you are getting some sort of penalty or even that the other sites have been filtered out because of duplicate content. Check those pages that didn't show up on your backlinks and you will usually will find these pages in and of themselves have no weight to them. How could they show up as linking to your site when they can't even get fully indexed because they themselves don't have enough page rank?

 

Welcome to DP, Scottybro.

 

For one site I specially focused on article marketing. Submitted 4 articles to 300 article repositories.

Did nothing else then it. Right now the position is that Yahoo is really really loving that site. Google has also started loving a bit. While MSN traffic has dropped.

 

The advantage really is that your article will appear on a well established site, and the page were you put the article is even old, so it is like you getting a link from an authority site.

 

I thought that might be it. It is the URL address, then, that is the thing of value, right? domain.com/oldarticle.htm The service you would provide would be a refreshed article with updated facts/reviews and you would get a backlink from an old page...that's an awesome idea. I'm giving you rep.