Automated blog

Does it affect ur ranking and etc if u hv an automated blog which receives data from rss?

 

In that scenario your posts would just be full of duplicate content. The search engines would not index those duplicate content pages. If you have too much duplicate content, Google may penalize your website. Your serps will likely suffere from not having enough unique content.

 

well said vansterdam, much of the information on the net regarding dynamic content is out of date and inaccurate.... stay away from rss feeds

 

Wow! I am always surprised at how many people have such bad advice to offer and how many people are willing to second the bad advice.

Okay. Here is the deal. I study this stuff weekly, by observing real life examples. I need to so that I can better serve my seo clients.

Having an RSS feed can positively affect your search rankings, but it is only temporary. You might have that special phrase on your website that people are looking for, and you can have that as a result of that rss feed running on your site. But, since most rss feeds cycle out within just a few days, that thing people were looking for may no longer be on your site when the visitor arrives at your site.

I see Google approved backlinks listed in my Google Webmaster tools that are the result of RSS feeds running on other sites. So as a rss feed provider, I do see a positive result in Google's search algorithms as the result of an rss feed on someone else's site. Once again, it is only a temporary benefit, rather than a long term benefit, since the actual urls in the links are always changing.

And to the question of rss feeds being treated as duplicate content - bull. Google does record the title listings on your site, and it gives the owner of the link in the rss feed the link value, albeit temporarily, since the links shown today will not be shown a week from now. That does not enter into a duplicate content issue at all. They are simply links, not content, so there would be no duplicate content issues.

Even if there were a duplicate content issue, it would be for the RSS provider, rather than the person running the feed. And for duplicate content to be a factor, we are making a stretch in assuming that all content in all feeds are duplicate content to begin with. If you want to point links at only non-duplicated content, then you only need to be a bit more selective in the RSS feeds you accept. Some sites only publish unique content not posted anywhere else. But if you are only linking to those pages, that does not negatively affect you.

Then there is the fact that the Duplicate Content Penalty as most people advertise it is a myth!

The Duplicate Content issue is not concerned with multiple copies of an article on multiple sites. If that were the case, CNN would be in a world of hurt, since CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other news sites generally buy a large number of the stories they publish from content groups like the AP (Associated Press) and UPI (United Press International).

Google does not negate duplicate content when spidering, nor do they discount any story that has been duplicated elsewhere. Instead, they ignore duplicate copies that have earned no pagerank. And pagerank is solely determined by the number and value of links pointing to a specific page. So if an article is on one hundred websites and a dozen of those copies have inbound links to them, then google is only going to give pagerank value to 12 of the 100 copies of an article.

The real scope of the duplicate content issue within google is simply a desire to only show one copy of an article in their search results. But even if they really do this, they do not do it very well. I can show an example if you really care to see the proof. Just PM me.

You know. If duplicate content where really a penalty as everyone describes it, I would have been out of business a long time ago. But I still have thousands of keywords in the top ten and top twenty results of Google.

In the end, if you choose to continue believing in a duplicate content penalty myth that is your business.

But so long as you and others continue to believe in the duplicate content penalty myth, me and others who know that it is a myth will continue to see great success, without having to invest the same level of time and effort as you do.

So if you want to keep on living in the dark, then please do so. It will make my job that much easier. And while you are at it, you should probably spend your extra financial resources searching for Bigfoot. That will also be beneficial to me, because you won't have money left to compete with me on a level playing field.

 

LinksAndTraffic

nice insight, many thanks!!

 

Just be clear on the motive behind starting on a auto-blog, some options below.
1. MFA blog
2. Backlinks for money sites ?

 

This is kind of correct - while there may be no actual penalty, the rss dupe content *won't help*.

Here's a good free starter guide to autoblogging - autoblogging 101

 

That was a wonderful read...LinksAndTraffic....it surely cleared a lot of dusty air!

Regards,

RightMan

 

surely, ranking will effect because duplicate content can not rank high in search engines

 

You can believe that if you want, but I know better.

 

If your site contains nothing but duplicate content don't expect to rank high in Google for any keywords.
Not to mention the fact that you won't be able to run AdSense and will receive tons of complains.

 

Well, getting duplicate content is one thing but getting it legaly is another. On almost every writen article on the internet there is copyright. In most cases, like with rss feeds, you'll have to provide a link back to the official owner to use their content. This thus gives an extra backlink to the owner and will require you to get one more... And then as your pagerank increases, so will the vote to the original article. This becomes an endless spiral in my belief and is never worth it.

You could however use articles released under the commonlicense or cheat and not provide a backlink.

 

Okay. Well, you had better tell Google that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, since they don't seem to operate for me in the way you suggest.

I have thousands of page one and page two listings in Google for all kinds of keywords, and a lot of those rankings are on pages that contain duplicate content.

Interestingly, 90% of the content on most of my sites are duplicate content and my pages still rank well in Google. So you had better get on the horn and tell the Google engineers that they are doing it wrong, so that they can get their algos fixed.

Oh yeah, did I mention that they have no problem with me running Adsense on my sites?

Did I also mention that people love most of my sites? Complaints are few.

p.s. All articles on my sites are copyrighted by myself or third-parties, and all articles carry links to the author's website. (And most of the articles we use are released under the Creative Commons licensing.)



Today is a great day, because I have learned something new.

I have learned today that:

• You guys are right;
• I am wrong; and
• Google isn't working correctly, since their search engine operates differently than gurus such as yourself suggest.

 

There are ways to make them permanent (the affect). For example take an existing feed you want to place on your website, create a new feed of it on a website like yahoo pipes, or rss-feeds.info, or dapper.net, etc, then add that feed to your website.

Because you created a new permanent feed (based on another feed) it will be a static feed, and won't change, so the results are permanent.

Of course the downside is the content is not changing so they are little more than static links.

I have a plugin I developed that takes a range of static rss-feeds and cycles through them a few times per week, so the content is changing but all the links are to sites I choose.

This has worked well for me for many years.

Yep, agreed, I have LOTS of duplicate content all over the Internet and never have a problem ranking!

I would say that some people find it easier to accept (that there is a duplicate content penalty), rather than admit their promotional effects are lacking, sad but true!

A few years ago if I am honest with myself, I was in that boat. Now I know better, from personal experience, not because some *guru* told me

You made some excellent points here.

Cheers



Tim

 

Do a search for "Declaration of Independence" and see what you get.

Pretty sure the top 5-10 listings are all duplicate content.

I need a beer...

 

doh. This has been covered so many times. Those of you bleating about how 'I rank high with duplicate content' are ranking high DESPITE IT, not BECAUSE OF IT'. And as the search engines get better, competitors come along, your chances of maintaining that ranking start to decline. It's not rocket science - just have a think about it! Right now, if you are correct in your assertion, YOUR sites are the 'favored' sites. And the other 10 mill you compete against AREN'T.

So what you are basically saying is 'I won the lottery, so everyone can win the lottery', which is plainly silly.

At the risk of boring everyone else, here you go, once again, Duplicate content myth explained in simple terms

 

You'll need to recycle the data to get SEO leverage.

 

Correct Bob. And that's a very good way of describing it - it's a "green" process of 'recycling' in order not to waste anything. Well said!

 

I don't care a damn i got a soccer blog its automated after ranks on number 2 after every match.