So I have heard two sides of this story. Lets say you have an article that gets redistributed through other sites and those sites have the same content. You now have more links but they are from duplicate content pages. Does Google give you credit for each link or do you lose out because of the duplicate content? I personally believe you would lose out. At the same time I have my doubts though because of news sites that get duplicated all the time. What do you think?
As long your links are no pages which are indexed in google then those links will be of benefit to you.
I always think that when you search content on Google, the first website with the said duplicate content holds authority over the content against other website with the same duplicate content. This goes the same for the post stamp, or when was it indexed. If you own the content and have posted it, crawled by Google earlier than the duplicate posts then I think you have authority over it and does not receive any penalties from Google. As for gaining or losing credit, I think you'll neither get any of them. I think Google protects website owners from copycats who steal content. So it's null for me IMO.
The first being indexed with that content gains the high points towards ranking, but of course those sites that have greater authority has higher chance to get ranked...
No. Its possible that many websites copy a content from a news website . So its not relating to that news website and Google doesn't penalized that website. But the page who has been indexed for the first time, will considered as original and others considered as copy.
Agree, copied news content are not 'usually' penalised UNLESS there is a referring link to the original post/content. Credit or Source.
I believe Google is capable to recognize the original from copy.. if your worrying on the links from the dup, its ok as long as no link connection from your site going to the dup site. not a big deal.
First, Google is not able to recognize the original from copy. Even a human, looking at two different websites with the same article, is not able to recognize this. Second, the duplicate content penalty has been omitted by Google a year ago, already, when they changed their infrastructure to efficiently cope with duplicates. But you are still discussing this. Third, the major discussion point should be, indeed, the rankings. My observations show that it is nearly impossible to rank high with duplicate content taken from other sites. On the other side, if your content will be taken by some serious players like WP, they will be higher than your site in SERP for the phrases from the article. Weird situation here. Solely happens due to multiple parameters in the ranking algo, where the most important one - backlink profile of a website.
Here is how i see things: 1. Yes, the links from duplicate content are helping you, and yes, they help you less than if it was from unique content. 2. It is not necessary that google shows the original content, that other copy from. Here is how Google thinks: We will show the BEST page of all duplicate pages. That is all they think about. How to show the best page to the user. If someone copies one page and then get many backlinks, more than you, I think he will rank better. But if everybody that copies from you links back to you, then it is easier to beat them in ranking