Not indexed or banned is not the same, if your site is banned you can use all the seo techniques you want but until you do not fix the problems that caused the ban and you dont do a reinclusion request your site remain banned.
I'm speechless, I was hoping that this weren't true. Instead of trying to figure out the paid links of a website, Google should concentrate more on a way to determine to whom an article really belongs to. There are just too many out there that unscrupulously steal articles and are able to manipulate the search results very easy by having a higher pagerank.
That seems pretty conclusive, although I'd be interested to know if this continues over the next few weeks. Thank you both for allowing this demonstration to go ahead. It's very generous of you both to expose your URL's to the the members here. On a personal note, I'm actually disappointed that sweetfunny seems to have won this round. I had hoped the Google index was more robust and would reward webmasters who've taken the time to develop a niche than larger sites that publish at their expense. I guess it just goes to prove in this case PR is king, not content, or have I got this wrong?
Don't worry i am too, trust me i don't want to be able to produce these results but the fact is Google just doesn't give regard to who had the document first. I started doing SEO in 1999 with AltaVista, so i've been dealing with Google's index "quirks" for a very long time. What sucks even more is my article is on a domain not even related to Martial Arts where the Ops is, so the links to my version of the document are not even remotely themed. Also i linked back to the Ops version of the document with the "Hey Google here is the Source". It sure will continue, if i really tried by hitting my page with a bit of off-page SEO and gathering backlinks/anchor text to it instead of relying on my own domains strength i will beat the Ops version for every possible query related to it. I could even make that single document beat the Ops whole domain for the search term "Martial Arts" which is what his site is all about all using not only his duplicate content but i used his exact source code as well.
Yes very true but you have ranked for the title of article 2 which is the one which lost all pr. You have shown that it it flawed though. Lets see how we progress on major engines out of the actual article 1 eg Martialarm Martial Arts Articles Yahoo Are the Martial Arts still under development? Yahoo martial arts articles of the various martialarts from all origins the martialarm - modern and historical articles Yahoo A martial art simply is any skill that is intrinsic in warfare. The word martial means "military." So historically, a martial art is a military art. The first things that usually come to mind when discussing modern fighting systems are leaping, kicking, punching, blocking, inverting elbows, twisting necks, throwing, and weapon fighting. But also horsemanship, javelin throwing, archery, spear fighting, halberd fighting, wrestling, knife fighting, rifle, shotgun, and pistol firing, demolitions, logistics, and battle strategy can all be described as the field of martial arts. Anything that a soldier might do in battle is a martial art. Yahoo So we can see how you compete against the article1 http://www.martialarm.com/martial-arts-articles/article1.html Here is the copy page http://www.tareeinternet.com/martial-arts-articles/article2.html ............................. We will also see how this DP thread ranks for these phrases. So lets keep it as simple and test the duplicate content ability of Google. The result will be I rank higher, rank lower, you are knocked out or my page is knocked out. The Article 2 page you mention has no PR and so lets see how article 1 goes. If you don't knock me out then lets go onto the next phase you mentioned in the PM
Yes, also just so people know what we are talking about.. The original article web 24 7 gave me, i put up briefly and he wanted to change it. Google indexed mine within no time before i had time to change it and beat his, showing what i said is indeed true as it was indexed on his site long before mine. So the second article on his site is a higher PR and Google hasn't cached my second article yet. My second article "should" beat this one too rolling under it's own steam, but if it doesn't a few decent backlinks/anchor text and it sure will.
Timeout Sweetfunny pulled a trick here He ranked better using quotations on a 5 word keyword phrase.. Give me a break!! this proves nothing other than someone can SEO for a phrase nobody uses to do a search. Hell my 12 year old could do better and she knows nothing about SEO....."yet" Hate to say it but this was a huge waste of time and webpages.
Did you even read, the OP changed the article he wanted to do this on and Google cached mine before i got a chance to change it. The results you see happened in just 10 hours from me uploading the page, where's your intelligence? But you are right, it is a waste because i know for a fact the conception or cache date of a document has no bearing on it's placement. So no need to get all antsy because you are wrong my friend.
My intelligence is the fact I can detect bullshit when I see it... and your proof is bullshit. A 5 word keyword term with quotes around it, proves you had a non competitive webpage indexed by a robot and placed online. Big Woop! Speaking of intelligence....to prove yours do it for a search term of importance. Two words or less not some lame 5 word term.....again your IQ is on the line. As for getting antsy.....not my style.
It was seven words and it was the heading of the article. The quotes around a string of text searches for an exact match, so my document ranking higher then the OPs shows Google is defining mine is more important than the original which is exaclt what this is about. I've quoted Google, SEOmoz, SearchengineGuide all confirming what i'm saying but you just don't get it do you? But of course, you know more about Google's index than Google does.
Ok Guys. This is not a pissing contest. But just seeing if my established pages are effected by an exact duplicate. There is nothing to say on it other than lets see what happens. Its not even a ranking contest because no keywords are targeted. I still think my articles 1 page will hold strong and given a few days we will see. The only change from the original deal is my page is not competing with a PR 7 site but an equivalent to my own so I dont think it will have the power to drop mine out at all. But lets see what happens to the links above.
Even without the quotatios, the PR7 website ranks no1 in my datacenter, while the original article is not to be found in the first 5 pages. Could it have been penalised for duplicate content?
The article 1 page is the one in test and you can check the links below. The article2 page was already NA PR for some reason and it has never been linked to from my homepage so less PR flow. The Article2 page is directly linked to from the homepage. It is still the top rank for all the links in google and yahoo. But as sweetfunny says he is not cached for that article yet. Lets give it the 48 hours from his upload of article2. And it is true that my page that was article2 which was ranking but had a NA PR now is knocked out of the SERPs by a SEO site not even in the martial arts field simply because he scrapped my site. So lets now see how a PR3 page fares
To see how this experiment progresses I have uploaded the following page http://www.omg-1.com/experiments/duplicate-knock-out.html We have current snap shots of the Google and Yahoo SERPs and will show the progress as it happens. Will the original page hold a high ranking Or can a non-themed higher PR site simply scrape a page and knock you out of the SERPs.
As I stated at the outset links can help initially. I think you still need to wait a full update to see where things are at that time. That Google is susceptible to links is nothing new. Anyone who thinks this is untrue need only read the threads here of webmasters titled "used to be front page, now on page 134" 24-7 you could counter this by sending quality links to your article, (again google can be fooled using links, sweetfunny proved it himself), due to the low competition level of the keyword term, you should see results in as quick a time frame. Will they last?.....that depends on Google and your patience to see your experiment through to full scoring. Here is why I doubt the taree site would last. http://www.th3g.com/RecreationSports/Advanced_Military_Technology_In_The_Martial_Arts_58063.html It is the # 2 result in your experiment and has no PR (Further proof the green toolbar ignot is useless). Sweetfunny has proven that PR is useless, so I, and hopefully 1,000s of other seo's & webmasters, thank you for that. I'll unsubscribe from the thread and leave you two to have fun.
Well this was not exactly a contest for hard to reach keywords, it was one article published on 2 sites. One had it published for a long time and the other had pagerank/authority, and this test proves that sweetandfunny is right, no doubt about it. I must say this was a nice experiment to follow, and I will continue to follow it with "article1" too. You just thought me something new, rep added to both of you, and anyone else who got somthing out of this shoudl add some rep to the guys!! Thx T
Yeah, rep added to both participants of this "experiment"! While the results have been very disappointing it just goes to show the power of PR. I look forward to any updates to this saga.... BTW Web 24 7, excellent article! I plan on trying this, step by step as you outlined, on a banned domain name that I recently purchased. Hopefully my results will be just as good!
Yes spot on, the terms are hardly competative it's just testing a concept. I honestly wish i wasn't right and Google handled this another way but it isn't the case. Here's another interesting one i've beaten the OP on: "Martial Arts Martialarm Articles" which is an exact quote from the article i copied and alot of his others as well. Which is interesting since his domain name contains the term "martialarm" plus his homepage title as well as alot of the sites 12,900 pages contain "Martialarm Martial Arts" in the title as well. Thanks for the reps everyone. My second article isn't cached yet, shouldn't be too much longer. I probably should of used a new URL because the site i'm using is super quick to cache new stuff, but because it's a very static site.. meaning when a page goes up it generally doesn't change Google takes a bit longer to re-crawl it.