Exactly! It would be better for us if the crap sites were gone. I welcome this change. All my sites have unique and updated content.
Do you guys feel difference between "copy content" and "duplicated content"? What about synonyms in the articles? Will they really kill autoblogs? If so, how G can identify them? And one more question - are they going to ban those sites or just not to rank them high (if so, links from such sites will work...)?
When will it actually create an impact, I still see all the websites ranking on the same, I mean sites that takes other people news and put it.
I think that change would definitely be for good. It's a good thing that they are no on the move against copycats.
That can happen and does happen. Earlier Matt Cutts himself had indirectly suggested that the page with more backlinks gets a preference in SERPs. Other experts also have the same view: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algorithm-change-launched/#comment-708640
i dont think this will have too much of an impact unless you are running autoblogs / many dupe sites etc. I think this is a good move.
I doubt VERY seriously the date of the post as anything to do with determining original vs. duplicate. That would be so easy to manipulate. MOST content does not even have a "post date". That is a phenomenon that exists pretty much w/ blogs and forums... not traditional content. And if I did have a blog, all I would have to do is scrape content off of an original site, login to my VPS or dedicated server, set the server time back to before the original site posted it, post the content on the blog... and suddenly I'm the originator. Using post date as a determining factor is about as useful as using a meta keywords element to determine for which keywords the page's content is relevant. They are going after all the crappy autoblogs and such that never write original content and instead mashup content from other sites. These sites 99.999% of the time provide no value to the visitor and are only used to generate adsense revenue. Caffeine allowed them to index more of the web and faster. Unfortunately much of the "more of the web" was total crap. I think its a great move by Google to remove those sites who provide very little or no original content from their index. Once again... a great move on Google's part!
"And if I did have a blog, all I would have to do is scrape content off of an original site, login to my VPS or dedicated server, set the server time back to before the original site posted it, post the content on the blog" I'm sure Google would go by when their crawlers found the article, not the blogs timestamp. Otherwise good argument
I’ve noticed people doing this as well. I’ve seen alot of people using autoblogging scripts/plugins to scrap portions of peoples articles from article directories and combining them to make unique content. This gets annoying when they’re outranking original content. Hopefully this Algo change will help..
I like this step. This is necessary for remove spam content. This may be bad for those who are copying other content and just pasting them. I just waiting for change the site performance after this algo changed.
Google is making an attempt to stop splogs (spam blogs). Perhaps, one of the determining factors will be the ration of unique content to duplicate content. Your site won't be punished for having duplicate content, if the ratio stays within Google's parameters. Think about it... blogs were designed to be social/news/informational sites. It's not uncommon for an authority blog to post someone's article or video. It's the nature of social interaction, sharing and critiquing information within your niche or community to get feedback and create social buzz. I'm not associated with Google, but I believe if you keep a ratio of 70/30 (70% unique/30% duplicate) your site will be fine. Now do keep in, the duplicate may not show up in the SERPs. This is the real problem Google wants to stop.