Question

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by nlgordaz, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. #1
    These two websites: http://www.terrificpets.com/dog_breeds/Afghan_Hound.asp
    http://www.pupcity.com/dog-breeds/afghan-hound.asp
    have dub content. It appears the Pupcity site is taking it from the terrificpets site. Pup city even says on there site that the information is provided by terrificpets. Its only about four or five sentences that the pupcity site is dublicating but since there is not much other content on the pupcity site it is well over 70% dublicated. Both of these sites rank in the top 11 in G for their targeted keyword. Why hasn't a filter been imposed on one of them?
     
    nlgordaz, Jun 24, 2005 IP
  2. stymiee

    stymiee Peon

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    It could just be that the pages are considered different enough or Google just hasn't caught it yet.
     
    stymiee, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  3. jlawrence

    jlawrence Peon

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    81
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    different enough ??
    Just take a look at the source. There's a massive amount of difference.
    There's about 3 times the amount of source for the terrificpets page than the other one.
    When looking at dup content, I'm pretty sure that G takes both the content and html into account. Page layout can make a big difference to whether something is considered dup content.
     
    jlawrence, Jun 27, 2005 IP
  4. yfs1

    yfs1 User Title Not Found

    Messages:
    13,798
    Likes Received:
    922
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    I will second that. I can show duplicate articles indexed on literally hundreds of sites. They will never be dropped because Google doesn't view chunks of content as duplicate. Instead the entire page is taken into consideration.

    Using this knowledge you can rank very easily using "dup articles" if you surround them correctly ;)
     
    yfs1, Jun 27, 2005 IP