I see a designer using ALL the same CONTENT on every site he installs and just replaces their business name! Although he came up with the content and he is the designer......wouldnt this STILL be bad with Google and other search engines by being duplicate content and remove him from the engine? Or would the search engines not care since no one is complaining and that he is the designer and copywriter?
It sounds like that designer is doing his customers a serious injustice. If you pay for content, you should get content. And not something that is just reused over and over. To answer your question, yes - I think google will probably give those sites a penalty for duplicate content.
Duplicate content is a complete myth. It's just been bandied around so much that near everyone believes it to be true and companies seeing this opportunity have designed and provided tools to seek it out, taking full advantage that everyone believes this to be true. No, Google will not penalise a site for this. Of course, if you are the original writer of any content, it's not very good when you see someone using your content, benefitting only themselves, rather selfishly I might add. The least they could do, although this isn't mandatory by any means is to provide a link back to the original writer, citing that individual as the source of the material. At the end of the day, google wants to know if your website is actually providing a worthwhile use to other people, that is the long and short of it. With this case in point, take the myriad of news sites out there on the internet. Many of these use duplicated content provided by companies such as Reuters News Agency. Other websites use these news items often, many, many thousands of times every single day, yet they do not get penalised by Google or the other couple of major search engines. By the provision of giving their readers a useful service and ultimately, content, they are able to do this without fear of being punished for this activity. On a sidenote, of course if you are the original writer, the copyright does automatically belong to you whether or not you choose to use the copyright symbol. You could if you chose to be completely pedantic, sue the individual taking your content without your permission, however in real life practice, how many small time website owners are going to go down this route, not many I suspect. You just have to learn to live with it I'm afraid, although it's not unreasonable to drop the rewriter of the copyright theft material, an email asking them to credit you for the words taken, without your permission, if you can prove that the content is/was yours in the beginning.
Are you sure? Because actually, if you think about it, you don't see syndicated content (including pages on newspaper's sites featuring wire stories) popping up in the serps that often. It's the sources, those to break a story first, or those that rewrite stories in their own style (eg TMZ) that show in the serps. Those newspaper pages that do show up a lot in the serps are those showing stories written by the staff of that particular newspaper. So while it may not get your site banned, it sure does seem to trigger a filter which supresses the duplicate content.
duplicate content is always a major problem. it depends how much of the content on the page is dupliacte though. If it is a few paragraphs of identical text but the rest is unique content then it shouldn't be a problem but if there are huge swathes of text being used then google will penalise it
The flash game site in my sig has around 11,000 pages of duplicate content (only thing that is different is the javascript include for flv files) almost /no/ relevent text per page. The front page has unique content (and lots of it) (images mostly) The main page seems unaffected by the other duplicate content of the site (it holds at a pr 2 through natural link building method, all and all spent maybe an hour on it) Not really an answer to your question....just my personal experience.
I'm sorry, but this point is a complete myth. You can check it. If you have page which has some top position in SEPR, try to create the duplicate in your own site, and then see what will happen with the original page's position. It'll get down.
Friend,let me return the question to you. Are you sure? If you do a Google search for "news", Google News is #1 and Yahoo close behind. Both of these are nothing but a collection of syndicated news stories from other sources. I'm not sure if this counts but seems many of the other news organizations get most of their stories from the Associated Press, Reuters or other news agencies. I'm pretty sure Google and Yahoo dont have staff writers and reporter writing breaking stories. I think if you look at all the content across the entire web only a small percentage will be truly unique. @tokipost: I'm a bit confused. Isn't the designers job to design the web site and the site's owner is responsible for the content? I can see a designer duplicating websites/templates and perhaps some initial content but seems it's really up to the owner to develop their own "unique" content.
Duplicate content on your own site, not good. Duplicate content from other sites, perfectly ok. For more detailed discussions on this subject, check out the search function at the WarriorForum, simply type in: Duplicate Content Myth Or read this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-in...ssion-forum/40559-shocking-just-ploy-not.html