Non-original content and XFactor's Authority Course - How does Googel view this?

[Diver Doug]

Hi all,

I just had a look at XFactor's latest course and I'm cautiously impressed with it. However, with regards to posts and pages, I noticed on his Tea website that many of the posts are simply articles written by other people. Mind you, John is definitely not trying to pass them off as his own, as the original author is given full credit, including his original links. But this is what is puzzling me.

I thought that the whole idea on how to get into Google's good books was to post original content that can't be found anywhere else. So how would Google view his site, as the articles are obviously not original? Does that hurt the rankings, or doesn't it matter?

I'd love to know, because I could save myself a lot of time! ;-)

regards,

Diver D

[thebitbotdotcom]

It depends on how much Google trusts your site. There can be a thousand copies of an article on the web, but the one that will get ranked is the one sitting on the site that Google trusts the most. More often than not, your site will not be trusted as much as someone else's displaying the article, so your copy simply doesn't show up in the results. BUT, that being said, if you have a one and only original and Google feels that it is the best match for a query through it's on and off page SEO, then you have leverage.

Personally, I feel that methods built around duplicate content are a bit misleading. Ranking and showing up in search results is not simply a numbers game as many would have you believe. There is method to the madness and those who know how to leverage original content are the ones who benefit.

[Ed H]

I'm only about 80% through the book, but John has been very clear so far that you should only use original and quality content for these authority sites. I have not seen a reference to re-using content or PLR.

The tea site he is showing is just a sample site (is it even real?) he threw together for screenshots in the book, so I'm sure he just pasted existing articles in there.

[bfas]

Use original content. Use original content. Use original content.

Outsourced content qualifies if you are the only recipient.

Well-spun content qualifies.

Use original content.

Michael

[jtpada]

Seeing that original content has a higher value than copied one by default .... your vote ought to go to original content fabrication.

[InitialEffort]

I have built websites using both and have been successful with both. The deal is it comes down to how much Google trusts your website and how many backlinks you have to the page and domain.

If it is unique this is usually better than PLR/Spun/Copied articles. This does not mean that you can't make PLR/Spun/Copied articles rank. I have found that it seems to be slightly more difficult.