Duplicate content doesn't exsist?

[pinaar]

I have read many times here that duplicate content is a myth and article directories are there for the sole purpose of distributing content. All this makes sense to me as there is just no way every piece of content out there can be original, of course more than one directory is going to carry the same content at some point. I've also heard people say that they publish content to their site and then post the exact same content to Ezine.

That said why is it that both Ezine and Street have rejected my articles giving the reason as duplicate content especially between the two, if Ezine pick it up on Street or vice versa they reject the article out of hand for duplicate. They can't really expect people to put content on their sites and their sites only what difference does it make if they are the first, fifth or fiftieth to put the content up?

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by pinaar

I have read many times here that duplicate content is a myth

Not correct, I'm afraid: duplicate content does exist, but the term "duplicate content" refers to multiple copies of the same text within one domain. Some people confuse this with "syndicated content", which refers to other copies of the same text on other sites. This little article explains the difference very clearly: Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All | Internet Marketing and Publishing

Originally Posted by pinaar

and article directories are there for the sole purpose of distributing content.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody can dispute this one. This little thread (see especially posts #2 and #6) summarises how article directories work: How do Article Directories work?

Originally Posted by pinaar

I've also heard people say that they publish content to their site and then post the exact same content to Ezine.

Yes, indeed: everyone using any form of article marketing at all ought to do that, rather than the converse. All 1,600+ of my articles in EZA were originally published and indexed on one of my own sites, then syndicated to various other places, and then eventually submitted unchanged to EZA. In this long thread, many of the forum's successful, professional, experienced article marketers explain in detail all their shared reasons for doing that: Article on site or EZA first ?

Originally Posted by pinaar

That said why is it that both Ezine and Street have rejected my articles giving the reason as duplicate content especially between the two, if Ezine pick it up on Street or vice versa they reject the article out of hand for duplicate.

Regarding "Street Articles": it's not an article directory. They won't accept a previously published article (wherever it's been published online).

Regarding EZA: "duplicate content", to them, just as to the rest of us, including Google, and as explained above, means "text duplicated within one site". EZA don't want material duplicated within their own site, just as you or I wouldn't want that within your site or mine. I can't guarantee this without seeing some of your articles, obviously, but I suspect that what you've submitted to them is too similar to something already in their database, and that's why they won't accept it. They certainly don't care where else it's been published before (as long as author name/pen-name is the same, obviously, otherwise they'll imagine it might be stolen content, which they rightly won't touch).

Does that help?

[payment proof]

Duplicate Content surely does exist.

I've seen lots of copied content out there.

And how many news sites run the exact same duplicate article from Associated Press?

and if I do this:

Duplicate Content surely does exist.

I've seen lots of copied content out there.

And how many news sites run the exact same duplicate article from Associated Press?

I just duplicated my own post content.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by payment proof

I've seen lots of copied content out there.

Syndicated content isn't duplicate content, PP.

This will help you: Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All | Internet Marketing and Publishing

[CyberSEO]

Duplicated content is not a myth. You have to spin it wisely, to avoid Panda hammer.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Duplicated content is not a myth. You have to spin it wisely, to avoid Panda hammer.

This is completely wrong.

Google's ongoing Panda updates have absolutely nothing to do with "duplicate content" at all, and they have no adverse implications for article marketers which can be avoided by "spinning" your articles.

Article Marketing: is the spin really necessary?

Quit spinning your damn articles

[packerfan]

Alexa, your patience amazes me. By BP rises by 100 points each time I see one of these threads. And every time you politely straighten everyone out.

Kuddos to you!

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Google's ongoing Panda updates have absolutely nothing to do with "duplicate content" at all

Actually, they do:

"The recent "Panda" change tackles the difficult task of algorithmically assessing website quality."

"These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality."

"Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"

There's more... Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: More guidance on building high-quality sites

[payment proof]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Google's ongoing Panda updates have absolutely nothing to do with "duplicate content" at all, and they have no adverse implications for article marketers

Hmmm. Article sites like Associated Content took a huge hit from Panda. At least that's what I've read and I've also seen many posts by other Article Writers saying the same.

[essex14]

Seomoz put out a good article about this today....Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz

Originally Posted by essex14

Seomoz put out a good article about this today....Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz

That's a terrific link, which should help clear up tons of confusion... in particular, section (17) regarding Syndicated Content. I see a lot of article marketers here who still defend this channel as a viable promotion strategy. Guess they'll have to learn the hard way.

[Talen]

Alexa, some people will never get it and most of the replies in this thread are proof of that.

[Doiron]

The interesting thing here is interpretation of the written word.

The article - Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz - has been offered as evidence that we should all be scared of duplicate content, when, in fact, it supports Alexa's position.

It's a long article so maybe we can understand how some people might get mixed up with it.

Thanks Alexa for once again clearing this issue up.

[down]

Alexa, you provide great explanation and source. Thanks for that.