I Allowed Another Website to Copy My Article - But How Did They Outrank Me?

[Louie Sioco]

Hi Warriors,

A few weeks ago, I was sent a letter asking if their company can repost my article on their website.

I agreed since my article was already indexed about a month ago, and they promised to credit me as the author. Now, I typed the exact title of the article in Google.

And to my surprise, the article isn't even on page 1-3. The copied article was on the top spot of Google. Even Digg beat me. How could that be? Google has a duplicate content filter.

The article is Protect Yourself from Tire Kickers

Not really a money site, just an article I wrote on my blog.

But if I type 'How to Protect Yourself from Tire Kickers.' Mine seems to be on top of the SERPS.

Weird.

Can anyone explain how this may have happened?

[bobcarlsjr]

different meta tags for the article to rank for they keyword? did you include "protect yourself from tire kickers" in the meta tags your own website?

[lrdc]

Domain age maybe ?

[bobcarlsjr]

just did a quick check on google.. i think i see the problem.. i think the site in question you are talking about is wykweb?

anyway, their onpage seo optimization is as good as it gets.. everything is there.

the link from google to your article however.. doesn't even point to your article.. it points to your website's sitemap.xml......... u better check through your website..

[bobcarlsjr]

for the phase "How to Protect Yourself from Tire Kickers." however, the link from google is to your ACTUAL article and not your sitemap.xml..

[Kung Fu Backlinks]

What you've begun is content syndication. Sounds like you've only allowed the one site to do it. Google is seeing only one reprint of your article, so there isn't a lot of authority being generated for your there. Their entire site is being seen as the better info source. I'd experiment with the following:

1. Syndicate that identical post to as many places as you can, including pdf sharing. Make sure your link is in each posting - I would link directly to the article and your root domain. Add in an embedded video and image when possible, having a clear link from the image and the youtube video to your root domain and article. Ping them.

2. I'd then bookmark the article on your own site. You can even later bookmark the article on other blogs if your control them. You should also look into retweets and facebook sharing of your article.

3. If that didn't do the trick, I'd see about doing the same to other related articles on your site. Eventually, you'll start to look like the authority.

This is pretty much what I do for my sites and it works wonders.

Hope that helps.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by bobcarlsjr

different meta tags for the article to rank for they keyword? did you include "protect yourself from tire kickers" in the meta tags your own website?

I checked, and realized that I was still a bit new on SEO when I wrote the article. I noticed that it didn't have the meta description for that keyword but the other website also didn't have a meta description. They only have meta keywords, which is not even used by Google.

But isn't it weird that they would outrank your for something you wrote a few months ago? It's verbatim btw. Except for the title.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by lrdc

Domain age maybe ?

Most probably not. DA isn't a big factor when it comes to these things.

Originally Posted by bobcarlsjr

just did a quick check on google.. i think i see the problem.. i think the site in question you are talking about is wykweb?

anyway, their onpage seo optimization is as good as it gets.. everything is there.

the link from google to your article however.. doesn't even point to your article.. it points to your website's sitemap.xml......... u better check through your website..

Yeah that's weird. I didn't know much about SEO when I wrote it. After I learned about SEO, I was a bit lazy to revise my onpage optimization. Maybe I should optimize that particular article.

But I was wondering how it's possible. Google always claims that content is king. But in this case, it's not king because the other site outranked me.

Originally Posted by bobcarlsjr

for the phase "How to Protect Yourself from Tire Kickers." however, the link from google is to your ACTUAL article and not your sitemap.xml..

I found that weird as well.

Originally Posted by Kung Fu Backlinks

What you've begun is content syndication. Sounds like you've only allowed the one site to do it. Google is seeing only one reprint of your article, so there isn't a lot of authority being generated for your there. Their entire site is being seen as the better info source. I'd experiment with the following:

1. Syndicate that identical post to as many places as you can, including pdf sharing. Make sure your link is in each posting - I would link directly to the article and your root domain. Add in an embedded video and image when possible, having a clear link from the image and the youtube video to your root domain and article. Ping them.

2. I'd then bookmark the article on your own site. You can even later bookmark the article on other blogs if your control them. You should also look into retweets and facebook sharing of your article.

3. If that didn't do the trick, I'd see about doing the same to other related articles on your site. Eventually, you'll start to look like the authority.

This is pretty much what I do for my sites and it works wonders.

Hope that helps.

That's a very nice experiment that I'd like to try.

[iAmNameLess]

Not weird at all. I have an article directory for testing using 100% duplicate content. Google doesn't care about duplicate content, regardless of what you nuts might believe.. what they care about is relevant content. If duplicate content is something that gets filtered out, how would news websites exist and rank well?

Anyway... they out SEOd you, thats all there really is to it. It isn't a conspiracy, no one is out to get you, you aren't punished by the big G... you just got out SEOd.

[Louie Sioco]

The biggest question that's been bothering me though is how is it possible that a copied content can outrank the original content.

Google has preventive measures for this. Don't they?

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

Most probably not. DA isn't a big factor when it comes to these things.

I have to disagree... I think domain age is probably one of the more overlooked factors. What about PR of the home page? What about backlinks TO the article? Maybe your on page SEO is lousy. There are a ton of possibilities.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

Not weird at all. I have an article directory for testing using 100% duplicate content. Google doesn't care about duplicate content, regardless of what you nuts might believe.. what they care about is relevant content. If duplicate content is something that gets filtered out, how would news websites exist and rank well?

Anyway... they out SEOd you, thats all there really is to it. It isn't a conspiracy, no one is out to get you, you aren't punished by the big G... you just got out SEOd.

First of all, I'm aware about the duplicate content myth. But there is something called the duplicate content filter (it's in Article Samurai's webinar.)

It's easy to say that I've been SEO'd because I didn't know SEO when I wrote the article.

But my question is HOW did I get SEO'd. What particular SEO factor was used to outrank me.

Of course it isn't a conspiracy, and I know that Google isn't out to get me. This is all for educational purposes my friend

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

The biggest question that's been bothering me though is how is it possible that a copied content can outrank the original content.

Google has preventive measures for this. Don't they?

No they do not. They are perfectly fine with syndicated content. Happens all the time. Look at all the news sites posting the exact same articles from the Associated Press.

The site in question just did a far better SEO job.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

I have to disagree... I think domain age is probably one of the more overlooked factors. What about PR of the home page? What about backlinks TO the article? Maybe your on page SEO is lousy. There are a ton of possibilities.

DA does play a part in SEO. But in this case, the content is copied the weight is on the content isn't it?

Both pages are PR0. The other domain is PR3, while mine is PR1.

OnPage SEO is probably lousy, I just checked it lol. But I also checked the other site. They don't even have a meta description.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

No they do not. They are perfectly fine with syndicated content. Happens all the time. Look at all the news sites posting the exact same articles from the Associated Press.

The site in question just did a far better SEO job.

I agree. But would you happen to know which particular part?

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

But I also checked the other site. They don't even have a meta description.

The meta description plays basically no role in SEO in Google.

I always build pages without the meta description. So does Wikipedia. There's a good reason for that.

[DynaPass]

IMO, age is a part of the algorithm that cannot be duplicated and is an exponential factor. It is not everything but when push comes to shove it does have a lot to do with PR and how internal linking passes it. PR comes with age, not from age but with it.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by DynaPass

PR comes with age, not from age but with it.

I'm sorry, but no. Age might affect a site's rankings. It has nothing to do with PageRank. PR is a measure of the quality of incoming links. Nothing to do with age, content, etc.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

The meta description plays basically no role in SEO in Google.

I always build pages without the meta description. So does Wikipedia. There's a good reason for that.

Google sometimes uses meta description, and in some cases they use the content itself. Matt Cutts confirms this.

What's a good reason for not having a meta description? I don't think I've heard of this one before. Do tell MikeFriedman. I'm interested in knowing

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

DA does play a part in SEO. But in this case, the content is copied the weight is on the content isn't it?

Both pages are PR0. The other domain is PR3, while mine is PR1.

OnPage SEO is probably lousy, I just checked it lol. But I also checked the other site. They don't even have a meta description.

No, the original content doesn't get additional points. The other domain being a PR3, likely is able to get more flow to the page your article is on.

BTW, marketsamauri is great and everything, but don't believe every source and every product out there that says something is true. There are many theories out there, best to just test it all for yourself before believing what people think they might know.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by DynaPass

IMO, age is a part of the algorithm that cannot be duplicated and is an exponential factor. It is not everything but when push comes to shove it does have a lot to do with PR and how internal linking passes it. PR comes with age, not from age but with it.

PR doesn't come with age (but age helps). It comes depending on the authority and the relevancy of your website.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

DA does play a part in SEO. But in this case, the content is copied the weight is on the content isn't it?

I disagree. My testing has shown me that Domain age is not a factor, however age in index is.

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

Both pages are PR0. The other domain is PR3, while mine is PR1.

You cannot see the real PageRank, it is not displayed. You can only see "toolbar" PR which is a snapshot taken at some point in the past.

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

OnPage SEO is probably lousy, I just checked it lol. But I also checked the other site. They don't even have a meta description.

From my experience it is always the page with the highest relevancy score that ranks the highest and the only time the PR is a factor is when the relevancy score is equal.

Meta description is not a ranking factor for Google. So the fact that they have no meta description does not directly effect the relevancy score of their page.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

No, the original content doesn't get additional points. The other domain being a PR3, likely is able to get more flow to the page your article is on.

BTW, marketsamauri is great and everything, but don't believe every source and every product out there that says something is true. There are many theories out there, best to just test it all for yourself before believing what people think they might know.

I have tested it out myself. I run an autoblog (and Google hates it. But Yahoo and Bing doesn't think so)

I know that there are many theories out there, but Market Samurai's webinar does make a lot of sense.

If you search for 'protect yourself from tire kickers,' would you like to have thousands of results having the exact same content?

It's true that Google won't sandbox or penalize your site. But it will send your site to farther pages. Thus, Google's duplicate content filter.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

Google sometimes uses meta description, and in some cases they use the content itself. Matt Cutts confirms this.

What's a good reason for not having a meta description? I don't think I've heard of this one before. Do tell MikeFriedman. I'm interested in knowing

Google pretty much ignores the meta description when it comes to rankings. In fact, they will often override what a webmaster has put there and use what their algorithm feels is more relevant to the search being performed.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

Thus, Google's duplicate content filter.

This has nothing to do with duplicate content. It is not duplicate content in Google's eyes.

[Louie Sioco]

@dburk

I disagree. My testing has shown me that Domain age is not a factor, however age in index is.

I won't argue. I don't really look at DA when it comes to competition.

The age of my site in the index is older. But why'd it get outranked?

You cannot see the real PageRank, it is not displayed. You can only see "toolbar" PR which is a snapshot taken at some point in the past.

True since PR is only updated 3-4 times per year (most of the time, the true PR is invisible). But Google just recently updated it's PR (today I believe). So it's pretty accurate.

From my experience it is always the page with the highest relevancy score that ranks the highest and the only time the PR is a factor is when the relevancy score is equal.

So, are you saying that the site's Domain PR is main reason why my site was outrank? Would that mean that if they copied all my articles, they would rank higher than me?

They only changed the title. If you type 'how to protect yourself from tire kickers.' I still get the top spot.

You think the title plays a big role in this?

Meta description is not a ranking factor for Google. So the fact that they have no meta description does not directly effect the relevancy score of their page.

It's not directly a ranking factor. But relevancy is part of their ranking factors. Meta description sometimes is part of relevancy.

But yeah, I see your point.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

This has nothing to do with duplicate content. It is not duplicate content in Google's eyes.

But then, how would you explain the example that people would have a thousand results for the same article?

[yukon]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Google pretty much ignores the meta description when it comes to rankings. In fact, they will often override what a webmaster has put there and use what their algorithm feels is more relevant to the search being performed.

Exactly!

OP, If you skip the meta-description tag, Google will customize the SERP description based on the exact search phrase, not just the phrase you think delivers traffic.

This puts the most optimized SERP description directly in front of the traffics eyes.

Then you can get into some really cool things called jump-links, like what wikipedia does for most of their ranked pages. This takes the custom SERP description to a whole new level. With jump-links you can basically create a bunch of relevant text snippets per page & also get an extra hyperlink inside the SERP description.

Beats a single meta-description tag any day of the week.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

But then, how would you explain the example that people would have a thousand results for the same article?

Stuff like that happens.

There was one niche I was once involved in that I had the same article taking 17 of the top 30 spots in the SERP. It was the exact same article on different sites.

As far as Google is concerned, duplicate content is the same content appearing excessively on the same domain.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by yukon

Exactly!

OP, If you skip the meta-description tag, Google will customize the SERP description based on the exact search phrase, not just the phrase you think delivers traffic.

This puts the most optimized SERP description directly in front of the traffics eyes.

Then you can get into some really cool things called jump-links, like what wikipedia does for most of their ranked pages. This takes the custom SERP description to a whole new level. With jump-links you can basically create a bunch of relevant text snippets per page & also get an extra hyperlink inside the SERP description.

Beats a single meta-description tag any day of the week.

Now that you've mentioned it. I think I'll skip the meta description for my other articles, and see what works.

[Louie Sioco]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Stuff like that happens.

There was one niche I was once involved in that I had the same article taking 17 of the top 30 spots in the SERP. It was the exact same article on different sites.

As far as Google is concerned, duplicate content is the same content appearing excessively on the same domain.

Interesting, now that you've revealed your results. Would you mind sharing how you outrank the other sites? Maybe the method you used is the same method used in this situation.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

@dburk

True since PR is only updated 3-4 times per year (most of the time, the true PR is invisible). But Google just recently updated it's PR (today I believe). So it's pretty accurate.

Hi Louie,

I guess it depends on what you mean by accurate. Real PR is much more granular than what is displayed in the toolbar 10/x display. Real PR includes what would have to be represented by fractional values, which obviously isn't displayed on the toolbar data. Toolbar data is far from precise, while real PR is very precise. So, while you see a toolbar displaying 10/0 the real PR may actually be 0.16528, and your competitor might have real PR of 0.37659.

From my experience it is always the page with the highest relevancy score that ranks the highest and the only time the PR is a factor is when the relevancy score is equal.

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

So, are you saying that the site's Domain PR is main reason why my site was outrank? Would that mean that if they copied all my articles, they would rank higher than me?

No, I am not saying that. Google ranks based primarily on relevancy score. PR would only play a role in a situation where 2 pages have the exact same relevancy score.

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

They only changed the title. If you type 'how to protect yourself from tire kickers.' I still get the top spot.

You think the title plays a big role in this?

Yes, the page title is probably the single most prominent relevancy signal of all of the on page elements.

Originally Posted by Louie Sioco

Meta description is not a ranking factor for Google. So the fact that they have no meta description does not directly effect the relevancy score of their page.

It's not directly a ranking factor. But relevancy is part of their ranking factors. Meta description sometimes is part of relevancy.

But yeah, I see your point.

The meta tags play no direct role in ranking pages for Google. One could argue that there is an indirect role that influences CTRs on the SERP, which could indirectly influence ranking.

[Louie Sioco]

@dburk

Cool. That most probably answered my main question.

[bobcarlsjr]

u guys have to understand that seo is not just about 1 thing at a time.. google looks at the WHOLE picture to rank a site, that's why it's called an algorithm.

yes, you have the original content, you posted first.. but IF google rank pages like that (example):

content: 40%
domain age: 10%
pr: 10%
backlinks: 20%
onpage seo: 20%

then you get the full 40 marks for content.. but the other site gets 60 marks.. so they will still outrank you.

above % figures and criterias are just an example, not to be confused for google's algorithm