17 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
17 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Duplicate content question

by nick1123
14 replies
I am under the impression that duplicate content is not a huge factor in search engine rankings but I would like to find some supporting documentation.

Do you guys know any blogs or articles that support my idea that duplicate content is not a real issue? Or maybe I'm wrong about duplicate content.
#content #duplicate #question
  • Profile picture of the author Steve Holmes
    I don't now about any blogs I can point you to, but look.

    Duplicate content is actually syndicated content. You will never get penalised for having the same article that is on your website, on a micro blog or web 2.0 website.

    Google simply does not like having to "resort" to bringing in the same content in it's serps, but it WILL DO if there is nothing else of relevant authority and value.

    Look at CNN, BBC or similar - how many of these people actually create their own content? Much of it is the same story just rehashed with editorial over it - yet they are some of the most authorititive websites on the internet.

    Duplicate content can become an issue when you are trying to build traffic from creating great original content that you want people to spread for you, because it is worth spreading.

    It can be great for getting quick links but not for content, obviously.

    Sorry for no blog links but hope this helps, if even only slightly.
    Signature
    "Live like you'll die tomorrow, Learn like you'll live forever" - M. Ghandi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2842631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DomenicoGrecojr
    Nick,

    This article will answer your question.

    Google Busts the Duplicate Content Myth | WebProNews

    Yes..duplicate content is being over-reacted by many.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2842657].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Wow Nick...you've been a member here this long and haven't seen all the
      knock down drag-out threads on duplicate content?

      Bottom line: Duplicate content penalty is a myth. The only thing that will hurt you is if you take the same content and put it on various pages of the same
      site.

      Think about it logically. If duplicate content was an issue, why is it that
      when you look up just about anything online you see multiple copies of the
      same article at various web sites?

      Stop worrying about duplicate content and just attend to business.

      Here we go again. :confused:
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2842680].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post


        Bottom line: Duplicate content penalty is a myth. The only thing that will hurt you is if you take the same content and put it on various pages of the same
        site.
        Even that one's a myth unless way overdone.

        Lee
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844939].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dayanthan
          Well said Steven Wagenheim. You are right on the money in my view. It is sad that there are so many people out there, even on forums and article writers that are peddling this "duplicate content" myth. It just doesn't make any sense. How can a search engine penalise you because a piece of your content is on various sites? It would be super silly if they actually did.
          Spot on whoever said that people saying "duplicate content" (in this case) actually mean syndicated content.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2845270].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cindybidar
    Right from Google: 'There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty."' You can read the whole article here: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Demystifying the "duplicate content penalty"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2842689].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nick1123
      Originally Posted by Steve Holmes View Post

      I don't now about any blogs I can point you to, but look.

      Duplicate content is actually syndicated content. You will never get penalised for having the same article that is on your website, on a micro blog or web 2.0 website.
      That makes sense.

      Originally Posted by DomenicoGrecojr View Post

      Nick,

      This article will answer your question.

      Google Busts the Duplicate Content Myth | WebProNews

      Yes..duplicate content is being over-reacted by many.
      Thank you for the link.

      Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

      Wow Nick...you've been a member here this long and haven't seen all the
      knock down drag-out threads on duplicate content?
      In an effort to spend more time building my business I have drastically cut the amount of time I spend on the warrior forum. So I guess I haven't seen all the fights about duplicate content. And what you say makes perfect sense.

      Originally Posted by cindybidar View Post

      Right from Google: 'There's no such thing as a "duplicate content penalty."' You can read the whole article here: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Demystifying the "duplicate content penalty"
      That link was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much.
      Signature
      How to Rank #1 in Google [Step by Step SEO Instructions] - No email required
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2842720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggerHigh
    What would you rather have? 10,000 pages of original unique content? Or a scrape of an ezinearticles section? You should be able to work it out for yourself, because a search engine is trying to give you what you want
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2843078].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Brandon Tanner
      Another interesting paragraph from Google's blog...

      "Most search engines strive for a certain level of variety; they want to show you ten different results on a search results page, not ten different URLs that all have the same content. To this end, Google tries to filter out duplicate documents so that users experience less redundancy."

      Whether you call it a "penalty" or not, getting filtered out of Google's results is definitely not what you want!

      Personally speaking, I think a lot of it has to do with the niche. In certain niches, I can rank well quite easily by slapping nothing but syndicated content up on a site, with very few backlinks. And in other niches, it's hard to get a good ranking with quality original content, even with plenty of good backlinks. So it just depends.

      That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google started giving more and more weight to unique content (as opposed to syndicated content) in the future. That's why I focus more on creating good original content, than republishing syndicated content (although I think both activities can be profitable - at least for now - in certain niches).
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2843889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tyrus Antas
    If duplicate content was a problem, AP and Reuters
    would have been put out of business a long time ago.

    Tyrus
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2843915].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844502].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author davidjames42973
        I've found from my personal experience that adding duplicate content to your website is bad, but adding duplicate content to web 2.0 properties (blogs, article sites, etc.) is OK...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844517].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by davidjames42973 View Post

          I've found from my personal experience that adding duplicate content to your website is bad, but adding duplicate content to web 2.0 properties (blogs, article sites, etc.) is OK...
          That's because - if I may say so - as shown in the sentence above, you're using the words "duplicate content" to describe two entirely different things. It's not much of a criticism: most people do exactly that. But it makes these constant discussions confusing for some people who don't quite appreciate that that's what's routinely going on. On the other hand, if people referred only to duplicate content as "duplicate content", and to syndicated content as "syndicated content", we'd have quite a bit less to talk about.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844537].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            That's because - if I may say so - as shown in the sentence above, you're using the words "duplicate content" to describe two entirely different things. It's not much of a criticism: most people do exactly that. But it makes these constant discussions confusing for some people who don't quite appreciate that that's what's routinely going on. On the other hand, if people referred only to duplicate content as "duplicate content", and to syndicated content as "syndicated content", we'd have quite a bit less to talk about.
            Perhaps in such a scenario, WarriorForum would be repurposed as a virtual Alcoholics Anonymous meeting-place, as we'd all sit here, staring vacantly at empty threads whilst guzzling our favourite liquor to pass the time.

            Not that witnessing such frequently recurring discussions about the same, widely-believed, baseless online marketing myths doesn't drive me to drink excessively, anyway.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844685].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by DireStraits View Post

              Not that witnessing such frequently recurring discussions about the same, widely-believed, baseless online marketing myths doesn't drive me to drink excessively, anyway.
              No indeed. Nor me, Mr. Straits. Far from it ...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2844695].message }}

Trending Topics