19 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
19 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Question about hubapages,ezinearticles etc..

by mandos123
16 replies
Hello,

Sorry for such a stupid question, but can I add article that is already published and indexed on my site to ezinearticles or hubpages? As far as I know it should be OK, but then again, none of the sites allow duplicate content.

So whats the deal?
#ezinearticles #hubapages #question
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by mandos123 View Post

    can I add article that is already published and indexed on my site to ezinearticles or hubpages?
    You can to Ezine Articles, because that's an article directory, and article directories don't require previously unpublished content (and you certainly shouldn't give them any, either).

    HubPages isn't an article directory, and you'll need to check their terms of service (I suspect that you can't do that there, but I may be mistaken, and personally I recommend avoiding that site anyway, for a few other reasons).

    Originally Posted by mandos123 View Post

    As far as I know it should be OK, but then again, none of the sites allow duplicate content.
    This isn't duplicate content. It's syndicated content.

    The difference is explained here: Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing Blog

    Here are two threads which will explain the whole thing to you ...

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...marketing.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887748].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post



      This isn't duplicate content. It's syndicated content.
      Yet Google treats duplicate content on the same site pretty much the same as it does duplicate content on multiple domains.

      Google also uses a duplicate content filter on multiple domains, pretty much the same way it does for duplicate content on the same domain. Google doesn't call it the "Syndicated Content Filter", it's a duplicate content filter and it doesn't discriminate because content is "syndicated".

      In Google's eyes, there's really not much difference in the way it sees duplicate content on the same domain vs on multiple domains. If it believes dupe content on the same domain isn't attempting to fool them, they merely pick one version to list in their index and ignore the other copy/copies.

      The Warrior Forum is a good example, as each thread also has a "printer friendly" duplicate version, which is simply ignored by Google.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887789].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Yet Google treats duplicate content on the same site pretty much the same as it does duplicate content on multiple domains.
        This is completely wrong.

        It was completely wrong when you first used to say it three years ago, it's been completely wrong when you've occasionally said it in-between, and it's still completely wrong now. As a hundred or so Warriors have pointed out to you, over that time.

        Google goes to great lengths, in fact, to clarify to people the enormous and significant differences between duplicate content and syndicated content. As an ever-increasing number of Warriors successfully building our businesses and making our livings through article syndication are well aware.

        Hence, also, all the threads and comments here like this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

        And this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

        Please excuse the observation that even by your standards of trying to "challenge" or otherwise detract from as much of what I say as you possibly can, pretty entertaining though your comments often are, this one is surely scraping the barrel a bit, even for a quiet Wednesday evening?!

        Have a good week, Kurt: try to relax a little and don't worry too much about the large and increasing numbers of successful content syndicators here and the reasons all those Google updates always seem to work out in our favor.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887882].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          This is completely wrong.

          It was completely wrong when you first used to say it three years ago, it's been completely wrong when you've occasionally said it in-between, and it's still completely wrong now. As a hundred or so Warriors have pointed out to you, over that time.

          Google goes to great lengths, in fact, to clarify to people the enormous and significant differences between duplicate content and syndicated content. As an ever-increasing number of Warriors successfully building our businesses and making our livings through article syndication are well aware.

          Hence, also, all the threads and comments here like this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

          And this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

          Please excuse the observation that even by your standards of trying to "challenge" or otherwise detract from as much of what I say as you possibly can, pretty entertaining though your comments often are, this one is surely scraping the barrel a bit, even for a quiet Wednesday evening?!

          Have a good week, Kurt: try to relax a little and don't worry too much about the large and increasing numbers of successful content syndicators here.
          I have never checked those threads before as i'm not into syndicating content myself, i've got my hands in more then enough pies without it, profitable though it is if done correctly.

          However, what's clear to me here is that Rod Cortez has stated in a number of posts that he's spoken to Google's engineers about article syndication and that they accept and respect those that syndicate properly and don't write junk or spun content.

          Thus, i'm at a loss why here and in one of those threads Alexa points to here that you (I.E. Kurt) argue so strongly about it? As for your questions i'm sure the likes of Alexa, Joe and Rod could answer them. However, Rod has heard it straight from the horses mouth so to speak I really don't see what you disagree with!

          What am I missing Alexa et al?

          Joel
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887967].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Joel Ross View Post

            What am I missing Alexa et al?
            Please excuse a lack of "proper reply" from me, Joel ... I just prefer to discuss the internet marketing issues, rather than the personalities.

            Other than by observing that there are people (elsewhere, too, not just here) who, for a variety of different reasons, some commercial and some emotional, would like "beginning internet marketers" to have a very different view of duplicate content from the reality, I couldn't really respond without lengthy historical sidetracking probably of very little interest or relevance to others.

            When this futile stuff occasionally crops up, as many have noted, it's only an unwelcome and unprovoked distraction from the normal business of the forum - a kind of "trollish sideshow"; sorry.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888027].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          This is completely wrong.

          It was completely wrong when you first used to say it three years ago, it's been completely wrong when you've occasionally said it in-between, and it's still completely wrong now. As a hundred or so Warriors have pointed out to you, over that time.

          Google goes to great lengths, in fact, to clarify to people the enormous and significant differences between duplicate content and syndicated content. As an ever-increasing number of Warriors successfully building our businesses and making our livings through article syndication are well aware.

          Hence, also, all the threads and comments here like this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

          And this one: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

          Please excuse the observation that even by your standards of trying to "challenge" or otherwise detract from as much of what I say as you possibly can, pretty entertaining though your comments often are, this one is surely scraping the barrel a bit, even for a quiet Wednesday evening?!

          Have a good week, Kurt: try to relax a little and don't worry too much about the large and increasing numbers of successful content syndicators here.
          You are wrong. Google uses a DUPLICATE CONTENT FILTER which applies across domains. Your denial doesn't change that fact.

          And, Google doesn't "penalize" innocent duplicate content on the same site, either. They treat both pretty much the same. This is another fact.

          I'm sorry you have such a problem with facts if they seem to disagree with your agenda, but what I stated is pure fact.

          You can try to distract from my points with your lack of facts and lightly veiled insults, but the truth is the truth...And you never EVER tell people about the duplicate content filter, only deny that there is not a penalty.

          Why not inform people of the duplicate content filter so they can make an educated decision? Why slant your posts to favor only your point of view? Are you denying that Google's duplicate content filter exists?

          Please stop accusing me of "otherwise detract from as much of what I say as you possibly can", you look very hipoocritical with posts such as this one above. I don't detract from anything you say, other than your poor SEO advice. Your posts on other subjects seem to be fairly good.

          And I sincerely wish all Warriors success, no matter what (ethcial) marketing strategies use, free lance writers and content syndicators included, as I am one myself, although I am now focusing more on video syndication than written content.

          But I am flattered that you would rather direct many your comments at me personally instead of addressing the actual issues. You can post all the links to other threads you want, but in none of them have you discussed the similarities of how Google handles doop content on the same domain vs. multiple domains, like I just did.

          Now please try not to get personal and explain to all the fine Warriors reading this thread how Google treats dupe content on the same domain any differently than they do across multiple domains?

          For those with an open mind, here is what Google itself says:

          Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar. Mostly, this is not deceptive in origin.

          Duplicate content - Webmaster Tools Help
          As any open-minded person can see, Google considers dupe content "across domains".

          In addition, Google applies the DUPLICATE CONTENT filter across multiple domains.

          While there isn't any duplicate content "penalty", at least in the past, there is a duplicate content FILTER.

          On the same page Google goes on to say:

          Google tries hard to index and show pages with distinct information. This filtering means, for instance, that if your site has a "regular" and "printer" version of each article, and neither of these is blocked with a noindex meta tag, we'll choose one of them to list. In the rare cases in which Google perceives that duplicate content may be shown with intent to manipulate our rankings and deceive our users, we'll also make appropriate adjustments in the indexing and ranking of the sites involved. As a result, the ranking of the site may suffer, or the site might be removed entirely from the Google index, in which case it will no longer appear in search results.
          And Google goes on to say on the same page:


          Syndicate carefully: If you syndicate your content on other sites, Google will always show the version we think is most appropriate for users in each given search, which may or may not be the version you'd prefer. However, it is helpful to ensure that each site on which your content is syndicated includes a link back to your original article. You can also ask those who use your syndicated material to use the noindex meta tag to prevent search engines from indexing their version of the content.
          Notice the use of "the version"? The above quote clearly shows that Google wants to show a single version, hence the use of a duplicate content filter.

          While Alexa likes to selectively point to only the resources that are inline with her view points, it's clear that Google offers enough info that alternative views to Alexa's should be considered and pointed out to folks so they can make up their own minds.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Thomas W
    Many of my students have stated that Hubpages and Ezinearticles, Articlebase, and Squidoo are rejecting for duplicate content.

    Everyone is Fearing Google now. They tightening up the rules
    Signature

    Established webmaster since 1998. Bought my first domain name for $70 and had to pay $1000 a month for hosting. It was the good life

    Skype: twool9
    Email me at thomasw9 ((((a)))) G mail

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Thomas W View Post

      Many of my students have stated that Hubpages and Ezinearticles, Articlebase, and Squidoo are rejecting for duplicate content.

      Everyone is Fearing Google now. They tightening up the rules
      EZA really can't do that, because they encourage the articles to be republished. So, even if an article is totally unique when submitted to EZA, as soon as another web master republishes it, it then becomes a dupe.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887811].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author denysapu
    Agree as Alexa said.
    That EZA (article directories) don't require previously unpublished content (and you certainly shouldn't give them any, either) - Unlike HubPages.
    Signature

    Don't worry be happy!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6887851].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    That's not duplicate content. I spread my content all over the place online. I suggest you do the same.
    Signature
    ==>> Free book reveals make money with affiliate marketing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888207].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    Insert Popcorn .gif here
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnben1444
    Originally Posted by mandos123 View Post

    Hello,

    Sorry for such a stupid question, but can I add article that is already published and indexed on my site to ezinearticles or hubpages? As far as I know it should be OK, but then again, none of the sites allow duplicate content.

    So whats the deal?
    As mentioned above by other members, the best bet is to give your site the content first and when it's indexed, you should then submit it to other sites. EZA will accept your article so long as you add the site URL where the content is been copied from. If they reject your article despite using the URL that means:

    i. you stole the content
    ii. didn't rewrite it well or
    iii. your writer did the same.

    Well, for Hubpage, they will definitely flag your hub as duplicate. I guess they have helped in misleading people for years when they say content from your own site is flagged duplicate.
    Signature
    Grow your social media account, Spotify Streams, YT Views & IG Followers & More
    Software & Mobile APP Developer
    Buy Spotify, Facebook Bot & IG M/S Method
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888307].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    Anecdotal evidence I just decided to look up as a "what the heck" kind of thing. I took a look at three articles from a pen name driven niche of mine, all published at least three months ago (so long enough to be post-penguin, indexed, all that hooplah). Here's the breakdown:

    "My weekend spent blahing with blah" is outranked by a larger partner site. THrough five pages at least, my text doesn't show up.

    "7 mistakes you can't avoid when blahing for blah" shows my article as the number one result, no other syndicated sites show up. Similarly, "How I pick a perfect blah blah every year" ranks number one for the search term, and another copy of the article is on the first page.

    So, as odd as it might seem to see me slightly disagree with Alexa, what Kurt is trying to say seems to hold up in my case at least. Google would ideally like to keep the same article from showing up in their search results multiple times (and if the article is good enough to syndicate, it's good enough to rank. This means that you'd be looking at a first page of the same thing).

    That being said, that's why you'll see the advice given by content syndicators stating that you should publish to your site first. There isn't any official word on this from Google (I think), but it seems that the initial indexing site wins out more often than not.

    I think what's being missed here though is that the Google part of the equation is supposed to be a bonus, not the crux of the matter. If you're doing things smartly, then you're syndicating to sites that already have a loyal following. They also tend not to be so IM-centric (at least in the niches I'm operating in), so being the one to rank in search engines might not even register in their mind. They just want something great to show their readers. It's a mutually beneficial arangement.

    Anywho, to wrap things up: both sides are right in essence.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6888389].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mandos123
    Does Squidoo also allows to republish content that is already on my site?
    Should I link back to my article or the site itself?
    Signature

    None

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6891308].message }}

Trending Topics