15 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
15 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Buying An Authority Site, Worried About Duplicate Content

by simmonsmike7
12 replies
I am in the process of buying an authority content website in a specific niche. I would like to check it for duplicate content. I tried using CopyScape and found some other sites with similar content. How do I know if they copied "us" or we copied "them"?

In other words, I can obviously check if other websites have similar content as this website - but how do I know who originally published this content first? Who copied Who?

As many of your Warriors know, duplicate content is a big deal and I would like to protect my investment by knowing that this website is the original publisher of this content. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks
#authority #buying #content #duplicate #site #worried
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by simmonsmike7 View Post

    I tried using CopyScape and found some other sites with similar content.
    That isn't evidence of "duplicate content", Mike. It's evidence of "syndicated content". And as Google keeps going to such lengths to clarify, they're two different things. You could do the same with many of the world's leading sports or news websites and find exactly the same thing: the majority of their content is syndicated from other sites like Reuters and/or Associated Press. It doesn't damage their SEO prospects at all.

    The differences between the two are briefly explained in this post and this little article.

    Originally Posted by simmonsmike7 View Post

    How do I know if they copied "us" or we copied "them"?
    It doesn't matter very much, in each individual case, Mike. Even if they copied you, they can still sometimes outrank you for it. It's a collective issue. If all the content was originally indexed on your site, that's admittedly going to help you.

    Originally Posted by simmonsmike7 View Post

    As many of your Warriors know, duplicate content is a big deal
    Actually not nearly such a big deal as many imagine. Not what you're referring to here as "duplicate content", anyway. Though even for actual duplicate content (i.e. multiple copies within one domain), Google does state repeatedly and openly on its WebMaster Central Blog - and elsewhere - that there are no penalties at all. It's rather a widely misunderstood subject.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683653].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ilee
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      That isn't evidence of "duplicate content", Mike. It's evidence of "syndicated content". And as Google keeps going to such lengths to clarify, they're two different things. You could do the same with many of the world's leading sports or news websites and find exactly the same thing: the majority of their content is syndicated from other sites like Reuters and/or Associated Press. It doesn't damage their SEO prospects at all.
      I don't know how it won't damage their SEO prospects. Surely if you've got identical content, you'll be ranking for similar keywords. As there's only 3 top spots for each keyword term, and providing this article fills all three (assumption) you're facing unnecessary competition.
      Signature
      --~***~--


      --~***~--
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683912].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by ichl13 View Post

        providing this article fills all three (assumption) you're facing unnecessary competition.
        What's supposed to happen and what Google says will happen (and what actually happens perhaps only 90% of the time, admittedly) is that the same article can't fill more than one spot, the other two being indexed in the supplemental index rather than in the main index.

        Which one goes in the main index, in any individual case, is not determined by which one was published first.

        But collectively, the sites which gradually accumulate initial indexations of content will do much better for their on-page SEO than the sites publishing syndicated copies. So, there's no penalty at all for publishing syndicated content - this is the point which Google goes to all the lengths to clarify and explain - but there isn't any real SEO benefit either (apart from the perhaps 10% of the time that there actually is!).
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683953].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ilee
          Right, so if I've understood correctly. Given two similar sites with similar backlink profiles etc, one with syndicated content and one without, we should always go for the one without. So what I was saying was, although you might not get penalized, it's definitely something to consider when buying a site and it's worth seeing who generally ranks higher, you or your competition.

          I do agree though that it's not deal breaker.

          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          What's supposed to happen and what Google says will happen (and what actually happens perhaps only 90% of the time, admittedly) is that the same article can't fill more than one spot, the other two being indexed in the supplemental index rather than in the main index.

          Which one goes in the main index, in any individual case, is not determined by which one was published first.

          But collectively, the sites which gradually accumulate initial indexations of content will do much better for their on-page SEO than the sites publishing syndicated copies. So, there's no penalty at all for publishing syndicated content - this is the point which Google goes to all the lengths to clarify and explain - but there isn't any benefit either (probably apart from the perhaps 10% of the time that there actually is!).
          Signature
          --~***~--


          --~***~--
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683991].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author khooster1
    My take: don't buy the site. There is no way you can determine which content is published 1st. Moreover, it is google robots that counts.

    There are very good vendors around in WF. You can easily engage them to create one for you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ilee
    How is the site ranking at the moment? Do you outperform the other copies of the same article?

    I would generally stay away from these if there is uncertainty in the article origins
    Signature
    --~***~--


    --~***~--
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683679].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PvPGuy
      Alexa is a thread ender. She hit the bullseye. The duplicate content penalty is not what people think it is. Its a classic herd effect mentality -someone yells stampede, and everyone starts running - even if there was really no threat to begin with.

      A quick look at searches on "google duplicate penalty explained" should allay your fears. I would consider many other factors before I concerned myself with duplicate content (if its quality).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683898].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stevie C
    As PVP guy said Alexa is a thread ender, but I thought I'd still throw my 5cents worth in!

    Depending on what you are paying for the site, it's age, rankings etc you can always go in a give some of those articles you own unique spin as well as adding new content. You can also talk to the vendor and address the issues of it not being unique content.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683926].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author onegoodman
    You don't determine the value of the website by who published the content first.

    Most popular site synchronize some of their content to and get published on others. Press Releases are great example. You publish an article at Press Release website and get published on hundred of others (this is different from stealing content where someone copy the content to claim to be his/her.

    I would try to estimate the website value based on its popularity and revenue
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683939].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Malcolm Thomas
    I would just focus on rewriting all of the content on your new authority site that you bought.
    Signature
    Learn How To Make $100 Per Day Using This Dead Simple Method!

    The Easiest & Most Realistic $100 Per Day Method Ever Revealed!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7683996].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    @ SimmonsMike7
    I'm not an attorney, although I did think about becoming one a long time ago,
    but it seems to me you could alter, delete or replace plagiarized content - if any.
    If there seems to be significant amounts of plagiarized (not syndicated) content, then stay away. Anyway, you would have the paper trail to show when you purchased the website.

    @ Alexa
    Thorough and helpful posts as usual - with links to excellent resources as well.
    I appreciate your time and expertise. Articles you could write: "The High Art of Forum Posting" and "How to Index Articles Onsite with Minimal Duplicate Content Penalty".

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684300].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author karlmay1980
    There is very little to worry about with duplicate content on other sites, unless your blog copied something word for word from somewhere and claimed it to be its own work and not of the original author.

    From a search point of view your are only going to suffer minutely if your content is duplicated around your site, as it waters down the quality of it but nothing like some people claim and have people running scared of just so they buy the latest products on how to avoid it.

    My advice is if it doing well at the minute then its ok.
    Signature
    Want To Make Your First £10,000 Online?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684505].message }}

Trending Topics