Duplicate content used to run a huge site?

I think they use viral content. Like bored panda or viral nova. They also use duplicate content (images), getting high traffic, and monetize through google adsense.

There's nothing wrong nor illegal in doing that, one can do whatever they like with their content lol ... and it's not even "duplicate content", one can have his articles spread on thousands of site, good for one, otherwise what exposure can one have!? Duplicate content, is have the same content / article several times on ONE website!

MarketingFriend: you're not understanding what I'm saying. You also don't know what duplicate content is. (Trust me on this one, I work full-time in SEO for a huge digital agency and work with duplicate content every day)

They aren't taking their own original content and distributing it. They go to another website, copy their content, then publish it on their own website. Unless you have permission from those website owners to use their content, that's copyright infringement.

There is nothing wrong with posting on your site articles that have been posted on another site if you have their permission. Neither does duplicate content apply here. Duplicate content occurs when you have an article posted more than once on the same domain/website.

Why not? Google is even more popular and it also uses 3rd-party content only. Content curation model works just fine in the post-Panda era.

No, this isn't so.

That isn't duplicate content at all: it's syndicated content, duplicated (re-published) across different domains.

Many people confuse the two, perhaps believing all the nonsense propagated by people selling SEO services of various kinds.

This post explains the difference unambiguously.

I think so, yes. You seem to be basing your questions about on this on the premise that "traffic" means "people coming from search engines". Not only isn't that so (search engine traffic is just one among many possible sources) but search engine traffic is generally one of the least responsive and least productive kinds of traffic there is: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post8659398

It is. But some content (especially articles, in "directories") is put there for that specific reason, i.e. to be republished. That's what an article directory's for.

There are also huge numbers of people making their livings from article marketing (publishing articles on their own sites initially, and then offering them for re-publication on other relevant sites in their niches, as a traffic-generating plan of their own).

I'm no lawyer, but the legal position is very clear, I think: you can re-publish an article only with the permission of its copyright-owner. If it's taken from an article directory in accordance with their terms of service, then you have that permission: that's clearly what it's been put there for in the first place.

I'm guessing that, too. I certainly don't. "Not caring about SEO" is a pretty good way to build authority sites.

I'm not assuming that, at all. I don't do any of those things, but all my niche sites get floods of traffic. Here's the point: there are countless other traffic sources available that I suspect you've somehow excluded from your awareness. This may help: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ffic-tips.html

Listen to Alexa, this is syndicated content which is perfectly legal when done with permission. It's exactly why article directories like ezine exist in the first place, to spread the same content across multiple websites. It's also the reason the associated press exists, they write news articles specifically for syndication, and those articles show up on multiple websites and newspapers (I think those still exist).

Thank you all for the responses but will have to disagree with all of them based on many years of experience working in this industry. Thank you anyways

If they are using them with canonical tag, then it is all right. Google won't bother of it!

Because some people love to comment when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Yes canonical tags solve duplicate content problems, but that's not really the point of discussion here.

For some reason, people on WF think that duplicate content is only when you have duplicate content on your own site which is not true.

Lol Byalik. You are the one who has no idea what your talking about. Please google content curation before you continue talking. It is how all major news sites, mashable, huffingtonpost, work. They operate based on a ruling that if you give attribution and use under certain amount of the content, its okay. Google certainly ranks 1000s of sites that use this model. Duplicate Content as its known to seo professionals is entirely different.

The only time it get sour is when your article gets copied word for word, author changed to whomever (without giving credit). It is courtesy for the one who shares your article to provide a link back to you or attribution. Duplicate content is like a boogeyman under the bed to scare off those blatant plagiarists. You know you're in good hands when a humble article in your blog gets posted in a reputable website so don't fret about it.

In my opinion, duplicate content is not a good solution to run your huge site.
If you use fresh and quality content then it would be good to your website and and your business.

Probably they are picking the content from their own partner sites and using canonical tag to avoid penalty. Moreover, their PR is just 1 and I don’t find them having with any strong base as well.