[Stephen Meyer]

I have a blog that I have automated because no time to work it right now. It is a PR1 blog with a steady unique visitor count. Since i don't haver time to add new post I will use your post at no charge. Your post and a link back to your site. All I need is your site URL and you have to have a RSS feed.

Also, would you like to guest post on my blog. You can do this but you must have a new unique post to add. If you want to guest post i will give you 2 links back to your site. One link can be contextual and the other at the end of the post using your text. One rule, can not link to something I am promoting and one link must be to your PIPs sales page or lead capture page. The second link can go to any site you want, even an affiliate link providing the opportunity is legitimate.

Interested? Post below with your URL or guest post request.

Stephen

[Alan Mater]

Hey Stephen,

Great to see you around.

I'll take you up on your offer... just curious to know what your site is?

Also, if I get a chance, I could get some guest posts written for ya.

Here is my blog URL and feed URL:

Work From Home Resources
http://www.replaceyoursalary.com/wor...-home-blog/rss

Thanks for the opportunity.

Cheers,

Alan

[Stephen Meyer]

Hi Alan, great to see you again. I just posted 3 of your blog post. The site is eprofitsplus.com. Thanks for the post

Stephen

[Alan Mater]

Excellent. Thanks!

[Patrician]

Hi Stephen - I don't know how to tell what the RSS feed is in this case because I am not doing a redirect or using feedburner - just the stock blogspot feed.

Can you figure what I would use? just /atom.xml ? (it is not listed in settings)

However here is the blog - Quit Drinking Now If Not Sooner, Yo.

It is brand new and even the Adsense is not tuned to keywords yet.

I realize this is not your niche and it is just for a CB product. I will understand if you don't think it would help you.

[Stephen Meyer]

Hi Pat, it is the Post Atom at the bottom of each post where it say's "Subscribe To", Quit Drinking Now If Not Sooner, Yo.

I have two of your post, one posted now and one scheduled.

A program i have sucks up post feeds and post them for me. I can update at anytime so I have it for the future as well.

Thanks for the help.

[Dele]

Hi Stephen and Alan,

I am curious to know what you think the implication of this can be on both websites (giver and receiver) .

I am thinking in terms of what Google's view may be on plagiarism and whether or not you think this may not lead to a retardation in the page rank from Google.

Also, i am thinking that the originating website/blog may be on the loosing end if its PR is not as high as that of the receiving website since its posts may not be ranked as high as that of the receiving website by Google.

I also understand that Google reflects a plagiarised article in its rankings only for the original or first site publishing it while the others are confined to the supplementary list. But with this technology, one may find out that the article may almost simultaneously be published on both websites with the effect that Google may have a hard time determining which is the originating website.

I know the resource box backlink is there to determine the originating website but is that what Google uses for this purpose?

[BonganiS]

Thanks for the offer. Here are my feeds: wealthcreationempowerment.ws and www.CreateWealthNow.co.za Thank you.

[Stephen Meyer]

Originally Posted by BonganiS

Thanks for the offer. Here are my feeds: wealthcreationempowerment.ws and www.CreateWealthNow.co.za Thank you.

Thanks, I have 3 post scheduled

Dele, I know people who make a great living using automated content on their blogs. Plagiarism is not happening.

[Alan Mater]

Originally Posted by AdsVouchers.com

Whats your site link ?

That was already answered. See reply to my initial post.

[Alan Mater]

Originally Posted by Dele

Hi Stephen and Alan,

I am curious to know what you think the implication of this can be on both websites (giver and receiver) .

I am thinking in terms of what Google's view may be on plagiarism and whether or not you think this may not lead to a retardation in the page rank from Google.

Also, i am thinking that the originating website/blog may be on the loosing end if its PR is not as high as that of the receiving website since its posts may not be ranked as high as that of the receiving website by Google.

I also understand that Google reflects a plagiarised article in its rankings only for the original or first site publishing it while the others are confined to the supplementary list. But with this technology, one may find out that the article may almost simultaneously be published on both websites with the effect that Google may have a hard time determining which is the originating website.

I know the resource box backlink is there to determine the originating website but is that what Google uses for this purpose?

Hey Dele,

I agree with Stephen on this. Neither site is going to be penalized. There's no harm in doing this at all. I once had a blog that was nothing but duplicated content, and within a few short months reached a PR 2 and gained traffic and sales (non-IM niche).

[Patrician]

Dele - I realize it may be a language/terminology issue but don't confuse "plagerism" with 'duplicate content'.

Plagerism is copying something from someone without their permission and passing it off as your own (this is stealing).

Duplicate content is using content from someone else - you may get credit for it and they will too - at the very worst only the original version gets a backlink and subsequent copies don't, but there is no penalty other than that.

The difference is you are not claiming that it is your property and they have not specifically told you that you do not have the right to use their property without their permission (copyright).

[Dele]

Thank you Patricia for the explanation/clarification on plagiarism vs duplicate content and i agree with you. I think "duplicate content" should just replace "plagiarism" in my post wherever "plagiarism" was stated.

But apart from that i still feel all the points made remain valid.

What do you think of the point that the receiving website may end up ranking higher for the article keywords than the originating website if it has a higher PR.

What do you also think of the point that the origin of the article may be inverted giving the speed with which the article is posted on the receiving website very soon after posting on the originating website given the technology involved. That is why many marketers prefer to post their articles first on their blogs before submitting at article directories.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Dele, I know people who make a great living using automated content on their blogs. Plagiarism is not happening.

Yes I agree given Patricia's clarification that there is no plagiarism involved and so no illegality per se but "duplicate content" is involved, though I also know that since this is not directly on the same site, it is unlikely to be of much concern to Google other than the PR being retarded or sandboxed occasionally.

If duplicate content is all good by Google, why its hue and cry and laying of emphasis on original content on blogs/sites?

Also if duplicate content is all good by Google why the movement towards article spinners and article leverage tool of recent. Of course, just to cover the tracks and give an impression of being "different" articles.

Of course many people make a living off duplicate content but that does not mean it does not have consequences.

Originally Posted by Alan Mater

Hey Dele,

I agree with Stephen on this. Neither site is going to be penalized. There's no harm in doing this at all. I once had a blog that was nothing but duplicated content, and within a few short months reached a PR 2 and gained traffic and sales (non-IM niche).

You are holding so many factors constant at the same time. Do you know whether the blog should have reached PR 5 but for the duplicate content? You were effecting many other SEO strategies as well, you know? They must have their own positive impact irrespective of the negative effect of duplicate content. A net positive you will say.

I know there is no issue against traffic here, it is positive positive both ways(both sites).

[Stephen Meyer]

Originally Posted by Alan Mater

Hey Stephen,

Great to see you around.

I'll take you up on your offer... just curious to know what your site is?

Also, if I get a chance, I could get some guest posts written for ya.

Here is my blog URL and feed URL:

Work From Home Resources
http://www.replaceyoursalary.com/wor...-home-blog/rss

Thanks for the opportunity.

Cheers,

Alan

Alan, if you would like to guest write on this site you are welcome to do that. I can give you 3 links in your post. Just send a PM

Anyone else that would like to guest write let me know and we can do that. I will give you the same deal as Alan, 3 links to your site.

Stephen

[Alan Mater]

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Alan, if you would like to guest write on this site you are welcome to do that. I can give you 3 links in your post. Just send a PM

Anyone else that would like to guest write let me know and we can do that. I will give you the same deal as Alan, 3 links to your site.

Stephen

Sounds great. I'll figure something out and let you know.

Cheers,

Alan

[Alan Mater]

Originally Posted by Dele

You are holding so many factors constant at the same time. Do you know whether the blog should have reached PR 5 but for the duplicate content? You were effecting many other SEO strategies as well, you know? They must have their own positive impact irrespective of the negative effect of duplicate content. A net positive you will say.

I know there is no issue against traffic here, it is positive positive both ways(both sites).

Hey Dele,

I understand your concerns. Over the long-term, pure duplicate content probably won't have the same benefits that unique content can bring. But if you're short on time, like Stephen and myself at one point, then it's a viable option.

Look at it from this approach. The original site is ranking for a particular search term. Your site is relevant but different in varying degrees, and it's ranking for different search terms. Your site can still rank, but it may be for different terms, even with the same content as a different site. I've personally seen this with my niche site I talked about earlier. My duplicate posts were getting decent rankings in search engines.

I hope that makes sense. It's hard to explain unless you actually see the results for yourself. Like you, I would rather use unique content as it is best, but posting duplicate content from other blogs, articles from directories, etc. is not in itself bad and will not hurt your rankings, from what I've seen.

[chooch]

Hi Stephen...

It's good to see you're up and running again.

Your site looks great.

[Stephen Meyer]

Originally Posted by chooch

Hi Stephen...

It's good to see you're up and running again.

Your site looks great.

Nice seeing you also.

I followed you website to your blog but can't find a feed. i can copy and paste a couple articles off your blog and put ina couple text links if you don't mind.

Just to clear up having a site with all duplicate content. it's not the case. I am adding post from feeds for content but I also add unique content. Since i can't write daily it gives readers something to read.

And as far as i'm concerned most of the duplicate content arguments are nothing more than Myths. if it was all fact Ezine articles and the other directories would all be PR0, but they're not.

Stephen

[Alan Mater]

Hey Stephen,

I sent you a PM regarding my guest post.

Thanks,

Alan

[Dele]

The following are relevant to this thread

Google Penalizing Original Content - copy sites rank higher

Ranking As The Original Source For Content You Syndicate - Nine By Blue

And from the horse's mouth?


"Scraped content: Some webmasters make use of content taken from other, more reputable sites on the assumption that increasing the volume of web pages with random, irrelevant content is a good long-term strategy. Purely scraped content, even from high-quality sources, may not provide any added value to your users without additional useful services or content provided by your site. It's worthwhile to take the time to create original content that sets your site apart. This will keep your visitors coming back and will provide useful search results. "

And again,

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.

Again from the horse's mouth?

To conclude, I'd like to point out that in the majority of cases, having duplicate content does not have negative effects on your site's presence in the Google index. It simply gets filtered out. If you check out some of the tips mentioned in the resources above, you'll basically learn how to have greater control about what exactly we're crawling and indexing and which versions are more likely to appear in the index. Only when there are signals pointing to deliberate and malicious intent, occurrences of duplicate content might be considered a violation of the webmaster guidelines.

And again?

However, some webmasters attempt to improve their page's ranking and attract visitors by creating pages with many words but little or no authentic content. Google will take action against domains that try to rank more highly by just showing scraped or other auto-generated pages that don't add any value to users.

N.B. Emphasis is mine

[Dele]

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

And as far as i'm concerned most of the duplicate content arguments are nothing more than Myths. if it was all fact Ezine articles and the other directories would all be PR0, but they're not.

Stephen

Who knows, perhaps they should have been PR 8 but for the duplicate content.