No. 1 on Google with only duplicate content? Join the debate.

It's not really any harder to have unique content on your page that you want to rank, than it is to have duplicate content, so why not give yourself the best possible chance to rank No 1 and use unique?

Yeah it's funny how the duplicate content haters ignore reality.
That duplicate content in and of itself is not bad.

People should realize that the music lyric sites break a whole bunch
of google-myths.

I've been giving duplicate content a different take:

Why should I not be able to take some content, package it
better, and be rewarded for doing so?

Paul

Standard on page seo first and foremost [ blog or static site? ]

Id spend the time trying to make sure the copy thats on the page was seo focused but balanced to make the reader take the desired ACTION - click adsense, buy, opt in etc ....

The rest gets handled with backlinks [ imho ] and backlinks can over come most all the rest of the sites shortcomings

Having both is best. If you say copy an article from Ezinearticles you have to build enough backlinks to it to convince the engine that your site holds more authority then Ezinearticles and then worry about ranking it.

I would actually start with content here. Of course backlinks can outweight content, but that is just because there is no limit to the number of backlinks you can get.

If unique content gives you 1,000 Search Engine points per say and a low quality link gives you 1 point then you just need to build over 1,000 backlinks to have more Search Engine points and to rank higher, all things being equal.

But from a time management stand point, is it better to write 1 really good page or to copy another and build 1,000 links to it?

Of course you need both, but I would start with the content and follow it up with the backlinks. It's better to start a marathon half way through then to dig yourself out of a ditch before even starting.