Copied content and still ranking....

11 years ago

Originally Posted by robcop

Hey WF,

Yesterday I read a news article about a 13 year old boy that killed his family in Brazil, I was curious and wanted to know more about this incident so I searched Google.

I typed in: Brazil 13 year old
The results were quite interesting.... almost all of the articles were copies of each other. Go ahead and Google it yourself.

How come these sites get ranked so well in Google? Wasn't Google all about the "Unique content is king" bull****? I guess not, they love copied articles.

I really want to know what you guys think about this.

A very common misconception is "duplicate content". The real definition of duplicate content is when that copied content is on the same domain not on different websites. There's plenty of sites/blogs that rank well with the same article, but if they don't continually update the content on their site, they won't be ranking well for too long... Google loves FRESH content too, and by fresh I mean new...

If you copy the 1st paragraph of a well written ezine article, you'll usually notice it appears on multiple sites...

Your main goal should always be having high quality, totally unique content on your site, even though occasionally, the same content ranks multiple sites...

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376832].message }}

Michael Levanduski

11 years ago

You're misunderstanding copying content vs sharing a report of some sort. Sometimes copying is perfectly acceptable.

Vinny is spot on.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Need Quality Written Content? Hire Me!
OR...
Learn how to write for money online!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376866].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by robcop

they love copied articles.

Google has always recognized the need for and value of syndicated content, and has said so loudly, clearly and repeatedly in every possible medium and at every possible opportunity.

However, the reasons the sites you're asking about are ranked so well on Google may be (and probably are) entirely unconnected with the syndicated content they carry. People who syndicate content are typically doing so because it's content they want to share with their readers/visitors (for whatever reasons) rather than for specific SEO advantages. The so-called "duplicate content penalty" is a grotesque myth, of course, and this isn't duplicate content anyway, as Vinny wisely observes above. However, it should also be said that syndicating all one's content from previously published copies of the same isn't typically very conducive to "top rankings"!

I suspect the thread belongs here, really: Adsense / PPC / SEO Discussion Forum

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376894].message }}

lattlay123

11 years ago

Yeah, Matt Cutts himself even said that it isn't necessarily harmful: Google's Matt Cutts: Duplicate Content Won't Hurt You, Unless It Is Spammy

Not that we have to believe everything he says though, but still an interesting insight from one of Google's top representatives

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376912].message }}

jason1985

11 years ago

it could also be that they also link out to the sources as well or original source. not just copying but linking out to where they got it from is usually creating trust or authority. not to mention they probably got natural back-links pointing back that them over time as well

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8377929].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by robcop

Hey WF,

Yesterday I read a news article about a 13 year old boy that killed his family in Brazil, I was curious and wanted to know more about this incident so I searched Google.

I typed in: Brazil 13 year old
The results were quite interesting.... almost all of the articles were copies of each other. Go ahead and Google it yourself.

How come these sites get ranked so well in Google? Wasn't Google all about the "Unique content is king" bull****? I guess not, they love copied articles.

I really want to know what you guys think about this.

It's the same thing that's been going on since 1997, the page with the better SEO ranks the page.

The problem with scraped content is most of the scraped pages will get buried in Google SERPs because you've created exact content competition, so your up against all the other scraper sites/pages which is completely unnecessary competition.

The more popular the scraped content is across the web, the more competition you create for your own scraped web page.

Supplemental SERPs isn't your friend.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378150].message }}

jeffresnich

11 years ago

"Duplicate" content is usually confused with "syndicated" content. Having multiple copies of your content in different websites (exact copies with your backlinks and author resource box) may be actually a good thing for you in the long run by accumulating the initial indexation rights of those sites. Syndicating content is simply making your material available to a wider audience/publishers by giving them the license to republish your material on their sites given that your authorship remains.

Another thing to remember is that Google isn't penalizing syndicated ones. This THREAD is a must read.

I have to agree with Alexa, ranking in search engines doesn't mainly rely on the contents on their sites or the backlinks their contents carry, it is based on several other factors.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378195].message }}

LilBlackDress

11 years ago

Originally Posted by robcop

Hey WF,

Yesterday I read a news article about a 13 year old boy that killed his family in Brazil, I was curious and wanted to know more about this incident so I searched Google.

I typed in: Brazil 13 year old
The results were quite interesting.... almost all of the articles were copies of each other. Go ahead and Google it yourself.

How come these sites get ranked so well in Google? Wasn't Google all about the "Unique content is king" bull****? I guess not, they love copied articles.

I really want to know what you guys think about this.

What is really annoying is when you find your own original content copied (plagiarized) by another site and ranking above your own.

Thanks

Signature

Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378234].message }}

mmchael

11 years ago

I think age of content will also be a consideration. Probably not until a keyword set hits a certain level that the other algo's kick in. This in only a theory of course. But it seems news like this is fresh - no queries on it before so nothing the data set can know. Until a few weeks and few thousand queries could the data set start to adjust and detect the queries level and analyse the content set for the query.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378250].message }}

yukon Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by mmchael

I think age of content will also be a consideration.

I doubt age of content matters, it's more like amount of established quality links ranking the aged page because those links will have already been found by Google (established internal/external links).

Still a scraper site can out rank the original content source page If the new scraper site has better SEO, it's just a matter of time when Google finds the new scraper sites links being used to rank the scraper page.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378481].message }}

markove

11 years ago

I think there is an exemption for news content in search engines because we can not alter the news matter as our wish for the sake of uniqueness but the presentation may vary.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8380081].message }}

paulgl 11 years ago

I guess you don't realize that almost every newspaper, TV, etc. copies
news stories from each other, and reuters, AP, etc. Google never cares
about copied, duplicate content. But people quote that guru who
lives in a cave that constantly misquotes google. Schmoozing
serps is what they care about. Copied news stories are just that.
Copied anything is just that. From books, lyrics, etc. Tons of
sites have "copied" content. There are many books, songs, movies,
etc. that are now public domain....and many sites publish the same
stuff. Not a problem. How many sites have a complete Bible on
them? Zillions.

If people thought, then every search for a specific thing would
give one and only website. After all, why would google index and
show a million sites with the same exact thing? But that's not
reality.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8380145].message }}

thedanbrown

11 years ago

Google loves curation. As long as you add your view on what happened and just curated a portion of the original article Google loves it! That's the huffington post business model basically... Plus it's recent news so I'm sure there wasn't too much competition as soon as it happened.

Thanks

Signature

FREE ==> The Ultimate Online Profit Model Revealed... ++ Additional FREE Bonuses For Warriors

"Expert Internet Marketing Interviews on DigitalMarketingHive.com"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8380346].message }}

Copied content and still ranking....

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

A Very Strange Internet Problem