Unique Content Overrated?

29 replies
I must admit that myself I'm to lazy and too "spontaneous" for this kind of split-testing, but recently I received an email (an ad of course, but with useful info) from a guy called Scott Henson (a Warrior?) which (if true but why shouldn't?) cast some light on the question of unique vs. non-unique content.

Of course the unique IS better - but, in the light of that guys experiment - is it ALWAYS worthwhile with all our costly (in terms of time and/or money) spinning and article writing? :p

Here's what the above-mentioned Scott Henson said:
I've read a lot about having unique content and how it effects your
search engine rankings that was one of the reasons I created
freearticlespinner.com - as a way to make unique content quickly.

I don't know why you decided to use my tool, but I suspect it's
because you want more traffic from the search engines, hey don't we
all?

So I did an experiment a while back with two blogs.

Blog A had some else's articles reposted (with credit back to them
of course)

Blog B had 100% unique content on it - Remember that copyscape
tool?

The Results:

Blog B gets 373% more traffic to it from the search engines.

But here's an interesting side note: Blog A the one with the
copied content on it still gets 17% of its traffic from search.

So what's the experiment tell me?

Unique content will get you more traffic from the search engines,
but if it's not 100% unique you will still get SOME search engine
traffic.

Sometimes when you read about using unique content you might think
if it's not unique you won't get any search traffic. I've found
that to not be the case.

Just thought I'd share that little bit of info with you. Hopefully
it will give you a little bit of an idea how much having unique
content can help with your search traffic.


Sincerely,

Scott
And what do YOU thing of all this?
#content #overrated #unique
  • Profile picture of the author Lauryn
    I think it proves unique content is king. Besides, what's the point of finding great results on the internet if all the top 1- sites have the same "plr" or scraped material?
    Signature

    I Go Hard = "Slanguage" for putting forth a lot of effort.

    Don't be an arse and try to flip something you clearly have no knowledge of against me.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3141813].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author triarius
      Originally Posted by Lauryn View Post

      I think it proves unique content is king. Besides, what's the point of finding great results on the internet if all the top 1- sites have the same "plr" or scraped material?
      Of course you're right and I don't claim unique content is useless. The title was, of course, provocative. Still, the info in that email was, to me, really interesting.

      As I see it, it's about "unique content obsession" or a more relaxed attitude. Let's take a live example: this BringTheExBack.com (no links allowed, I'm too young) is an niche autoblog I created not even 2 days ago. It has the Alexa ranking of... 8,350,614 and no potential client, or even potential reader, is seeing it. I'm not a niche expert, it was one of my first shots at niche autoblogging, but I hope somebody, someday will see it - of their own volition, so to say. (In a couple of weeks, with some backlinks?)

      And now - why whould I waste top-quality content on something that nobody sees? Isn't it better - for now - to use some PLR, perhaps auto-translated to some Swedish or French and back? And then, if it works, to create or order some quality content, or, better still, get some nice female to act as "the Auntie X., Expert on Broken Hearts", live?

      The guy gave precise percentages, and of course everybody can see that unique content is c. 3 x better. But the knowledge that you won't (at least in short time) get totally ignored by the Googles of this word is, to me at least, rather comforting.

      Shouldn't it be? Tell me please, I'm not a niche expert and I would like to become one. :confused:
      Signature
      triarius
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3143723].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mandark
    Sure, in some cases non-unique content will work okay for you. But if you want better than "okay", always go for the unique content - it will get you better search results as well as more credibility as a legitimate site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3141823].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kiloh
    Based off my own personal sites, using both autobloggers and original content, both will get you traffic, however the original content will get you quality traffic. Once a person reads content they've already read somewhere else, or if it's spun content that doesn't make sense, they just hit the back button. Original content will get you quality leads which actually leads to sales. Again, this is off my own personal experience. Autobloggers are great for adsense income however since people want to click anything to get away from the dupe content.
    Signature
    Need help with SEO? Feel free to PM me with any questions, I'll do my best to help.
    PR3 Backlink + Pr1 Backlink - Get your permanent backlink for only $5.
    Need a higher Google ranking? Want to learn what the pros are using? Most essential Wordpress Plugin
    Autoblogs - Try it FREE today! No Domain, No hosting. Setup your own blog farm in 180 seconds.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3141970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jtpada
      Originally Posted by kiloh View Post

      Based off my own personal sites, using both autobloggers and original content, both will get you traffic, however the original content will get you quality traffic. Once a person reads content they've already read somewhere else, or if it's spun content that doesn't make sense, they just hit the back button. Original content will get you quality leads which actually leads to sales. Again, this is off my own personal experience. Autobloggers are great for adsense income however since people want to click anything to get away from the dupe content.
      Seconding this comment fully. I have the very same experience with my sites.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145632].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Keithsco
    My 0.002cents says

    If you google you tube for google webmaster videos you will see matt cutts saying the duplicate content thing affecting seo is only if it is duplicate on your OWN site and the whatever pages it is duplicated on are penalized in the serps.

    As far as dupe content on separate websites is concerned obviously if the on page seo is the same the pages will fare the same. This has to do with content RELEVENCY (as that is what google is all about - relevency) but also key word density factors. If your keyword density is too high (above 5 % the pages will be penalized -but if they have the same content then they will be penalized equally . . .lol/. So , , the pages on separate websites with dupe content will then rely on off page seo for the serps ( so . . . backlinks etc)

    Of course unique content rocks above all else and always will but there are plenty of plr reprinted content sites out there doing well in the serps. Off page seo is a lot more important than on-page seo
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142037].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I don't understand what the point is of that email.

      Blog B gets 373% more traffic to it from the search engines.

      But here's an interesting side note: Blog A the one with the
      copied content on it still gets 17% of its traffic from search.
      OK - he seems to say you will get "some" traffic - that is not news.

      If I'm going to pay for a domain and put up a site, I want the one with 373% MORE traffic from search engines. A little bit more work in the beginning - a lot more results down the road.

      But that's just me...

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
      ***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142200].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author triarius
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I don't understand what the point is of that email.



        OK - he seems to say you will get "some" traffic - that is not news.

        If I'm going to pay for a domain and put up a site, I want the one with 373% MORE traffic from search engines. A little bit more work in the beginning - a lot more results down the road.

        But that's just me...

        kay

        "A LITTLE more"?

        Creating unique content for a site nobody is yet seeing?!

        In which time I can create 20 good quality autoblogs?

        Don't get me wrong - there's absolutely no irony in my words - but how can one create useful, good-quality, unique content SO easily?

        I know a thing or two but putting it down in text in a form that would appeal to "normal" web surfer... Not to mention "average potential client" seems a daunting task.

        I'm a respected blogger (in Polish), I wrote quite a lot, even books (not important ones, e.g. on HYIP's), also in English, but whenever I try to write something more or less original, the result is a philosophical essay (or almost) - not a standard Internet article with keywords, simple wording and just as much info, as is needed to entice... You know what I mean.

        It goes even for those few marketing articles I wrote a few years ago and that gained some popularity. They were not typical marketing articles, I wrote them quite quickly but they "had been growing in me" (if I may call it so), and I am personally not capable of producing such articles - or in fact any sort of articles - at any quick rate, not to mention at ease.

        What remains? Ordering new? Of course, but it's a couple of bucks, at least for an article, plus not so little preliminary work. After all a hired writer must have almost everything given to him (or her of course)... It's almost like writing the article by myself - just the stylistic phase remains to be done, and this is the easy part.

        I don't know, but to me this info that you can start a site on re-used, perhaps spinned (and perhaps corrected by a human) content, sounds rather optimistic. :p
        Signature
        triarius
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3143962].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author triarius
        Yep, it's obvious. But you will also pay a lot more - in time or money. Not true?

        I'm not against real unique content, and I see much of people do for SEO as mad (scavenging articles from unrelated, but keyword-strong, articles scrapped from the Web, for example). But this is, in my humble opinion, an interesting question. So maybe you shouldn't feel so strongly against my putting that whole topic to this illustre gremium.
        Signature
        triarius
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278604].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Originally Posted by triarius View Post

          Yep, it's obvious. But you will also pay a lot more - in time or money. Not true?

          I'm not against real unique content, and I see much of people do for SEO as mad (scavenging articles from unrelated, but keyword-strong, articles scrapped from the Web, for example). But this is, in my humble opinion, an interesting question. So maybe you shouldn't feel so strongly against my putting that whole topic to this illustre gremium.
          Quick question?

          Why did you reply to a dead thread from 2-1/2 years ago?

          :confused:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278874].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Rob Maggs
            Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

            Quick question?

            Why did you reply to a dead thread from 2-1/2 years ago?

            :confused:
            man, that is scary...I thought it was fresh content...so obviously there was an ulterior motive...damn forum marketing!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278926].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author triarius
      Originally Posted by Keithsco View Post

      My 0.002cents says

      If you google you tube for google webmaster videos you will see matt cutts saying the duplicate content thing affecting seo is only if it is duplicate on your OWN site and the whatever pages it is duplicated on are penalized in the serps.

      As far as dupe content on separate websites is concerned obviously if the on page seo is the same the pages will fare the same. This has to do with content RELEVENCY (as that is what google is all about - relevency) but also key word density factors. If your keyword density is too high (above 5 % the pages will be penalized -but if they have the same content then they will be penalized equally . . .lol/. So , , the pages on separate websites with dupe content will then rely on off page seo for the serps ( so . . . backlinks etc)

      Of course unique content rocks above all else and always will but there are plenty of plr reprinted content sites out there doing well in the serps. Off page seo is a lot more important than on-page seo
      You mean putting twice the same content on the same site will get penalized, but taking content from somebody else's site and putting on mine (copyrights question aside here) - will not? :confused:
      Signature
      triarius
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3143892].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Durham
    I wonder what is going to happen when everything possible to write has been written? Sort of like movies, we start all over?
    Signature

    yes, I am....

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142231].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author solton
      My experience is that plr content doesn't have to be rewritten. Links are more valuable than unique content (some of the most successful authority sites are no more than other peoples content).

      With that said, I wouldn't use articles (ezinearticles, etc.) on my site.

      Also, if I were creating a link wheel I would spin the content.

      I realize there is something of a paradox, but this is what I have found from
      my own experience.

      Scott
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142300].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
      Originally Posted by Ken Durham View Post

      I wonder what is going to happen when everything possible to write has been written? Sort of like movies, we start all over?
      No, we start collecting sayings.

      Sort of like the myth "Everything that can be invented has been invented." attributed to Charles H. Duell Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

      Or Ken Owens (President of DEC) who said "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

      And poor memories will make it possible to rewrite the same thing and have it be considered new ... oh, that is article spinning .

      Marvin
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dake
    Thats some quick stats we are getting here. Thanks for posting and sharing these stats here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3142518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    It's all about the promotion or backlinks.

    Try this:

    Make a blog with all unique content and do no backlinking or promotion.

    Make another blog with all PLR articles or articles from directories (with proper attribution, of course). Do the appropriate keyword research, of course, and get backlinks to several of the pages from articles, blog comments, social bookmarking etc...

    Which one do you think will get the most traffic?

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3144162].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Shook
      I suspect it kind of depends on what you want from your blog.

      If you want people to come and read your blog and think you have something interesting to say and maybe buy some things from you, then original content is probably better.

      If you are looking to set up autoblogs for people to come by, not care what is written there but just click the buy button in the amazon auto poster or hoplink builder or something else, then it does not matter so much what your content is as long as it has the keyword phrases you are targetting.
      Signature


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145289].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rmoore
        I like a combination of unique and duplicate setup in this way.

        1) All of the unique content is written as "pages" in Wordpress, not posts. The unique content is compelling.
        2) In Wordpress, Click "Reading" under the settings menu. Set "Front Page Display" as a static page, not a post. Chose your best page from the dropdown menu. Have to create it first.
        3) Create a blank page called Blog and then chose that as your "Posts Page".
        4) Create a link in the navigation or sidebar, call in "Blog" and link it to your blog page.
        5) Write 5-10 really good articles and put big links to each page in the sidebar. Don't link to an individual posts in the sidebar.

        6) Use a plugin of your choice to pull duplicate content into posts...into your "blog" section.
        7) Setup a banner to display above each post (Max Banner Ads, WWSGD, or DDADDSIG). The banner will show a compelling clickable graphic to get people to click to the front page.

        ...so what happens is that your 5-10 unique articles rank in Google. When people hit your blog they really just see these 5-10 articles, because that is all that is shown in the navigation. These presell or sell an opt-in. The hundreds of automated duplicate articles funnel additional people back to that front page.

        I like to use WPEasyContent for my duplicate stuff, but anything works...WPRobot, WPMage, etc.

        This is a way to create a review blog that will crush it by the way. Even if you don't rank number one for your review term...those hundreds of articles will funnel enough visitors for various terms to your front page that you will get a lot of exposure.

        This is a way to make $500-$1,000+ per month, per autoblog.

        I may create an info product on this at some point, because it works every time.

        Cheers,

        -Rusty
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andrew Rodney
    Traffic doesn’t always mean money I think it is better to write articles for syndication not just for links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145354].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author matt5409
    it's absolute common sense that an original text will carry more value than one that has been copied X number of times, but it's good to see an experiment and some numbers put to this.

    I personally do both - syndicate the lower quality articles and only publish once the ones that I am proud of.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145380].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
    If that was the entire email reproduced in the OP, it doesn't tell me anything at all about the effectiveness or otherwise of unique content.

    Just comparing two random blogs without disclosing anything else about them can hardly be described as conclusive evidence one way or the other. It reads more like an exercise in reverse psychology to promote a spinning tool/service.

    Also, this statement...

    Originally Posted by triarius View Post

    But here's an interesting side note: Blog A the one with the copied content on it still gets 17% of its traffic from search.
    ...is inaccurate. According to the email, Blog A contained legitimately syndicated content - that's quite different from copied content.

    There are, of course, many reasons for creating niche sites. When I develop a potential authority site, I like to include a variety of content; my own, other specially commissioned content and also some syndicated content.

    When I do this, I look for quality and relevance to my target market, whether the content is unique or not. And in my experience, it's the relevance that's most important.

    When marketers reveal their results of any so-called experiments, you should always look to see what they're not disclosing in their details and what they might stand to gain from such alleged results before deciding to attach any credence to the claims.


    Frank
    Signature
    TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145516].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      The only thing I can tell from the snippet of the email posted is that this Henson guy has or is a decent copywriter. This "case study" is a classic example of a damaging admission...

      Interpreted, it says:

      "Take two websites. One has syndicated content, the other used my product. The first got 17% of its traffic from search, so I can't tell you that you won't get any traffic at all without my product. Of course, the second site got almost four times as much traffic. Which would you rather have?"

      As Frank pointed out, there isn't nearly enough information to tell whether the comparison was a fair one or not. By admitting one small concession, you're more likely to believe the whole tale.

      Kudos to the copywriter. Raspberries to anyone who thought the case study proved anything...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145601].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Sorrell
    In my own experience it doesn't have the effect on rankings that some people would claim it does. However, if the content looks false and robotic then the customer is just going to click off the page anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Genesis1
    thanks, unique content is really matters
    Signature
    High Quality Backpage, Kijiji, Gumtree Classified Ads Posting Services. Service that brings Value. Get Traffic & Increase SEO at the same time! Prices are starting from 0.09$ per AD. PM Me for more info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3145606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rob Maggs
    Here, here..bravo that man! Unique content rocks...curated, ripped content is worthless shite, (in my opinion). I remember several years ago getting a markov generator...which if I'd used would have made me loads of adsense cash...but it was unreadable and only created for search engines...more fool me for missing out on 40K a month adsense revenue, But for me the web is about unique, readable content that gives value, which hasn't been blasted all over the place...I understand where Google is coming from...I bet within a years time people will be penalized by The next Google beast for curating content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278644].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EPoltrack77
    original information rules! Its just that when google crawls and indexes urls then the 2nd time they come across the same content they simply skip over it at this point and only index the orginal source. I believe they may even submit a penalty to that specific web page. It just simply means taking the time to read something and then rewrite it on our own words. or outsource!
    Signature
    Working to achieve higher results...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    I dont think unique content is overrated. Especially if you plan on repurposing your content in forms for social media, blog posts, youtube videos, articles, and document sharing sites.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Victor Edson
    It all depends on the site.

    If you're building an authority site, only use unique or curated content.

    If you're building a series of autoblogs to get subs on a list.. it doesn't matter so much.

    It depends dramatically on what your project is, what your goals are, and how you're trying to accomplish those goals.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278946].message }}

Trending Topics