Article Marketing: Conflicting Advice

Annie,

I would ask Alexa, but since she has, consistently, in the past, linked to your article as a credible source regarding what many claim to be the duplicate content myth, I would appreciate a response from you regarding the following:

It seems like many people here keep trying to get a couple messages across. The messages being, syndicated content is not duplicate content and syndicated content will not be penalized by Google because it is not considered duplicate content, but rather, it is considered to be syndicated content. To me, even this, is not entirely true. You are right on one count: Syndicated content will not be penalized by Google for being duplicate content.

However, you are not right to claim, syndicated content is not duplicate content.

Correct me if I am wrong, but duplicate content

This was taken from Google's General Guidelines found here. This page was last updated by Google on 11/17/2011

Furthermore, if you want a dictionary definition of the words, you will find it is pretty much identical to what Google is trying to explain in their guidelines.

It is not correct to claim that syndicated content is not duplicate content.

When you publish a duplicate of your content (that is presumably published on your website first) and then "syndicate" it to other web properties, you are essentially sending out multiple copies of your content, are you not?

After you syndicate your content, the content syndicated can be classified as "syndicated content". But, that does not mean it is no longer considered duplicate content. Did the content magically change? Is it not a duplicate or a near duplicate of your original work?

It is duplicate content, however, if you want Google to also classify it as "syndicated content", you must take the proper measures, which are explained on the same Google page referenced above.

I know you, Alexa, and myob, and others have been in the content syndication arena for a while. So, I am not doubting your experience in the field. I am just doubting your explanation of duplicate content to syndicated content. Which is surprising because I have read many of your posts on other topics and your logic is on point and your abilities to express yourself in writing surpasses mine.

My question is, why do you think syndicated content is not duplicate content?

And, what do you mean by "penalized" when you say, syndicated content will not be penalized by Google?

What is the penalty? To me, the penalty is Google will notice your syndicated content as a duplicate of your original content and filter it accordingly. This will allow your original content, published on your website, to out rank the syndicated content. So essentially, it is a "good" penalty.

"Now properly fed, the troll embarks to wreak havoc on the thread."

Absolutely true, Matt ... but best to take no notice, because Dave's only trolling here, really, as you can see clearly enough from his sig-file.

He knows perfectly well, after all the discussions and posts like this one that Google actually takes the time and trouble to explain at length that they like syndicated content, fully understand the need for it, and don't treat it as "duplicate content" at all - which, of course, it isn't.

Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All | Internet Marketing and Publishing

Syndicating duplicate content to ezine publishers creates the same problem that syndicating duplicate content to webmasters creates. And that is a lack of a valuable experience, which is, consequently, what Google is trying to eradicate.

Google's requirements, in fact, are a response to massive user backlash against what millions of users don't want to see. Unfortunately, that critical point seems to fly over everyone's head: Nobody wants to see the crap... not on the web... and not in an ezine, that thing that's being abused as a Google-free, underground spam gutter (thanks to certain people).

There you go...

No one will ever win this battle over the right way and the wrong way of doing article marketing.

Half the audience thinks article marketing is simply throwing enough keywords on a page to get crawled by Google to gain a link that might could impress Google.

The other half of the audience is looking to develop high-quality content for syndication, so that they can get direct traffic from the article, with SEO being a secondary consideration and a definite benefit.

The final half of the audience thinks the other two groups are full of ****, and that there is no kind of value in article marketing whatsoever...



And the fourth half of the audience think all article marketers create a bunch of gibberish keyword articles that amounts to nothing more than duplicate content spam, produced by people who have never produced any value for anyone else in their lives.

With 230% on one side or the other, the value of article marketing will always be personal to the person who participates in it. Either it has value to them, or it doesn't.

And to the naysayers, you can take your strength from the fact that thousands of people agree with your view on it, regardless of any other considerations. :rolleyes:

Yep, I agree Paul.

I think article marketing should be done in that fashion. Write quality content for people not search engines and syndicate the content to multiple sources that will generate traffic to your websites. The backlinks come with the territory.

In post 49 I was referring to what Google thinks of backlinks from duplicate/syndicated content as apposed to backlinks from unique content. There is a lot of variables, obviously, so the only way to understand how much more/less weight Google gives to unique content as apposed to duplicate/syndicated content should be based on one's own experiences with search engine rankings. I was just trying to see if other people have crunched their data and found something amusing to share with the rest of us regardless of whether it is similar to my results or not.

Bill you always seem to have a way with words. Good point.