Copying And Pasting Other People's Articles On Sites

I am Totally agree with JudyKarmann. You must should update your website by fresh content if you want to achieve search engine ranking specially for Google

So ironic? Many SEO and article writing providers? I think some people would take offense at that considering those who work in SEO are smart enough to keep up with Google's changing requirements and updated explanations. Like this one, for example, where Matt Cutts purposely makes no distinction between syndicated content and duplicated content (because there isn't one):

If I report the same news story as someone else, is that duplicate content? - YouTube

Whatever it is people "don't understand," I'm sure they can find a helpful and friendly explanation from the source (that would be Google, MSN, etc.).

Why do you imagine article directories exist, then?! Why do you imagine the most successful article marketers are trying to have their work syndicated as widely as possible?!

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

Indeed. Exactly so. Sometimes it's even a little hard to tell whether people have simply totally missed the point of the lengths to which Google goes to differentiate between syndicated and duplicate content, and how repeatedly they clarify and publicise that, or whether some are even deliberately propagating and perpetuating misinformation.

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

The quotation from Google's WebMaster Central Blog in this article is also relevant: Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing

Alexa - do you feel like you are having a conversation with a brickwall sometimes?

Amuro, I would like to try here.

Let's take this post on article marketing as an example: Direct Traffic is Better Than Google Traffic | Practical eCommerce

Now, this is talking about how direct traffic is worth more. Now, if this article got really popular (you can see it's not, and I have no idea how I found it :p), then people would be sharing it. It would be an article of value. If a webmaster sees this article, and feels that it will be valuable, then he will want it on his site. So he takes it and puts it on his site.

The article goes viral. He gets traffic. He is happy. People are being engaged by informative content that they feel are useful. Google are happy. The writer gets both a high quality backlink from this site and direct traffic, driving his sales. He is happy.

In other words, because the webmaster syndicated this content, he not only made himself happy, not only made the author happy, not only made Google happy, but also made thousands of readers happy - otherwise they would not read it.


It is the same principle as a viral YouTube video. If Google did not like Syndicated content, they would not provide embed links on YouTube videos. And they do. Because that drives traffic to Youtube, making them happy. It drives traffic to the syndicator, making him happy, and it provides enjoyment for the viewers, making them happy.



We are not talking about taking an article on sock colours, an article that is written poorly, and syndicating that. If it is poor quality, then people won't read it and won't be happy about it clogging up search results. Google won't be happy, as it is poor quality, uninformative content, and the syndicator and author will not receive the hits they desire.

Simple.

You're missing the point. Those who "copy-paste" as you would say are doing it because:

1) They're too lazy to write
2) They don't want to pay someone to write
3) They need fresh content for their already established list/followers/readership

In other words, Google's updates do not concern them.

Google panda algorithm penalize the website who has copied content and low quality content.

That's "content syndication" only if the author grants permission to "syndicate" it. Whether one attributes credit (or not) is moot without that permission. The way it's describe above, is copyright violation (theft).

Of course, this entire thread only demonstrates some of the major problems with "content syndication" -- everyone has their own interpretation of what it is, what it's for, and how it's done!

Adrianna,

I commend you for diligently seeking the correct way for writing articles and the rules/laws of usage of others' work as many just do as they wish regardless.

I cannot add to what has been answered for you as they have covered the issues at hand quite nicely.

The one thing that I will reiterate is that you must read the TOS or terms of service of a directory before you decide to "use" an authors work. Trust me, the authors know them well.

I had an incident where someone copy/pasted one of my pieces from an article directory, stripped all links from it, taking just the content and posted it on their own site. At the bottom of the piece they had this:

resource-(name of article directory)

Even that had no link to my piece or even to the directory which would not have been sufficient, either anyway. My point was there were no links period.

I sent them a DMCA notice stating I saw that they liked my work and had put it on their site, albeit with all links stripped, I would be happy to have them publish my work on their site if they put the links back in, otherwise to please remove it. The correspondence I received back said, I've done nothing wrong, I resourced the directory.

I could have at that point gone directly to their hosting, however I was feeling charitable so I sent them the TOS of the directory with the terms of author's work highlighted and did have to say that my next line of action would be contacting their hosting.

The culprit then succumbed and not very nicely I might add.

I shared that incident with you as to save you from any trouble down the line if you aren't aware of the legalities involved in your work and I wish you much success in your endeavors.

Terra

GoshdarnitJoe! Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head all day!