14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

My duplicate content findings

by FriendlyRob
11 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I was just researching a specific topic, and I found that 4 of the top 5 results on Google were exactly the same content!

I didn't make the connection at first, nor do I expect my findings to finally put this question to bed, but I did find it interesting. It would seem that duplicate content is at least not as crucial a matter as some would make it out to be.

Anyway.... just thought I'd share.
#content #duplicate #findings
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by FriendlyRob View Post

    It would seem that duplicate content is at least not as crucial a matter as some would make it out to be.
    Indeed - thanks, Rob. I strongly suspect that such instances are not nearly as rare as some people would have us imagine. I've even (temporarily, admittedly) had three identical copies of an article occupying the first three places in Google's SERP's, with my own site in first place.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258113].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by John McEachern View Post

      But who would these people be who want me to imagine something that just isn't so?
      Call me a skepchick, but I was thinking of the people with an obvious commercial motivation: those selling "spinning software", some of whose sales pages state, entirely wrongly, that there's a Google "duplicate content penalty" against your site if you submit to article directories identical copies of articles linking to your site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258263].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author FriendlyRob
        For what its worth, perhaps they should have some duplicate content filter. Finding the same content on 4 of the top 5 pages didn't really aid my research any.
        Signature

        See What I'm up to Now The New Blog

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258353].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by FriendlyRob View Post

          For what its worth, perhaps they should have some duplicate content filter. Finding the same content on 4 of the top 5 pages didn't really aid my research any.

          They do have a Duplicate Content Filter, and it works as intended about 80% of the time.

          You have found one of the 20% of cases.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258374].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            They do have a Duplicate Content Filter, and it works as intended about 80% of the time.

            You have found one of the 20% of cases.
            I think the main reason why it appears not be working in a few cases is simply because Google looks at a page's text content in its entirety - not just the article itself - in order to assess its percentage of uniqueness, and decide whether it's too similar to other pages in their SERPs to bother displaying.

            After all, there's no way for Google to necessarily establish with any certainty just what part of the page is the "main content area" - the intended focal point of that page - and which is "something else".

            (Well, I'm sure there would be: they'd just have to analyse and establish what elements on each page are similar or identical throughout the entire site - but I'm not sure this is something they do in order to ignore them, or give them less "SEO weight".)

            So, if you happen to have a lot of other content on a particular page additional to your article (e.g. long menus, "related articles", "most popular", "breaking news", and other such elements), it contributes to making that article appear slightly more unique.

            It just so happens that on the majority of websites, an article in the "main content area" happens to be the longest bit of text on a page by far - often containing much more text content than every other element combined - and thus, whatever else is there contributes very little towards increasing the percentage of uniqueness of that page/article, in Google's eyes.

            Which explains why you tend to see more duplicated results in the SERPs for pages where the article is so short as to make the "main content to other content ratio" quite balanced, and thus makes that page appear far more unique to Google.

            If this makes sense ... ?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258509].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Brandon Tanner
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            They do have a Duplicate Content Filter, and it works as intended about 80% of the time.

            You have found one of the 20% of cases.
            I'm not sure about the 80/20 percentages, but I agree that the penal... erm, I mean "filter" is definitely not consistent. With some niches/keywords, you will not see any of the same content on page 1 of the SE results. But with other niches/keywords, a large portion of the page 1 results will feature the exact same content.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258689].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
              Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner View Post

              I'm not sure about the 80/20 percentages, but I agree that the filter is definitely not consistent. With some niches/keywords, you will not see any of the same content on page 1 of the SE results. But with other niches/keywords, a large portion of the page 1 results will be the exact same.
              Like I say: compare the uniqueness % of these pages when you see them, and you'll probably discover, in most cases, that it's high enough for Google to have judged each page as being unique.

              And the reason they'll have done that is because all the other content on that page (beyond the article itself) has increased its uniqueness score.

              Beyond this, the only time I can see Google displaying duplicated results is on an intentional basis, perhaps where page/site competition volume is so low for a given search query that it simply isn't even possible for them to serve up a full page of unique results ... so they don't bother trying to.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author markowe
    No, people keep pointing out that this is not actually an example of duplicate content, but rather 'syndicated content'.

    However, I wonder, in the light of Cutts' latest comments, and the general direction IM has been going, whether Google is going to have to make some changes in this regard... I mean, as a Google user I don't want to see the same article 5 times on page one, I just want the original source. Unless it's my article !

    Article directories and article marketing could very well fall under the definition of 'content farms' for example, and as for all that spun content...
    Signature

    Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258151].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I have seen that for years in Google's search results.

    Google says they have a Duplicate Content Filter. Scared webmasters say they have a Duplicate Content Penalty.

    Google is not at this time penalizing Duplicate Content. I don't expect they ever will.

    The Duplicate Content Filter is supposed to keep the same content from appearing more than one in the same search results page, nothing more. However, it has never worked perfectly, or as intended.

    This is how the Duplicate Content Filter is supposed to work and why:
    Originally Posted by markowe View Post

    I mean, as a Google user I don't want to see the same article 5 times on page one

    The new thing around the corner is Google discounting or ignoring "content farms". I have always thought they should, and I was disappointed that they would not.

    Content Farms are generally article directories.

    Article directories were never originally designed to serve as a link farm, as they are now.

    The purpose and role of the article directory is to let website owners go somewhere to find content worthy of reprint. When ordinary publishers hand select content for placement on their websites, then the syndicated content is proven worthy and generally of good quality.

    The article directory is a content farm whose days may be numbered. And that is fine with me.

    Content farms generally have no enforced editorial policies, only occasionally enforced editorial policies or automated editorial policies. That in my book proves that most article directories are garbage bins of "web content".

    Some nice jewels can be found in the garbage bins, but when they are found, they will be published by other websites, bringing the good content to the surface of respectability online.

    That is the way article directories worked in the beginning, and hopefully, they will become that again.


    Originally Posted by markowe View Post

    I just want the original source.
    Google has never shown the original source of an article, and they never will.

    They have always shown the "most relevant" version of an article -- the copy of the article that has been given the highest authority by the Google algorithm.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3258169].message }}

Trending Topics