trentham
Joined: Mar 08, 2006
# Posts: 105
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-08 19:50
Hi,
Someone has offered to let me copy some of the content on their website.
Just worried that Google or other engines might see that the content is the same - and penalise me. Is that how it works?
There is a link from my site to his and vice versa. But i wouldn't link the duplicate pages.
Thanks,
- Greg
|
 |
vculp
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
# Posts: 89
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-09 01:34
I would LOVE to hear the answer to this one. *grin*
One of my sites appears to have a duplicate content penalty but there isn't actually any duplicate content.
In my case I am trying to "remove" some of the URLs in the google index to see if it makes a difference.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-10 09:49
If page content is 80% or so identical, I'd say you risk dupe penalty. There are ways to make the page look different and still contain the same content as another page such as making certain paragraphs generated with external javascript files and adding in other sidebar information so that the page does not appear a dupe.
|
|
galway
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-10 10:24
Trentham ,
Why on earth would you use somebody elses content?
Would you put somebody elses oil in your car engine?
Think of ot like this, Google is a library and libraries have unique books, if somebody took 'The Lord of The Rings' removed the content and offered the content back under a different book name do you think the library would value the book. Google knows about the content already and it will recognise this as soon as the information gets hit by a search engine spider.
Write your own content, there is absolutely no benefit from not doing this and everything to lose.
I disagree with you Curt that 80% is ok, Google can easily ratify the characters, I have known many sites that are penalised after spending ages trying to regurgitate content but Google was still able to dupe it.
Create your own is the way I see it.
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1472
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-10 10:59
that Library thing is a pretty good example galway 
I'd say the 80% mark is about right, there will be some lines that will be used elsewhere, but the majority of it is different. For those sites, did there URL's look similar to this
www.domain.com/index.aspx=blahblahblah
if you have pages like this, they usually get classed as dup content (coz there all seen as index.aspx kinda)
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-11 08:45
There are valid reasons for reprinting an article. If an article is relevant to your site, but the the article exists somewhere else, why would you want to send your visitors elsewhere when you can keep them on your site? For instance, someone once posted a testimonial about Gator in an e-newsletter and later that newsletter was stored online in an archive. I found the article and since the testimonial was relevant to my site, I asked the author for reprint rights. Of course in my case it was easy to make it look different because I only wanted the testimonial part of the newsletter and not all the newsletter content, but still, I used the testimonial word for word. Rather than send my visitors away, I keep them on my site. There are good reasons for wanting to reprint certain things. In my case there was only one other place where that testimonial was located.
Besides that, I do not think we are talking about duping a bunch of pages from another site. We are talking about reprinting a few pages (at least that seems to be implied here).
|
|
galway
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-11 10:23
Hi Curt,
Adding news items etc is not what I interpret as website content. My understanding of this post was that the website content (meaning the actual content not news) was going to be copied.
There is no place for this without compromising the site in any circumstances and I feel that Trentham needs to know how important this is.
If Trentham were referring to news items etc then I am sure he would of used different terminology, in addition I still would not use and archive any news items or articles without some form of rescripting.
At the end of the day my opinion is that just becuase other people do it... it doesnt make it right.
|
|
hawkeyerecon
Joined: Feb 28, 2006
# Posts: 25
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-19 22:50
Quick extension of this question. We are a directory and have affiliate programs with different organizations where they use our data (hosted by us) in an I frame (hosted by them). Since the data we are sending them already exists on our site, are we in danger of being seen as having duplicate data? Are they? Thx.
[ Message was edited by: hawkeyerecon 04/20/2006 06:45 am ]
|
|
elizawills
Joined: Mar 18, 2006
# Posts: 60
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-20 06:01
Information on duplicate content was pretty good. In the same context, I would like to know, if many sites put the same articles or news items, do the SEs penalize them as duplicate content? If no, then how do they differentiate between duplicate articles / news and actual duplicate contents?
Any help??
|
|
galway
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-20 09:06
Hawkeye - No you are fine because spiders cannot get to an Iframe and therefore they do not know the content is there.
Eliza - Many sites that put articles up rewrite the introduction which can help, in addition many sites already have huge numbers of pages which makes it less of a problem. The main issue here is if you want these pages to be listed in searches and in that case the answer is that it is unlikely.
Furthermore if your site has a low number of pages with much copied content or 'news' then your whole website will suffer.
|
|
elizawills
Joined: Mar 18, 2006
# Posts: 60
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-20 10:55
Thanks galway for the information......
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-20 11:20
There are several types of "duplicate content".
Make sure that every page of the site has a unique title and meta description. This is very important.
Make sure that there is only one URL that can get to each page of content. This is especially a problem for dynamic content sites.
Redirect all non-www accesses over to the www version of the page. There are very many previous threads in this forum that discuss this topic.
|
|
excell
Staff
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14513
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-20 16:52
OH yes.. I echo this gem
"Make sure that every page of the site has a unique title and meta description. This is very important."
Today I have been dealing with people that have two types of duplicate content going against them.
Type one is on site duplication...
Type two is off site duplication...
Unique content is the way to go, stop cutting and pasting and get down to it with some WORK!
Adding - there is nothing wrong with reproducing articles or info, however, MAKE IT YOUR OWN... format information from others to your own unique style and present it as fresh.
On the other hand if you have great copy on your own website - STOP giving it away, willy-nilly! Why would you produce fantastic stuff just to allow others to copy / paste to their own environment? If they are bigger than you for the subject they WILL dilute your presence.
|
|
dexterseo
Joined: Apr 25, 2006
# Posts: 1
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-26 01:52
I'm not buying that google is paying attention to duplicative content insight. Industry leading sites with massive search engine saturation live off of this fact. Take a look at sites like match.com, homegain, homestore, dslbroker . . . which dominate their industry keyword markets. The majority of their pages/site are as much as 90% duplicative.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10465
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-26 13:57
Look deeper, the site:domain.com searches can be very revealing.
|
|
galway
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
# Posts: 300
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-26 17:20
Dexter,
I think that your outlook is a little short sighted, some of these huge sites are there through many different factors and they are above the normal everday issue that affect the rank and file.
Its very speculative to use that outlook and very damaging to much of the high quality advice that is given through here, advice that produces great results for SME based facilities.
The rank and file need to address these issues, it is a proven fact that in a high percentage of cases you will not perform in Google when you duplicate your information.
We are all very aware of the anomalies and also the fact that large established sites seem to be able to withstand the frequent changes in criteria. In addition do not be fooled into thinking that a company that spends millions in advertising with Google might not get some external preferences.
|
|
excell
Staff
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14513
|
Posted: 2006-Apr-27 18:33
Hmm - well yes, yes, and no & maybe.
It is rather silly to focus on one area ie. shear size ranking even though obvious duplication is evident.
There are other things going on than weight & keyphrase repetition...
Obnoxious as it may sound, I repeat a steady tune. Stop thinking so much about the search engines and make your website useful to your visitors. If that is fully understood.... the sky is the limit (regardless of the hungry ones) - um... isn't that good? to aim at "what you can do" & "having done all" to "stand firm"!
|
|
Inbox
