- 14,808
I'm not too sure about the duplicate content penalty. The Huffington Post climbed through the ranks and become worth millions by taking content written by other news organizations and slapping it on their site.
Last edited:
2nd Site....want Opinions
- Thread starter JimmyUt
- Start date
- 10,275
The duplicate content penalty is real. Otherwise, everyone would just copy and paste the content of other websites. And they do (it happened to my sites). But the duplicated sites go nowhere.
Re Huffington, Drudge etc...they are different. How? Perhaps an SEO person can explain it.
Re Huffington, Drudge etc...they are different. How? Perhaps an SEO person can explain it.
- 14,808
I'd like a SEO personal to explain it because in theory, Huffington should be on Google page 154,345,342. They're on page 1 and simply "aggregate" the news.
Drudge is on 1st page Google for the term "news." Good Lord. Wonder how that feels to CNN who spends millions and millions creating original content - then Drudge simply posts their links.
Drudge is on 1st page Google for the term "news." Good Lord. Wonder how that feels to CNN who spends millions and millions creating original content - then Drudge simply posts their links.
- 11,997
I'll throw my hat in as an SEO person:
Duplicate content penalty is BS. There is nothing intrinsically damaging about having duplicate content. Are their issues with it? Yes, but just like backlinks, there's good copying and bad copying.
I have some sites I tested recently (still up) and tested that theory. I took some duplicate content from a few sites (legitimately) and ranked for some relatively low comp terms pretty quickly and easily. Admittedly Bing and Yahoo are morons and so my page one position two for those terms with that site isn't a huge deal, but without any real effort I was page one position 5-7 on Google too. It's since slipped on google, but if I gave it some love doing some very basic things, it'd stay on page one for those terms.
Regarding the news aggregators (at least that's what I'll call them), they have large collections of duplicate content along with some original content. Their bounce rate is also really low and they have a lot of folks linking to them and giving them free backlinks "Hey, did you see this _______ on huffingtonpost.com?" Google (and the rest) have also realized that folks like to get news from trusted sites and the news aggregators have a reputation for having quality content that people read, so that all feeds into their rankings.
Duplicate content penalty is BS. There is nothing intrinsically damaging about having duplicate content. Are their issues with it? Yes, but just like backlinks, there's good copying and bad copying.
I have some sites I tested recently (still up) and tested that theory. I took some duplicate content from a few sites (legitimately) and ranked for some relatively low comp terms pretty quickly and easily. Admittedly Bing and Yahoo are morons and so my page one position two for those terms with that site isn't a huge deal, but without any real effort I was page one position 5-7 on Google too. It's since slipped on google, but if I gave it some love doing some very basic things, it'd stay on page one for those terms.
Regarding the news aggregators (at least that's what I'll call them), they have large collections of duplicate content along with some original content. Their bounce rate is also really low and they have a lot of folks linking to them and giving them free backlinks "Hey, did you see this _______ on huffingtonpost.com?" Google (and the rest) have also realized that folks like to get news from trusted sites and the news aggregators have a reputation for having quality content that people read, so that all feeds into their rankings.
- 10,275
"Duplicate content penalty is BS". Josh...You seem like a nice guy but I strongly disagree with you.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an SEO person (really Mark!) But who has more knowledge? Mr. Josh or the fine folks who wrote this:
Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz
The link above was actually provided by someone else. I'm just posting it.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an SEO person (really Mark!) But who has more knowledge? Mr. Josh or the fine folks who wrote this:
Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz
The link above was actually provided by someone else. I'm just posting it.
Last edited:
- 5,058
yall hold on im gonna head over to sams club for some snacks, wait for me!
- 10,275
I'll take some chocolate covered raisins and five PR 5 links.
- 11,997
I get that there are a lot of people on here that are slinging stuff and don't know what they're talking about, but I have the sites to prove that I do. When I say that the duplicate content penalty is a myth, I say that because of what I have actually done and what I have seen google do with it, nevermind yahoo and bing who aren't google, but they still get traffic.
I'll be more than happy to have this conversation with you and show you offline what I've been doing and what's working. Hell, I'll even get on the phone with you and walk you through some of it, but the folks that have given me money for SEO are more than pleased with the results and I think you were a little too quick to judge on this point.
Surely we can all agree that if I can get someone to rank page one on Google for Medicare terms in their state and page one on yahoo and bing for most version of Medicare and the name of their state I know at least something about SEO to be worth at least a few dimes.
Last edited:
All I know is that I had Josh build me a web site. Two weeks later I got a call from a lady in Nevada (I live in UT) from my web site and sold her a Med supp and PDP. Just saying.
- 2,024
SEOmoz has some good data, but between panda 1 and panda 2, there was a modification to the duplicate content penalty that I don't think they're addressing in there, and the A B testing that has been done shows a far different thing than a cut and dry penalty.
Having said that, it's not a great idea to design around the idea that the penalty won't be changed back to be more strict in the future, in particular when copyrighting costs 1-2.50 /100 words.
