These are indeed interesting times. If you missed out on Part1 of Duplicate Content Controversy – Clarifying Misconceptions, please visit the link above so that you can be up to speed.
As to be expected, “old habits die hard”. I received some replies to my post on the above, at 5 Star Affiliate Programs Forum.
I have since further illuminated the whole issue and now post the major reply to my first post and my subsequent reply.
While I do appreciate your response, I do believe that you have not allowed for several factors that are pretty obvious.
1. If you check the date that it was first published, it was over 3 years ago and Google has since made this information public, but not prior to.
2. “One must however be careful here in that presence in Google index does not mean ranking highly in the index. Again, apart from the primary index, there is also the supplementary index.
Even though not also directly stated by Google, it is unlikely that a content which is significantly the same with another will feature on the first page of Google.”
Considering this information, then we should not see search results like these, and I could show you millions of them: Electronic Cigarette Retailer Sells At Wholesale Prices To The Public – Google Search and New Quartz Infrared Heater Could Save Americans Over Half On Their Heating Bill – Google Search
I have not covered this in depth because I have just not had the time to lately, but it looks like now is the time. I have never believed in a penalty, and about 7 months after I wrote this post Matt Cutts published that there was no penalty, then made a video of it and explained it thoroughly so that anyone with a working concept of SEO could understand, but that does not count for the newbie who is trying to piece SEO together. This post was to educate newbies that were living in fear of “Duplicate content” as most put it.
Now to the search results that I posted. They are 2 press releases, one from about a year ago and one from about 6 months ago. There are several occurrences of each on the first page just by searching the title alone, no quotes. This is the primary index cashgen speaks of when he stated ”
Even though not also directly stated by Google, it is unlikely that a content which is significantly the same with another will feature on the first page of Google”
We now see this is false, and if you want to check others, go to a major newswire and past titles in Google and take a look. I have to admit that article directories will give you less play, but it is because of the given domain authority of the directories as compared to the news sites that pick them up.
You can also make them stick by direct linking to them. Matt Cutts himself validated this stating that “”As a reminder, supplemental results aren’t something to be afraid of; Ive got pages from my site in the supplemental results, for example. A complete software rewrite of the infrastructure for supplemental results launched in Summer of 2005, and the supplemental results continue to get fresher. Having urls in the supplemental results doesn’t mean that you have some sort of penalty at all; the main determinant of whether a url is in our main web index or in the supplemental index is PageRank. If you used to have pages in our main web index and now they are in the supplemental results, a good hypothesis is that we might not be counting links to your pages with the same weight as we have in the past. ”
As you can see, the fun started in 2005, and before 2006 I had tested and found that you can have multiples in the search results with good links to as many as I wanted in the first page.
I have linked many not only out of supplemental results, but also to the first page. I did not do that to the two I referenced here, as most news sites carry a lot of PR throughout their sites, it makes sense that they are getting some serious PR bleed from a couple of high PR pages within the news sites. So they do that well basically on domain authority and internal link structure.
Now, there is a loss of them altogether on PRs and articles both because a lot of news sites and article directories cull and archive content after a certain period of time. So once the pages are removed from these sites, some of them could disappear, but they are removed from the index because the content is removed.
Thank you jcorkern and minstrel for your posts in response to mine.
I indicated at the outset of my post that “Right from the outset, may i state that a lot of faulty deductions have been made about “duplicate content” which actually was never stated by Google nor was Google’s intention, hence the confusion.”
I am seing it again being repeated in your posts. For crying out load, we are all agreed that there is no duplicate content penalty resulting to duplication of articles or news items across multiple sites in normal circumstances and Google also did not state otherwise at anytime. They are allowed to feature in Google’s index. So, illustrating with examples is actually not necessary. This is the faulty deductions never actually stated by Google and fuelling the duplicate content controversy that i was referring to. It is like arguing over nothing.
But now please note my words carefully. That does not translate to the fact that there is no duplicate content penalty across board. It exists but not in the direction indicated above that most people think.
Google specifically indicated that there is a penalty for duplicate content where it results either on the same site or across sites, if it is “Duplicate content with malicious intent or deceptive in origin”. In this case, there is a contravention of Google Webmaster Guidelines and such penalty can include but not limited to complete removal from Google index.
I also clearly stated in my post that “Even though not also directly stated by Google, it is unlikely that a content which is significantly the same with another will feature on the first page of Google. Distinct this however from “spinned” articles or the application of “article leverage” which may have made the articles significantly different, even if bearing the same title.”
In the very few cases where you view the same article or news titles on page 1 of Google, it does not mean those articles or news items are significantly the same, as the title though important does not constitute the entire article or significantly the article. With good “spinners” and “article leverage tools”, an article can be changed even by 50%, yet with the article or news item title remaining in place.
My point also remains that our conclusions regarding duplicate content as it applies to syndicated articles and news items is the same i.e. no penalty – but for divergent reasons. You rationalized it based on different codes, images, java script, file name which i disagree with but rather rationalizing it based on the clear Google policy.
I agree that given the time you wrote the post, you probably lacked enough information as subsequently revealed by Google but that does not change the facts, rather it only makes us understand your plight at the time.
Finally, there is no point buttressing areas where we are both agreed, thereby creating an impression as if i disagree on these points. Also, the fact that duplicate content across sites is not ordinarily penalized based on current Google policy does not make them less duplicate content than that on the same site as many would want us believe. It is simply that they are not penalized. Please note here that “duplicate content ” is/are english word/s and is in the dictionary and not the coinnage of Google.
I will leave you now with this quote from Wkipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Duplicate content is a term used in the field of search engine optimization to describe content that appears on more than one web page, even on different web sites. When multiple pages contain essentially the same content, search engines such as Google prefer to only display one of those pages in their search results.
Non-malicious duplicate content may include multiple views of the same page, such as normal HTML and a version for mobile devices, printer-only versions of a page, or store items that can be shown via multiple distinct URLs.
Malicious duplicate content refers to intentionally generated search spam in an effort to manipulate search results and gain more traffic. Users do not like to see the same content listed multiple times.
**** If you enjoyed reading this post, be sure to fill out this form to receive notification via e-mail once any new blog post is published. You will be able to see the post title and if it piques your interest, you can simply click over to my blog.
You can leave a comment below, picking up one or two dofollow backlinks in the process, as the case may be, since this blog is dofollow and has keywordluv and commentluv plugins enabled.
Do not forget to share this post with your friends and followers. Remember sharing is caring! ****