How to get ranked using copied content?

[MatthewGraham]

Just posted this in a different thread. May be relevant to your interests:

https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/duplicate-content-cause-penalty.962479/
I've ranked with this:

1. First half of the page: Duplicate content verbatim
2. Second half of the page: The same content run through a content spinner. If you want to be sneakier/black-hat-ier, you can hide this part under another element or make the text white or whatever.

You can also rank fairly easily like this (essentially syndicated content):

1. Original intro of about one paragraph - approx 100 words or so. Ex: "I ran into this article on [subject]. The info about [blah blah] would be useful to [blah blah]. Here's the article:"
2. The duplicate content verbatim
3. Original conclusion. Similar to the intro in concept.

 

[MatthewGraham]

Have u guys ever tried it before? Any one I just need what will happen exactly in real time. Forgot about the lawsuit and forgot about the what google says I will take no dcma server and will pay via bitcoin . Dont worry about that.

Even if your host doesn't ban you for DMCA violations, Google can/does deindex sites for DMCA violations.

 

[xyzhat]

Translate them with some online tool (not google) and geta person to rewrite them, easy job = cheap original content.

 

[ThopHayt]

Just posted this in a different thread. May be relevant to your interests:

https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/duplicate-content-cause-penalty.962479/
I've ranked with this:

1. First half of the page: Duplicate content verbatim
2. Second half of the page: The same content run through a content spinner. If you want to be sneakier/black-hat-ier, you can hide this part under another element or make the text white or whatever.

You can also rank fairly easily like this (essentially syndicated content):

1. Original intro of about one paragraph - approx 100 words or so. Ex: "I ran into this article on [subject]. The info about [blah blah] would be useful to [blah blah]. Here's the article:"
2. The duplicate content verbatim
3. Original conclusion. Similar to the intro in concept.

I'm guessing that only works because Google gives you credit for the non-copied portion of the page. The copied portion Google treats as if it were blank (doesn't discount you for it, but simply ignores it completely). I'm guessing that you would get the same results with just the original intro paragraph or just the spun article. Have you tried both against each other to see if there is any difference?

-ThopHayt

 

[mickyfu]

Ok this IS possible but you'll need a few things:

First you'll need a flux capacitor, because for this to work we'll need to travel back in time to the mid-2000's. I'd say 2008 would be the sweet spot.

Then you'll need to bring a laptop and a copy of scrapebox. Make sure to have a copy of IE8 installed so that you can surf the web in 2008.

Next you simply scrape content from VERY freshly posted articles from around the web and post them before Google's 2008 bots get a chance to crawl them (should take at least 2-3 hours if it is a non-popular source).

Then hook your site up to Adsense and make sure the profits are being dumped into a bank account that bares interest (this is KEY because we can't access it until today when you return).

If all is done right you should return to a deindexed website with posts from 2008 and a bank account with several hundred dollars in it. Just make sure you didn't break ANYTHING while you were in the past... it could have terrible repercussions...

-ThopHayt

Could you not scrape 2017 content and take it back to 2008 so that the content is unique?

I'm not too sure if content can travel back in time, or if it will simply be erased on the journey.

 

[MatthewGraham]

I'm guessing that only works because Google gives you credit for the non-copied portion of the page. The copied portion Google treats as if it were blank (doesn't discount you for it, but simply ignores it completely). I'm guessing that you would get the same results with just the original intro paragraph or just the spun article. Have you tried both against each other to see if there is any difference?

-ThopHayt

Searching for the duplicate content turns up the sites I've done this on in the SERPs. I originally tested this with a website in the essay writing niche. Basically copy-pasting a bunch of assignment instruction documents verbatim onto a webpage. Mostly assignment instructions for mediocre schools that reuse the same assignments over and over again. Then below those copy-pasting the spun versions. When students copy-pasted parts of their project/essay/other instructions into Google they'd find our page. The excerpts that Google showed in the SERPs would be the verbatim duplicate content.

I originally tried it without the spun content below it and it wouldn't even index. But with the spun content it seemed to basically treat the 5k+ words of duplicate content as a giant block quote.

It would probably still index without the duplicate content, but wouldn't pull in the traffic fof the exact match / super long tail verbatim terms in the assignment instructions. Seemed to index the duplicate parts fine.

 

[ThopHayt]

Could you not scrape 2017 content and take it back to 2008 so that the content is unique?

I'm not too sure if content can travel back in time, or if it will simply be erased on the journey.

Tried that once with porn... did not go well...

-ThopHayt

 

[ThopHayt]

Searching for the duplicate content turns up the sites I've done this on in the SERPs. I originally tested this with a website in the essay writing niche. Basically copy-pasting a bunch of assignment instruction documents verbatim onto a webpage. Mostly assignment instructions for mediocre schools that reuse the same assignments over and over again. Then below those copy-pasting the spun versions. When students copy-pasted parts of their project/essay/other instructions into Google they'd find our page. The excerpts that Google showed in the SERPs would be the verbatim duplicate content.

I originally tried it without the spun content below it and it wouldn't even index. But with the spun content it seemed to basically treat the 5k+ words of duplicate content as a giant block quote.

It would probably still index without the duplicate content, but wouldn't pull in the traffic fof the exact match / super long tail verbatim terms in the assignment instructions. Seemed to index the duplicate parts fine.

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a loophole in their indexing. If so we probably should keep a lid on it. Because their official stance (as well as what I've seen if you straight copy) is that they treat it as blank. Odd...

-ThopHayt

 

[MatthewGraham]

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a loophole in their indexing. If so we probably should keep a lid on it. Because their official stance (as well as what I've seen if you straight copy) is that they treat it as blank. Odd...

-ThopHayt

Huh. Maybe I'll do some more tests on it. Am curious now...

 

[ThopHayt]

Huh. Maybe I'll do some more tests on it. Am curious now...

Definitely worth a test, let me know what happens for sure.

-ThopHayt

 

[KHer0]

If you did some search you will have the same question posted 1000 times before.

Now, I truly believe, every time someone says " Duplicate content penalty " a puppy dies -_-

There is no such a penalty. Your content will be indexed in the google archive ! How to get it out of google archive is your homework....

What you are trying to do is just being lazy and this is why it won't work .... If this is the best idea you can come up with, then, you need to quit IM

 

[MatthewGraham]

Definitely worth a test, let me know what happens for sure.

-ThopHayt

I'll let you know if/when I have a chance to test it out!

 

[itz_styx]

Hmm... that sounds like it could be a loophole in their indexing. If so we probably should keep a lid on it. Because their official stance (as well as what I've seen if you straight copy) is that they treat it as blank. Odd...

-ThopHayt

and where did you get that information from that google treats it as blank? that is bullshit, just as much as all those duplicate content myths. besides according to google around 25% of the www is duplicate content and they still index it. you can copy some stuff 1:1 and it still gets indexed and ranked, just deppends on how you do it. think of linux MAN pages for example. there are hundreds of mirrors and they still get indexed and rank. there is way too much guess work done by whitehat SEOs these days. maybe listen to what matt cutts said before he left google

his comment regarding a simple rss auto blog is funny - "then it might be viewed a little bit as spam" .. dude its a rss auto blog copying articles 1:1 from other sites and he still doesn't call it an sblog or pure spam lol
so maybe just rethink your idea of duplicate content and actually try things out to see what works and what not instead of just making assumptions

 

[bigjayk85]

Yes. I am going to try this now. I will start working on this today. Let see. Thanks for your suggesting. Lets dig the earth.

Why OP why.

 

[SearchEngineWays]

For using copied content you can't get rankings, you'll get only penalty or deindex of the site.

Just rewrite the contents as well and then use it, may be you'll get rankings this way

 

[W9go]

Could you not scrape 2017 content and take it back to 2008 so that the content is unique?

I'm not too sure if content can travel back in time, or if it will simply be erased on the journey.

but then you will rank back in 2008 and since its 2017 you get no traffic and clicks.
beliebe me i tried it with my time machine

 

[Furious Man]

No buddy, that's not fair.. not a good way and everything will be waste also..
You can get the idea from the content. And try to rewrite it

 

[menoah]

It does not work good.. Copied content wouldn't rank your site anymore..

 

[AeroDynam]

https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/cloned-website-1000000-searches-20kw-difficulty.962639/

It is completely possible. Check my thread out

 

[ThopHayt]

and where did you get that information from that google treats it as blank? that is bullshit, just as much as all those duplicate content myths. besides according to google around 25% of the www is duplicate content and they still index it.

It was stated by Google at some point, I remember it because it was a change from back when they used to see to slap pages for it. But keep in mind... ignoring it doesn't necessarily mean Google won't index the page... it means that Google doesn't reward you for that content (in terms of boosting your site's assessment, or keywords). So if you write 200 words about turkeys and copy a 700 word article about chickens you can index it, theoretically but only the part about turkeys will give you credit or keywords.

-ThopHayt