Is encoded content dublicate content?

[gentleboy]

It is %100 copyscape pass.What is your opinion?

 

[B3rs3k3r]

Well, it's one of the basic methods, you may be able to trick some lesser webs with that, but it won't work with Google (at least surely not for your money site). Why is it still working for copyscape, that's a mystery to me.

 

[sitecontact]

G0gle speaks many languages, that's for sure....

 

[partymarty4870]

I've never liked it and see it as a short term strategy. It does seem to work, but I won't use it as I want my work to be effective for as long as possible

 

[Zak_A]

It does work with copyscape because the "content" actually looks different.
But it won't help you with seo, because while reading the raw code, google will only see gibberish content, aka nothing worth indexing.

So to put it simply, encoded content won't be seen as duplicate content, but as no real content at all.

 

[SEO_Alchemy]

...... agreed. It's trash. doesn't belong anywhere. Not on main site, not on linking properties.

 

[traged]

I would not be so sure. If you encode only stopwords, there will be still enough content for google and such article can still pass copyscape....

 

[twistedtrick]

If anyone is looking to test out this method, I have used this tool in the past and it encodes pretty well.

http://www.contentboss.com/pass-copyscape.php

I would personally rather use superspun content rather than encoded, but that's just me.

 

[mickyfu]

Agree with the above, but I would rather use shit spun content. It may well pass copyscape, but this does not say it is not seen as duplicate by Google. No one knows for sure, but I would not use it on a site I liked. I may be tempted to use it on a dirty site which I could not care less about.

 

[terebi]

But it won't help you with seo, because while reading the raw code, google will only see gibberish content, aka nothing worth indexing.

Do you know this for a fact?

To back it up though, I do remember hearing about blognetworks that caught onto encoded content. Such that when you pasted it it would remove the encoded letters and leave gibberish behind that obviously wouldn't pass a human review.

At any rate who is to say that encoded content isn't real content? Just because i decided to use "a" from another country letter set doesn't mean my content is automatically rubbish.

I have a feature to encode content on my software, and I get alot of users asking about how it works. I would like to find once and for all if it works... or maybe its just a clever rouse to beat copyscape.

 

[twilightofidols]

I can't answer your question directly, but I can tell you that I personally don't use this variety of content because even if it does work at the moment it would be easy to detect in spite of being "unique"

 

[phpbuilt]

It's 2013 now. Who has a good excuse to stick a Russian "a" into English text? It's the Google webspam team's job to tackle stuff like that. They read BHW, the technique has been around since 2009 (actually, WPUnique as a domain was registered back in 2007, so the technique was probably in use since then). That's eight years, online. In internet years, that's a dead dog. It would be wise to give Google credit enough to believe they can detect a few cyrillic letters in English text and say "ah hah, blackhat".

And even if they don't do it now ... there's a chance they will, and when they do it could be as big a smackdown as public blog networks.

Besides, what happens when someone takes an article, swaps chars on the stop words and posts it a month before you do the same article? Now its duplicate content again.

 

[jazzc]

At any rate who is to say that encoded content isn't real content? Just because i decided to use "a" from another country letter set doesn't mean my content is automatically rubbish.

Yes, it 's rubbish for SEO because no one searches google for potato with "encoded" characters. No nuclear science degree required.

Unless you want to rank for 0 search rubbish though