Analyze This: BigG and Content Dup

[kaizersuzi]

Just found this by chance. The owner of the website below has copied a full article from the BBC site without even puting a link back to the original article and was not penalised for dup content. The interesting thing is the page has a PR=1. This is maybe a proof that dup content is a myth!

http://www.weight-loss-discovery.com/BBC-news-report-hoodia.html

Original article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2947810.stm

 

[Safety Helmet]

Very interesting find kaizersuzi. I also found the same exact article on several other sites by doing a search on "BBC News Report on Hoodia Gordonii" in the BigG?!?!?! :wt:

 

[Mr.Whitehat]

Thats freaky.Can't imagine he did it with bbc

 

[bigspade]

Duplicate content "death" penalty is a scare tactics created by Google, it was verified by different sources from bloggers to webmasters. And I still remember that guy from Google(Matt Cutt?) mentioned that Google won't penalize the website, but just skip the indexing process if it found duplicate content, but it's like rare case if it does.

 

[vegasvillan]

So your telling me I can scrape content from 1000s of sites and not get penalized? lol

 

[kaizersuzi]

Duplicate content "death" penalty is a scare tactics created by Google, it was verified by different sources from bloggers to webmasters. And I still remember that guy from Google(Matt Cutt?) mentioned that Google won't penalize the website, but just skip the indexing process if it found duplicate content, but it's like rare case if it does.

In this case, this page is even indexed by bigG!

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:weight-loss-discovery.com&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

Once I read a thread in here where several members said that duplicate content was a myth. Now I see the why.
I think, duplicate content become a problem only when it is reported by the original author.

 

[vegasvillan]

In this case, this page is even indexed by bigG!

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:weight-loss-discovery.com&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

Once I read a thread in here where several members said that duplicate content was a myth. Now I see the why.
I think, duplicate content become a problem only when it is reported by the original author.

Have you found this to be the case with any other sites?

 

[kaizersuzi]

Have you found this to be the case with any other sites?

No. It's just a taught. I think the BBC are OK with their content being used somewhere else!

 

[purplepeopleeater]

So your telling me I can scrape content from 1000s of sites and not get penalized? lol

Yes. I have a blog that has 100% dupe content, about 50% of the pages are indexed (right now that's about 125 pages indexed, and more coming everyday).

 

[Oakley]

This could be content hurricane at work?

It was for sale here and now it's no where to be found.

 

[blackhatnoob]

Its hard to explain, but from my experience the site would rank higher in the SERPS (for particular keywords relating to the article) if the article on that page was original.

 

[Yukinari84]

Duplicate content is just a myth and it will not land you some horrible penalty by Google.

I copy and paste content from sites all the time when I'm throwing up sites for fast affiliate cash hits.

Now as time goes on and Google updates, these quick hitters will probably fall down in the SERPs, but you won't get some type of severe punishment from Google or anywhere else.

For long term sites, original content is definitely a must.

 

[mandy]

If the original content owner sends a DMCA to google, they can have your site de-indexed. That is one way that you can lose revenue asap.

 

[Yukinari84]

If the original content owner sends a DMCA to google, they can have your site de-indexed. That is one way that you can lose revenue asap.

Yeah. Maybe so. But that would just be one site. I have tons of em all pointing to the same affiliate offer depending on how hard I want to hit it.

And besides, the original content owners will probably never report it for 3 main reasons:

1. I'm making them a bunch of money for being an aggressive affiliate.

2. They are lazy.

3. They just don;t know about it.

I'm not stealing content. I'm borrowing it for the better good for both the product owner and myself is a better way to put it.

With that said, If it turns out to be a winner product, I will make a long-term site(s) for it and change my tactics as needed.

 

[Yukinari84]

I have yet to experience any problems from anywhere, but we all make our own decisions in our business.

 

[keinehabe]

I tested with article site too , ALL articles ( like 9K articles I think on the db ) are from UAW and other services like this , currently the domain got pr2 . Original content is true ... is good , but .... why to bother to smash your head trying to make unique content ( anyway will be copyed by someone ) ...

 

[deth_by_uv]

I side with Yukinari on this one. If I want fast, hit and make money, then dupe content can kiss my ass. I have only began to believe this within the last few weeks like a stubborn child.

On the other hand, my 100000% unique whitehat sites can rank longterm with less updates I am beginning to notice.

Test it out with the lemon guy doing the "link wheel" studies. He sets up 6 initial web2's with the same content basically cross all properties at the same time completing the circle in terms of linking. Many blog farmers will never complete a linking circle, much less duplicate content across the farm on top of interlinking the dupe content.

I know that is Howie Shwartz style all along, but if Howie says "Chase Manhattan Bank" says dupe content is a myth, then I would have to believe Chase Manhattan Bank myself as well because I have done millions of dollars of transactions through Chase Mortgage, a subsidiary of Chase Manhattan, duh. Or, should I listen to Guru Guy selling you another unique content solution.

Yeah, and wtf about content hurricane? That looked awesome, almost too dangerous to release if it did work as testified.

If you want longterm, then go for unique content that makes sense to readers and sure it works. If you want things that will come fast, but leave fast...then why not dupe content? I'm sure some of you see markets you want to just cash in on, and others you want to work for the long term right?

To each his own.

 

[kaizersuzi]

I'm not stealing content. I'm borrowing it for the better good for both the product owner and myself is a better way to put it.

I like this one.
BTW, I like you approach.

 

[Yukinari84]

I like this one.
BTW, I like you approach.

Thanks.

My approach is simple. I don't want to throw all my time into one promotion before I even know if it's good or not.

Sure I can do all the research I want and be prepared, but you will never know if an offer is really good or how to promote it correctly until you start testing. And to test, you need to get your sites up.

The faster you do this, the faster you will learn what needs to be done.

That's why content generation isn't my main focus when I'm starting out. My main main focus is whether or not what I'm going to promote is going to make me more money.

That's all.

 

[blackhatnoob]

It depends on what type of site you want to make. If your going to make a blog that relies on search engine traffic and you want that traffic to be continuous even after you stop working on it go for original. If your going to promote a product for a little while then there is definitely no point in rewriting the article.