Could this be a good method for backlinks?

Hi,

I don't know if somebody already mentioned this method before, but I haven't seen it anywhere anyway.

I was thinking about this very simple method, based on the idea that a site needs to have authority for it to climb high up in the SERPS.

Wouldn't a site get a lot of authority if the content used on it was used on different sites (like article sites for example). I mean, isn't it so that some articles are copied as a whole, and used on blogs and what not, leaving a note at the bottom "Source: xxxxx (link to the exact URL of the article)"
Basically, this will be seen as double content by google, I know. But wouldn't it be so that, although the new article on the article website doesn't get a lot of points - because of double content - the original one would get a lot of authority, because someone seems to have found this article interesting enough to copy it and use it on their blog ...

So, if you build a site, with some unique articles, and then after some time, you copy the articles and paste them on a few blogs or article directories (mentioning the source at the bottom), wouldn't the original articles get a lot more authority this way? And thus your website as a whole

Is this a good assumption, or am I fishing behind the net for some reason?

Again, sorry if this has been discussed already before .... I just couldn't find any topic about this

No one with some insight on the subject who is tempted to react?

Obviously as you know a copy and paste job won't work, since it'd be duplicate content. The article would be able to quote and reference the source. I'm sure a naked url as a reference would take priority over an anchored desire.

It would basically have to be from a source of "authority" to make a respectable impact though, and for that to happen, not only the originating content would have to be prime, but the presented articles that's less informative, as it'd be concise, still has to have substance.

dinkish said:

Obviously as you know a copy and paste job won't work, since it'd be duplicate content. The article would be able to quote and reference the source. I'm sure a naked url as a reference would take priority over an anchored desire.

It would basically have to be from a source of "authority" to make a respectable impact though, and for that to happen, not only the originating content would have to be prime, but the presented articles that's less informative, as it'd be concise, still has to have substance.

Click to expand...

Ok, but it's not like Google reads every single article on every website, and knows if the article has some authority or not, is it?
So, my theory is just that, if a certain article is being copied a lot by other people and used on their blogs, or in article directories, it could mean for google that the article is quite valuable to other people. A little bit like normal backlinks : the more links you have to your site (without taking into account the quality and other factors), the more your site is regarded as interesting enough, and the better your site will rank eventually.

Think about journal sites: many of the articles written on such sites are being copied by many different people, and used as a whole on their blogs (with a reference to the source) If an article is copied a lot, it would clearly be a sign that the article is well worth it. And thus the site where it has been originally published.

Anyone else has an opinion? I'd really like to get more opinions... Thanks

"Google" doesn't need to read it. It basically consumes information that we give and compares it. From an authoritative stand-point, it won't need to compare all fields to figure out what is "valued" or not.

If content is being duplicated (beyond potential indexing issues after initial indexing) since they've "copied" it, with or without a url referencing the originating source, it'd very likely just come back to authority referrers primarily.

I as well would like to read others' experiences, even if it clashes with my own mind-set.... Thanks

I see where your getting at with this, but I wouldn't waste the time to figure out if it'll actually be worth the effort. Instead, your time would be much better spent creating a highly spun and readable article that could be posted to a 100 different article directories, web 2.0's, wikis, etc. These in context backlinks will serve your authority much much better than a page that simple is using your content as dup content.

I wouldn't go that route either. There are so many better alternatives out there that you could get better results from.

supramanneke said:

No one with some insight on the subject who is tempted to react?

Click to expand...

Google is in the business of giving it's readers the latest and most original content. Having your article re-published around the web will not improve rankings as only the original article counts. Google never shows the same content twice in any searches, so it's basically worthless as an authority link. Google wont punish a site for this but it will not get any credit for "seeming" to be popular because it's content is republished.
(By the way, duplicate content ONLY applies to content within the same domain).

no actually it is not.

I understand what you guys are saying. About duplicate content and so on. But, it's not those copies of the original that need to rank. I just want google to understand that the original is important.
Plus, it seems very logic as well, if you compare for example to the offline world. E.g. in books, or professional articles, often other articles are used as a whole (unchanged), with a "link" to the source of the article. So, you can imagine, if many books and articles refer to that article, it has to be important, right?

I was simply thinking that maybe google would also understand that, and give the original article more authority. Here's a little bit out-of-the-box thinking:

We are all trying to get as many links as possible to our sites. All of us our creating unique (spun) content, and placing them everywhere on the net. We are all trying to "fool" google into believing that our sites are so important. But, what about those who DON'T know anything about SEO, and don't even know that there are black and grey ways to improve your rankings. Those people don't know about duplicate content and the importance of having your own unique content etc. These people wouldn't mind copying content from other sites, while linking back to them. Because this is what is done offline as well.. They are doing the right thing. And, wouldn't they only copy articles and content from interesting and professional sources?
So, wouldn't google understand this, and actually, when the robots find duplicate content, give more points to the actual original article where it is linked to? again, I am just trying to convey a theory that's been spinning in my mind. So far, nobody really convinced me that this is definitely impossible.

NOnono. You are so wrong bro.

Its impossible

In normal authority world noone copy & paste whole article because its against copyright. Lets say you have website with gr8 article about seo and alot bloggers talk about that article. They will copy and paste your article? NO. They will write about it and give link to your website. Sorry your way of thinking is 100% wrong.

P.S.
Create website with one article and point to it 1000 backlinks with gsa
Than create web 2.0 site on wordpress and put on it same article + 1000 backlinks with gsa.
Chose phrase in article and search for it using google

Result?
Web 2.0 will be higher....
Why?
Because google dont give a fuck which article is orginal. They take website with highest authority as source.

satyr85 said:

NOnono. You are so wrong bro.

Its impossible

In normal authority world noone copy & paste whole article because its against copyright. Lets say you have website with gr8 article about seo and alot bloggers talk about that article. They will copy and paste your article? NO. They will write about it and give link to your website. Sorry your way of thinking is 100% wrong.

P.S.
Create website with one article and point to it 1000 backlinks with gsa
Than create web 2.0 site on wordpress and put on it same article + 1000 backlinks with gsa.
Chose phrase in article and search for it using google

Result?
Web 2.0 will be higher....
Why?
Because google dont give a fuck which article is orginal. They take website with highest authority as source.

Click to expand...

Ooooooooooooooh right, now I understand! This was a very good answer. I had no clue about this. I really thought google kind of "knows" the original source of a piece of content.

But, wait a minute... does that mean that, if I find an article on a stupid platform, or a domain with no authority, with low amount of backlinks, I copy the article and place it as it is on an authority platform, and send plenty of good backlinks to it, it will be picked up by google and given more authority than the actual original?
Is this correct?
I wouldn't do anything like this, of course. But, just out of curiosity, I wonder...

And, I know there is copyright law. But, we all know that on the internet, these regulations are ignored all the time. And people do not persue legal actions easily.