Guide - Duplicate Content - Myths & Facts

Is it still the same after June Panda? Any updates?

Well, thank you for the most enjoyable read. I learned quite a bit from that, most of that stuff I hadn't even thought about. Is there a certain way to get SE bots to scan your website faster than the original site? Do you just get a lot of back-links out there on bigger sites?

good and very full informations..thanks

Yeah that's a big fail if the posts are published in full. If you post just 50 word summaries and link to main blog AND the user subdomains have other content too, not just the summary posts from main blog, then it would help a bit. However all are links from same domain so they won't offer a lot of value by themselves.

Instead of that what I would do would be to have monthly giveaway for something cool (not necessarily expensive) - a book, a gadget, etc. Let all users know that they can join that month's giveaway by writing a post on their subdomain blog about any post made that month on the main blog. That way you get lots of folks writing unique stuff and linking to the main blog.

Might work or not depending on many factors, the idea is to think out of the box.

garysbasem3nt said:

I have a question though regarding non-original content on multiple sites. I'm working for a client that's company has a personalize social network for it's fans. The social network is fairly active - at least a couple thousand users - and each one of these sites is given a subdomain.

Each of these subdomains can be given a custom URL if purchased - but essentially it's much like creating a blogger or wordpress.

Now the dev had the genius idea of publishing all "corporate/company" blog posts on everyone of these subdomains as well. When first learning of this, I told them it was a terrible idea - and that it may even penalize the main blog. It looks like you're saying that's not the case? I still think they should just link back to the main blog and discontinue publishing these posts on all of these additional subdomains (and for those that purchased domain names - unique websites).

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

madoctopus said:

@GreyWolf: yeah, i started to write a reply to SEO myths and reality thread, but ended up pretty big So I decided to start a new thread.

As I said, I think that copying content as-is is not the best way to go. I have sites where I added non-original content and while previously they were (the original content) indexed in 1 day, after posting a bunch of non-original posts it started to take days to get indexed. Also, relying only on such content solely to build backlinks I don't think is a good idea.

Click to expand...

Yes you can't rely on duplicate content to build links actually they are not worth to get links but credit only but here in BHW I saw thread which talked about how to make any duplicate content unique I forget thread name he was also giving link to his self made video. I still finding that thread here in BHW

nautiyal said:

Yes you can't rely on duplicate content to build links actually they are not worth to get links but credit only but here in BHW I saw thread which talked about how to make any duplicate content unique I forget thread name he was also giving link to his self made video. I still finding that thread here in BHW

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the method where you mix sentences randomly? Or the one where you replace stop-words (a, the, with) with HTML Unicode codes? If you only want to pass the automated systems of Google, it is not that difficult to produce content that looks unique to them. But it will be completely unreadable.

Thanks for your enlightening post, i still remember my first ever blog (around 6-7 months ago before panda i guess) was a scraped content site (around 250 pages) and it was a huge success..I used scraped content from multiple places, threw in original too once in a while. Google loved my site, gave me tons and tons of long tail visitors, People loved my site too as i provided value although scraped content. I made pretty nice bucks before selling it off.

Quite ironically i failed terribly with original content sites (~25-30 pages) which i made recently so this post has inspired me to go back to the same route which i followed some months back. All that fuss about panda stopped me from scraping content again but will try again i think

@vamos_rafa - I wrote this before panda, now it's not the same. You need to be more sneaky.

What about using traslating program to produce content. The translated version seems unique to google?

Before panda there was not problem with this method. But after panda it is harder to get them indexed. Any1 else tried this after panda?

madoctopus said:

vamos_rafa - I wrote this before panda, now it's not the same. You need to be more sneaky.

Click to expand...

can we have updated version of this then post panda, would love ur insights if you have time ofc

Post panda things are more complicated and honestly while I have some idea it is mostly just guessing. Panda is a self adapting algorithm from what I understand. That means not even the people who developed the algorithm know how it applies specifically on a certain site. Also keep in mind that Panda, despite hat most have said, is not just a text analysis algorithm. I have reasons to suspect Panda is based a lot more on backlink information than text analysis. Also it seems that domain trust and link trust is more important than ever. This trust is not determined by the number of links (in the past many shitty links eventually meant high trust) but by the quality of the link sources. Also, we have a spam rank for sites, pages and links. So what I think Panda does is not analyze text to see if it is non-unique but analyze more factors than before.

I know a guy who makes roughly $10k/day and most of his sites are crap. Sites with content made up from mixed sentences which is cloaked. He doesn't even use advanced cloacking, a lot of his sites just have the content hidden from CSS or JavaScript/CSS. What the user sees is just an opt-in page like those from CPA.

Problem however is most people when steal content, they steal it as is. So your page becomes very similar to other pages on the internet. A much better way is to somehow mix and combine content from multiple sources and if possible alter it (spin).

Making content that passes Google automatic filters is not extremely complicated. Bulding links that will grow your site in the SERPs is also not extremely complicated. It is not trivial (you need some skills and a good understanding of how Google may work) btu it is certainly doable. What is complicated is doing that and not getting found or penalized. In the long run, depending on what nitch you are in, if you rank high for important keywords, you may end up being manually reviewed.

The "rule" that remains (always) valid is to look at the sites that do well in Google and try to mimic them with your blackhat sites. It has always been the rule of thumb for me and will obviously always work.

Translated content works and will always work but you have to keep in mind some things:

1. If you use a source that is used by a lot others, you end up with non-unique content.
2. Translation can be pretty shitty depending on the source and destination language.
3. A lot of non-English sites will produce their content by translating (by hand/human writer) articles from English sites. What you do is reverse the process, hence end up with very similar text.

Appreciate the depth of the original post (which I read yesterday) and then the update (which I just realized you added!).

Really appreciate the useful info here and on the rest of the site - posts like this are the reason we can succeed.

Thanks for this OP.

It seems to me that there are still plenty of high PR sites that use duplicate content as their primary content. Break . com, for instance? Personally, I borrow and rewrite...it is time-consuming, but easier than writing things from scratch, and more readable than spun or translated garbage. I do want people to get something out of the site, after all.

I do need this useful information, thanks a lot.

Golden...

Grateful @OP