No Such thing as duplicate content - Revealed

johnbly341 said:
I've been trying an experiment using 5 original articles and then posting a well-written PLR article about once a week. It's been about 7 weeks and I'm on page one for my keyword, but it's not all that competitive. I'm about to try the same thing on a more competitive keyword. Backlinking has been a slow, steady campaign with SENuke.

Edit for clarification: I've been submitting the plr all over the place for backlinks with SENuke, only spinning the title and first sentence to make it harder for someone to just google my title and immediately see that it's dupe.
Click to expand...

Ok, so have you created a new site for this? self hosted or platform? 5 unique articles backed up by SENuke articles (i.e. not PLR on your site)?

New sites have a lot of problems with dup content, but authority ones don't. If you try this test with a site that has PR, i believe the results will be different.
Click to expand...

There are many, many factors involved here and an embryonic site will of course have less clout than an established authority site. The dupe issue is a 'filter' and not a penalty also, one of the 150 filters G uses to understand and ultimately rank your site.
 
Advertise on BHW
I setup two blogs, one was posted on this site = mybroadband_dot_co_dot_za and the second one is a blogspot blog. they both contain duplicate content, 99% duplicate, I created BOTH contents by hand, it's my contents. In fact I simply copied the article from the mybroadband site and pasted it onto a new blogspot blog which I created for NO good reason. Now if you search for this term :

Moses ADSL

on Google, you will realize that I rank number 1 AND number 2 with my duplicate copies of the same content. And I don't do such things as SEO and Link Building/etc for these two blogs. I also Don't care about who I link to/etc and all that crap. I don't give a damn about Links, Anchor Text, LSI, Keywords, Keyword Density, Domains, Relevancy of anything, Titles, or you name it.. I really DON'T pay attention to ANY SUCH crap. I just created the blog originally at the mybroadband website and then later I simply copied my writings to a new blog on blogger/blogspot . . leaving the old one still up and running at mybroadband and deliberately creating a duplicate copy of it on blogger/blogspot.
I want you to search for the term :

MOSES ADSL

(with OR without quotes..and with or without caps either it doesn't matter..LOL) , in fact do it without quotes (why bother typing quotes.. it's un-natural). I have NO DOUBT that Google will show you that I am ranking number 1 and number 2 with *BOTH* of my duplicate contents regardless of *Where In The World* you're searching from or which Google engine you're using. Now the guy from Google in the video above says that they want to show the user "diversity" in the results . . . he must be Lying to us ! Why don't they show the user "some other site" in position 2 that is competing for this term ?? The term apparently has 54000 competing pages.. why is my two duplicate blogs ranking number 1 and number 2 consistently for months now ??

And guess what.. did you notice that the DUPLICATE copy (which is the one on Blogger/Blogspot) actually outranks the original article, while the original article itself is YEARS older than the duplicate copy !! In fact, if at all there are links pointing to the ORIGINAL article itself, they would be WAY MORE than any links that *may* point to the duplicate/new copy at Blogger. Sometimes this SEO stuff just locks my brain up man.. cuz it would appear to me that BACKLINKS themselves DON'T even make a flippen difference in ranking man !!! How can a NEW Duplicate copy of something OUTRANK an OLD (Years Old) copy of the same, while the OLD ORIGINAL ARTICLE has MANY BACKLINKS pointing to it and the NEW duplicate copy has NO links ??? And I have NO doubt that the DUPLICATE will CONTINUE to outrank the original article No matter what I try to do to convince Google that the original is the actual authoritative article on this topic !! :D :D

This discussion of duplicate content sometimes makes me laugh everytime I see it come up.
 
mazzim said:
I setup two blogs, one was posted on this site = mybroadband_dot_co_dot_za and the second one is a blogspot blog. they both contain duplicate content, 99% duplicate, I created BOTH contents by hand, it?s my contents. In fact I simply copied the article from the mybroadband site and pasted it onto a new blogspot blog which I created for NO good reason. Now if you search for this term :

Moses ADSL

on Google, you will realize that I rank number 1 AND number 2 with my duplicate copies of the same content. And I don't do such things as SEO and Link Building/etc for these two blogs. I also Don?t care about who I link to/etc and all that crap. I don?t give a damn about Links, Anchor Text, LSI, Keywords, Keyword Density, Domains, Relevancy of anything, Titles, or you name it.. I really DON?T pay attention to ANY SUCH crap. I just created the blog originally at the mybroadband website and then later I simply copied my writings to a new blog on blogger/blogspot . . leaving the old one still up and running at mybroadband and deliberately creating a duplicate copy of it on blogger/blogspot.
I want you to search for the term :

MOSES ADSL

(with OR without quotes..and with or without caps either it doesn?t matter..LOL) , in fact do it without quotes (why bother typing quotes.. it?s un-natural). I have NO DOUBT that Google will show you that I am ranking number 1 and number 2 with *BOTH* of my duplicate contents regardless of *Where In The World* you're searching from or which Google engine you're using. Now the guy from Google in the video above says that they want to show the user ?diversity? in the results . . . he must be Lying to us ! Why don?t they show the user ?some other site? in position 2 that is competing for this term ?? The term apparently has 54000 competing pages.. why is my two duplicate blogs ranking number 1 and number 2 consistently for months now ??

And guess what.. did you notice that the DUPLICATE copy (which is the one on Blogger/Blogspot) actually outranks the original article, while the original article itself is YEARS older than the duplicate copy !! In fact, if at all there are links pointing to the ORIGINAL article itself, they would be WAY MORE than any links that *may* point to the duplicate/new copy at Blogger. Sometimes this SEO stuff just locks my brain up man.. cuz it would appear to me that BACKLINKS themselves DON?T even make a flippen difference in ranking man !!! How can a NEW Duplicate copy of something OUTRANK an OLD (Years Old) copy of the same, while the OLD ORIGINAL ARTICLE has MANY BACKLINKS pointing to it and the NEW duplicate copy has NO links ??? And I have NO doubt that the DUPLICATE will CONTINUE to outrank the original article No matter what I try to do to convince Google that the original is the actual authoritative article on this topic !! :D :D

This discussion of duplicate content sometimes makes me laugh everytime I see it come up.
Click to expand...

I ran a brief cross-check on the original page and the blogspot page.

Original:

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...n-s-Terms-For-Newbies-version-2007-10-28-1244

Word Count: 1753

Blogspot:

http://bezuni.blogspot.com/2010/03/moses-adsl-for-dummies-adsl-in-laymans.html

Word Count: 6334


The 2 pages exhibit a Duplication level of about 85% - they are not exact copies.

Furthermore, the blogspot contains more content than the other page.

What you've found is interesting, but it's no guide to understanding how Google works in other keywords. Different factors will be in effect on those keywords.

This keyword is ice cold in terms of competition. A couple of good backlinks could shake things up very easily, although there would be little point.
 
Ahh ! You just revealed something to me that I've Not been aware of. The comments on one of the articles have been stripped off (the original article). On the Blogspot copy these comments are included "verbatim" as part of the article .. they're simply appended to the post. In fact I am the commenter (and the ONLY commenter).

Nonetheless this is quite interesting guys. We can see here that a "superset" of an article, such as taking someone's small article and then adding/appending a pile of extra content to the BOTTOM of it and then posting that superset copy somewhere else, will NOT necessarily trigger a duplicate content check or penalty. Neither will it affect rankings, as can be seen in this *practical* case that's currently indexed and both copies are fully ranking. I mean I know for a fact that the TEXT/CONTENT/WRITINGS in my Blogspot post is a superset of the older original article. I did NOT rewrite or change anything as such. The duplicate/Blogspot is a superset with lots more text appended to it .. and they BOTH rank perfectly :) The first assumption would be to say think that if someone steals your content and appends some junk to it and reposts it somewhere else, Google would quickly discover this *lame* trick, but clearly a superset of a piece of content does NOT seem to incur any penalties, both in terms of indexing and ranking... and yes, we have a LONG-TERM still-valid example in this case. We don't speak from speculation only.

This reveals an angle of duplicate content that involves some kind of content-size metrics at play.
 
This reveals an angle of duplicate content that involves some kind of content-size metrics at play
Click to expand...

This makes sense cuz someone can copy your article to review it adding his opinion. For instance, i can grab a chunck of an article from CNN and post it on my blog along with what i think about the article. This happens a lot and google cannot "penalize" this behavior.
 
using Duplicate Content is like entering a running race and knowing that you'll only ever finish second.. The site that originated the use of the article (got the article indexed on their site first) will have the better hope and chance of ranking on the KW (if the article is SEO targeted), but yeah the Posterous strategy is rocking..
 
Well nope ! :) I must disagree with the idea about "original" creator. Because in my case the original article I posted is 2 years older than the duplicate (and yes I posted the duplicate myself also). There is NO linkbuilding I ever did on "both" these articles (I don't do that 'SEO stuff' anyway). Now the duplicate outranks the original and it's been months that my duplicate copy is outranking my original article.


blackhatcontent said:
using Duplicate Content is like entering a running race and knowing that you'll only ever finish second.. The site that originated the use of the article (got the article indexed on their site first) will have the better hope and chance of ranking on the KW (if the article is SEO targeted), but yeah the Posterous strategy is rocking..
Click to expand...
 
The sites have different domain PR's, one is PR5 and Blogspot is PR6, could that be a contributing factor also?
 
Ahh.. u're coming up with something :) . . Ok, i see, that could be the killer. Back to ABC's.. *Ranking factors* ! Pagerank is a critical ranking factor btw :) Yea it's possible, very possible why such weird occurance.

suzieq said:
The sites have different domain PR's, one is PR5 and Blogspot is PR6, could that be a contributing factor also?
Click to expand...
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top