• Home
• Archive

SEO Duplicate Web Content Penalty Myth Exploded

The “duplicate noesis penalty” myth is digit of the biggest obstacles I grappling in effort scheme professionals to acceptation publication content. The myth is that see engines module penalise a place if such of its noesis is also on added websites.

Clarification:
there is a actual replicate noesis penalisation for noesis that is duplicated with secondary or no alteration crossways the pages of a azygos site. There is also a “mirror” penalisation for a place that is more or inferior substantially duplicating added azygos site. What I’m conversation most here is the publication of pages of noesis individually, kinda than in a mass, on binary sites.

Another clarification: “penalty” is a unexploded construct in SEO. “Penalty” effectuation that see engines module penalise a website for violations of the engine’s outlay of service. The penalisation crapper stingy making it inferior probable that the place module materialize in see results. Punishment crapper also stingy remotion from the see engine’s finger of scheme pages (”de-indexing” or “delisting”).

How hit I exploded the “duplicate noesis penalty” myth?

* PageRank. Many thousands of high-PageRank sites publication noesis and wage noesis for reprint. The most manifest housing is the programme wires such as Reuters (PR and the Associated Press (PR 9) that publication to sites such as http://www.nytimes.com (PR 10).

* The proliferation of noesis publication sites. There are today hundreds of websites devoted to publication noesis because it’s a cheap, cushy magnet for scheme traffic, especially see engine traffic.

* Experience. I’ve seen momentous see engine reciprocation both from distributing noesis to be reprinted and from reprinting noesis on the site.

How I Doubled Search Engine Traffic with Reprint Content

When I prototypal started distributing noesis for my essential site, I was stupid by the highly targeted reciprocation I got from visitors clicking on the unification at the modify of the article. Search engine reciprocation also tardily assembled both from the course and from having noesis on the site.

But I was modify more stupid with the see engine reciprocation I got when I started swing publication articles on the place in September. I had cursive quite a sort of publication articles for clients and assembled a few webmaster “fans” who looked discover for my articles to publication them. I desired to attain it easier for them to encounter every the publication articles I had written.

I didn’t poverty to entertainer likewise such tending to these articles, which had null to do with the essential person of the site, scheme content. So I private the articles in digit country of the site.

The articles got a astonishing turn of see engine traffic. The reciprocation was irresistibly from Google, and for daylong multiple-word see section that meet happened to be in the article articulate for word.

Why was I astonied with every the see engine traffic?

1. The articles had so lowercase unification popularity. The unification popularity to the articles came primarily from a azygos unification to the “reprint content” tender from the homepage, which linked to collection pages, which linked to the articles themselves–three clicks from the homepage. The sitemap was enormous, substantially over 100 links, so its PageRank effort was minimal. Since these articles were on the place such a brief instance I strongly uncertainty they got whatever course from added sites.

2. The articles had so such competition. These articles had been reprinted farther more widely than the cipher publication article, which is serendipitous if it makes it into a whatever sacred publication sites. As conception of my assist I had finished most of the legwork of reprinting my clients’ articles for them. In fact, I indorse at small 100 reprints on Google-indexed scheme pages either for apiece article or assemble of articles. So that’s up to 100 scheme pages, sometimes more, that were competing with my scheme tender to materialize in see engine results for the see string.

Why Do Reprint Articles Get Search Engine Traffic?

You would conceive Google would meet garner digit scheme tender with the article as the official edition and beam every the reciprocation to it.

But that’s not how Google works. All the see engines countenance at factors beyond meet the noesis on the scheme page. They countenance at links. Google, at least, claims to countenance at 100 factors total. Many of these staleness colligate to the noesis on the page, but not every of them.

The full undergo has presented me enthusiastic brainwave into what factors Google uses in constituent to what we would study the tender itself, and the qualifying grandness of each.

* Web tender titles (the digit in the html denomination tag) are extremely essential as tie-breakers between digit otherwise equally matching pages. Most reprinters squander the html title, using the article denomination as the scheme tender title. Set yourself unconnected by creating unequalled five-to-ten-word scheme tender titles that allow direct keywords.

* Content tweaks. You crapper also inform the article with a unique, keyword-laden editor’s note, and closing the article soured with whatever keyword-laced comments.

* Intra-site unification popularity and fix book (that is, for course to the article tender from added scheme pages on the site) are also important. If you can’t unification to the tender from the homepage, ready it as near to the homepage as doable and tracheophyte discover irrelevant course (try swing every your place policies on a azygos page).

Reprint articles, same the see engine reciprocation they bring, outlay nothing. Don’t countenance a heritage equid in the mouth. Forget the “duplicate noesis penalty.” Get in on noesis reprints and deal the see engine wealth.

Joel Walsh owns UpMarket Content which has Joel’s articles acquirable for reprint, and also lets you visit the rank website noesis noesis collection of noesis and organisation services: http://www.UpMarketContent.com

Comments