SEO Duplicate Web Content Penalty Myth Exploded
Posted on February 8, 2010
Filed Under Can You Succeed While Working from Home? |
The “duplicate content penalty” myth is one amongst the biggest obstacles I face in getting internet professionals to embrace reprint content. The myth is that search engines will penalize a web site if abundant of its content is also on other websites.
Clarification: there is a real duplicate content penalty for content that’s duplicated with minor or no variation across the pages of one site. There’s conjointly a “mirror” penalty for a site that is more or less substantially duplicating another single site. What I am talking about here is the reprint of pages of content individually, instead of in an exceedingly mass, on multiple sites.
Another clarification: “penalty” could be a loaded concept in SEO. “Penalty” means that that search engines can punish a website for violations of the engine’s terms of service. The punishment will mean making it less doubtless that the location can seem in search results. Punishment will additionally mean removal from the search engine’s index of internet pages (”de-indexing” or “delisting”).
How have I exploded the “duplicate content penalty” myth?
* PageRank. Many thousands of high-PageRank sites reprint content and offer content for reprint. The most obvious case is the news wires like Reuters (PR eight) and therefore the Associated Press (PR nine) that reprint to sites like http://www.nytimes.com (PR 10).
* The proliferation of content reprint sites. There are currently hundreds of websites devoted to reprint content as a result of it’s a low cost, straightforward magnet for internet traffic, especially search engine traffic.
* Experience. I’ve seen important search engine traffic each from distributing content to be reprinted and from reprinting content on the site.
How I Doubled Search Engine Traffic with Reprint Content
After I initial started distributing content for my main site, I used to be shocked by the highly targeted traffic I got from visitors clicking on the link at the end of the article. Search engine traffic also slowly increased each from the links and from having content on the site.
However I was even additional surprised with the search engine traffic I got when I started putting reprint articles on the site in September. I had written quite a number of reprint articles for shoppers and accumulated a few webmaster “fans” who looked out for my articles to reprint them. I wanted to create it easier for them to search out all the reprint articles I had written.
I didn’t want to draw an excessive amount of attention to these articles, which had nothing to do with the most subject of the positioning, internet content. So I secluded the articles in one section of the site.
The articles got a surprising amount of search engine traffic. The traffic was overwhelmingly from Google, and for long multiple-word search strings that just happened to be within the article word for word.
Why was I surprised with all the search engine traffic?
1. The articles had thus little link popularity. The link popularity to the articles came primarily from one link to the “reprint content” page from the homepage, which linked to category pages, that linked to the articles themselves–3 clicks from the homepage. The sitemap was monumental, well over 100 links, therefore its PageRank contribution was minimal. Since these articles were on the positioning such a brief time I strongly doubt they got any links from other sites.
2. The articles had thus abundant competition. These articles had been reprinted way more widely than the typical reprint article, which is lucky if it makes it into some dedicated reprint sites. As half of my service I had done most of the legwork of reprinting my shoppers’ articles for them. After all, I guarantee a minimum of one hundred reprints on Google-indexed internet pages either for every article or cluster of articles. Therefore that’s up to one hundred internet pages, typically more, that were competing with my web page to appear in search engine results for the search string.
Why Do Reprint Articles Get Search Engine Traffic?
You would assume Google would simply pick one web page with the article as the authoritative edition and send all the traffic to it.
But that is not how Google works. All the search engines have a look at factors beyond just the content on the web page. They look at links. Google, at least, claims to seem at one hundred factors total. Several of these should relate to the content on the page, but not all of them.
The entire expertise has given me great insight into what factors Google uses additionally to what we would take into account the page itself, and therefore the relative importance of each.
* Web page titles (the one within the html title tag) are extremely necessary as tie-breakers between 2 otherwise equally matched pages. Most reprinters waste the html title, using the article title because the net page title. Set yourself apart by creating distinctive five-to-ten-word net page titles that include target keywords.
* Content tweaks. You’ll be able to additionally introduce the article with a unique, keyword-laden editor’s note, and finish the article off with some keyword-laced comments.
* Intra-site link popularity and anchor text (that is, for links to the article page from other internet pages on the positioning) also are important. If you can’t link to the page from the homepage, keep it as close to the homepage as possible and weed out extraneous links (attempt putting all of your website policies on one page).
Reprint articles, like the search engine traffic they convey, value nothing. Do not look a present horse within the mouth. Forget the “duplicate content penalty.” Get in on content reprints and share the search engine wealth.
To find online roulette systems, roulette strategies, winning ways of making a bet, and useful software, visit: how to win at roulette. how to win at roulette is really a great and comfortable way to earn A LOT OF money. Get everything you need to know about how to win at roulette!
Comments
Leave a Reply