So according to the google blog they think they have the duplicate content problem under control, I remain less than convinced. Here’s my original post, but as of right now google is giving everyone but me credit (screen shot below) lets see what happens:
Related posts:
- How Google Treats Trusted Sites Differently With Duplicate Content One of the things that a lot of people don’t...
- How Google Calendar Can Screw Up Appointments When Changing Timezones While I don’t make my use of Google products like...
- Wikipedia Invades Google News The following screen shot has to be seen to be...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments }
As with the last one, your original post doesn’t seem to be indexed at all?
(Hey, what’s up with that scrolling ad below the comment box?)
Now that you’ve reported it, I’m sure it will no longer be a problem
@vanessa what scrolling ad?
My understanding of how the duplicate filter works. That to be honest is little more than a eductated guess. Is that anything marked as duplicate get put into the supplimentary index so would only appear when they don’t have anythign better? This would show result like this, they know it duplicate but they got nothing else!
Any update today on this subject? We’re not sure about the commenter above – if we agree or not but Google doesn’t seem to have it all under control in terms of dupe content.
So according to the google blog they think they have the duplicate content problem under control. Duplicate content put into the supplimentary index.
Hi Michael,
Last month I had read Vanessa’s article on dupe content:
http://www.vanessafoxnude.com/2008/05/14/ranking-as-the-original-source-for-content-you-syndicate/
I was a bit inspired to re-look at this topic but in a slightly different way… Thinking about places I’ve seen dupe content, I thought bout the syndicated elliance graphics over at SEL. Lol. I wonder how they’ll eventually tackle duplicate content when the main “meat” of the page is mostly a graphic:
http://www.marketposition.com/blog/archives/2008/05/duplicate_conte_1.html
But if you need another example of where you have to scratch your head about the 1% that Naked SEO refers to… check this out:
http://www.marketposition.com/blog/archives/2008/05/duplicate_conte_2.html
Anvil Media’s article was published on their site way before it was republished at SEMpdx, yet SEMpdx outranks the original. And our re-post of this Anvil Media article outranks the original as well. Go figure.
Hi Andrey,
They removed the supplemental index tag. They said that they would now index everything and more supplementals would appear in searches anyway so it wasn’t a big deal to remove it. However some, like myself, think that it should return. It was nice to see so you could take action on your site, understand if your content was ‘thought of’ as supplemental and go after people that were scraping and reposting your content if it was not w/permission, etc.
Comments on this entry are closed.