jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Duplicate Content Question

  1. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    Sorry if this is also a "duplicate-question", but I haven't been able to find this answer.  Apologize, too, for the length of this question list, but I'm still pretty confused about duplicate content (and whether it should always just be avoided completely or not):

    I just read that there is a number (or number range) with regard to one writer's re-posting his own material.  Actually, my question is a multi-part one:

    Is there an "official" number range for this, and is any such number based on the type of "other site"?

    For example:  1 or 2 on the writer's own blog, or 10 if it's the writer's own blog; versus 1 or 2 on other sites or none on other sites that aren't the writer's "personal site"

    Does it matter how much traffic something gets (for example, someone's low-traffic blog versus another writing that gets lots of traffic)?

    Also, what about when a writer does something like use his full name elsewhere and some combination of initials in other places? 

    I have two scenarios in mind, and I've asked about the approximate number range because I've wondered if a duplicate-content warning may ever be a sign that a writer's material is on more sites than he thinks it is (in other words, copied by other people).

    Scenario 1:  If the writer thinks something is informative and useful, but it's on another site where it doesn't get much traffic and doesn't have much prominence. 

    Scenario 2: If the material isn't as much "useful" as it is "writing for the sake of writing", but the writer thinks it's one of his better pieces of writing and wants to include it in his "Hub portfolio" just because he likes it.

    Are differences in "scenarios" like this a factor in the duplicate-content issue?

    The only reason I'm asking, too, is that I saw the post on "unnecessary angst" over duplicate content; and I'm not sure I haven't had "unnecessary angst" by thinking all duplicate content is "evil" on HubPages.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, it can be.  If you see the "duplicate content" flag on one of your Hubs, you can open the Hub, go to the duplicate content warning and click on "learn more".  It will tell you the URL of the other site(s). 

      All duplicate content isn't necessarily "evil".  The flag is a warning, not a rebuke!  But duplicate content will never perform as well as original content, which is why HubPages tries to discourage it.

      I've solved the problem for some of my Hubs by deleting the material from the original source, rather than from HubPages - on the grounds it''s likely to do better here!  It does take a while for the duplicate flag to go because the old content is held in caches for a while - but it does go, eventually.

  2. Curious Traveller profile image84
    Curious Travellerposted 7 years ago

    Hi, Lisa

    The issue over duplicate content will not affect using such as your user name on sites or your byline.

    Duplicate content is essentially where large chunks of text from one URL are copied and transcribed on to another. As a former online editor, this was something which I had to be constantly on the look-out for and immediately address.

    It does not matter how popular or otherwise the source of duplicate content may be, it can still very easily be identified as same, both by human investigators and more particularly by the Google spiders.

    The very simple and straightforward answer therefore is to never consider using same. If you do, for example, wish to write content on Hub Pages re your Blog elsewhere, change the wording and the perspective and include an appropriate link, offering your visitors a different angle on your information elsewhere. This is useful to your visitors and very appealing to the Google spiders.

    I hope this has helped.

  3. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    Curious Traveller, thanks.  smile