jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (19 posts)

How much of a duplicated content is enough to be "unique"?

  1. getitall profile image60
    getitallposted 6 years ago

    ...  for both - Hubpages and search engines.

    Yes, we all know that 100% unique is great.. but... time , time, time...

    Now, let's say i want to add some info from an important paper about the product or a brochure. So, in order to make it acceptably unique for the technology how do I rewrite it? what is the best approach?   
    - Mixing paragraphs and changing the order of parts?
    - inserting new sentences between each paragraph?
    - rewarding each second paragraph?
    - or each word #10? (whatever...)

    1. Maddie Ruud profile image82
      Maddie Ruudposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, we're not going to help you scam our system.  wink

      I will tell you that rearranging sentences or paragraphs, or simply inserting a few new sentences, will NOT fool us.  Nor will changing a spare word here and there.  Your best bet is to rewrite content completely, and if you choose to quote another resource, do so sparingly and with proper citation.

      1. getitall profile image60
        getitallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        scam your system?  smile  You are meeeeeeean  :-)

        Ok, nobody wants to fool your lovely system, or you... But... but all SEO is about somewhat fooling search engines.. Well, not fooling of course  ;-)  but working with it...
        If you need traffic, you gotta get it...
        Proper citations brought me as far as duplicated content goes, so, I've learned NOT to do it, but to refer to it instead and reword to have it more SEO friendly.

        but i still don't understand the best way of going about it.  So, if anybody brave enough to share, would be appreciated.

        1. Maddie Ruud profile image82
          Maddie Ruudposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see it that way.  Many of my hubs rank very highly for competative terms, and I've done no foolery.  I simply wrote original, unique content.

    2. drej2522 profile image87
      drej2522posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would say put your own spin on it...create a hub about the pamphlet, explain what it is and critique it. Make it your own..It's your voice that you are trying to put out there...use it..

  2. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 6 years ago


    1. skyfire profile image73
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this


    2. Nik Aberle profile image60
      Nik Aberleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ROFLMAO (at work....oops)

  3. getitall profile image60
    getitallposted 6 years ago


  4. darkside profile image84
    darksideposted 6 years ago

    It's easier to write 100% unique than trying to get the right mix and percentage for a pass.

    1. Maddie Ruud profile image82
      Maddie Ruudposted 6 years ago in reply to this


    2. KeithTax profile image80
      KeithTaxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

  5. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    duplicated content always reads like duplicated content.
    it seems it would take as much effort to edit it as it would to write an original article. make it real.

    1. RainySunshine profile image61
      RainySunshineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. Write from your gut and your mind. You don't need to copy from someone else. Come on, guy! smile

  6. thisisoli profile image71
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    Writing unique content is the only way to go, spun content reads badly, and is often easily detected as spam by google, which has complicateed algorithms designed to weed out both duplicate and spun content.

    Again, if you want to make moeny online you need to be prepared to put the effort in, there is no quick fix.

  7. Peter Hoggan profile image85
    Peter Hogganposted 6 years ago

    getitall, perhaps you should invest in some crap article spinning software and become a real spammer!

    1. getitall profile image60
      getitallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not what I am looking to do, tx Pete  :-)   I love gadget news, technology news, product reviews. Press releases and research papers are all out there available for publishing as that's why companies produce them in a first place - so bloggers and other publishers can use them and refer to a company name providing them with PR. Rewriting this content can be a hobby for some, but not a necessity. But yes, you ad your voice to it.

      My questions was really technical, not moral   :-) as there I have all my questions answered  :-)

  8. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    I don't know how much genuinely new information comes onto the internet each year. Its probably a lot and mostly in the form of news and comment. On the other hand, most pages whether here or elsewhere are rehashes of rehashes of rehashes.

    I think you can make something worthwhile if you can collect information that is already on the net and package it up to meet a particular need. You save people the trouble of finding and sifting through dozens of pages.

    Of course if you are writing a product page, mostly you are just rewriting reviews (at best) and promotional materials (at worst).

    I can't get too pious about unique content. Stuff that is spun by a human just happens to be a better read than stuff spun by a robot.

    1. getitall profile image60
      getitallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes Will, I am with you on that. To keep the small publications or blogs going you need to combine recycling existing information and writing new content when you have something unique to say. Only then required volume can be produced to keep the audience attention.

      If you think that large publishers don't use copy-cats, you are naive. I worked for one of them - many articles are 90% copy of content provided by a company in their press release, but reworded here and there.

      If one wants to be a writer, that's a different story.