I wonder about duplicate content. I have an example. Peter Schiff and others publish on their blogs. Many of these posts end up word for word on Seeking Alpha, with a PR7. Opednews has a pr just like Hubpages of 6. They seek 24, 48 and 72 hour exclusivity but they don't require it. You can publish your content from anywhere there with a link to your profile or whatever. So, here is an article that appears, with author approval, I assume, everywhere: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39540323/Mort … TREDER-DOA
So, what is the deal about duplicate content? Do I let my hubs or any article I write get three hits or get disseminated into the real world of the web where it gets widely read?
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Google tends to nail which was the original (which is why temporary exclusivity works -- because beyond that any republished piece will be flagged as a dupe).
Duplicate content will not harm the original, otherwise it would be exploited to drive down your competition ruthlessly. In fact, many article directories make a living by republishing content (articledashboard, goarticles e.t.c and marketers know this, and hope that their articles and backlinks are spread to the far reaches of the cyber-sphere) to content seekers.
My guess is: As long as your original article is indexed, you can disseminate it. But bear in mind hubpages will possibly flag your article is a dupe nonetheless, they have their own set of rules regarding exclusivity (I could be wrong).
Do Hubpage rules reflect the real world or is it shooting them in the foot, and the authors as well. I mean, I appreciate their service telling us of unauthorized duplicate content, but does this kill the allowable dissemination of articles on a very large internet with permission?
I don't think so bgamall, Google has repeatedly stated that duplicate material is worth a fraction of the "juice" (or authority) that standalone content can accrue (assuming its worth it).
I think Hubpages is wise to limit duplicate content, while they can forsake (as you say) some quality backlinks, they would be overwhelmed by a multitude of filth from bad neighborhoods, autoblogs and content scrapers.
Again, this is just my opinion.
PR is per PAGE (PAGE rank not SITE rank)
Duplicate Content is NOT penalized at different domains
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … nalty.html
something has to come out on top though - and if all the dupes are your own then that something will be yours anyway
Hubages and any other high traffic site wants to own original content so you can't put link to your blog/site from hubpages to other place where content is hosted.
Hint: they expect linkback from your site to hubpages for the duplicate content pointer and not the other way around. This way it helps search engine to find out which one is original. btw, as they say - this post is sponsored by unethical SEO and bad advice.
Sorry Skyfire, but that is baloney. Seeking Alpha has a higher pagerank than Hubpages and posts duplicate content with permission continually.
However, I don't understand your hint. Please clarify. I am old.
lol. my post was about how search engine detects duplicate content and how they discard alternate sources when writers link to original article. Hint was from HP staff members post on this point.
Just so you know PR is not a major factor in determining page rank, and it it only a numerical indicator in to one of the factors that judges where your page is placed.
Also, website content has no bearing at all on a websites PR. That is purely and simply a backlinks calculation.
So while the site you mention might have a higher page rank, it probably gets much less traffic, since the duplicate content will not rank well in the search engines.
" this post is sponsored by unethical SEO and bad advice."
What are you referring to exactly? Please be specific. Article marketing is one of the most celebrated and functional SEO techniques available to marketers today...
Since there's nothing in that article that disputes the "bad advice" in this thread I consider myself vindicated
Where was I wrong?
hey i didn't made any point against your advice on this thread. Just things on HP from past, my bad this joke is going tangent.
Blogs that have only duplicate content don't get a good Google rank. It seems to count for less than original content. But it isn't penalised per se.
by Marie Flint2 months ago
I came across this piece of advice in the first part of the Learning Center:"Write to educate your readers on your topic: create content on subjects that you are an expert; don't create content for search engines,...
by Ethan Green5 months ago
Since I joined HP there has been a constant battle against the rise and fall of traffic. We are often encouraged to tune our titles, edit our content and generally try to improve our Hubs. Now with the threat of having...
by Loraine Brummer5 months ago
Which is the most important for search engine searches: the Hub summary or the first paragraph of the Hub? I thought the summary was most important, but I notice that sometimes searches show the first sentences in...
by Glamorously Jacob5 years ago
I'm officially now my first month into HubPages and loving it; however, I'd like to share with the community some of the observations I've made in the first 30 days.The OpportunityLet me start by saying that I think...
by ptosis4 years ago
I found this graph huge in original size @ http://crunchydata.com/content-sites.htmHubpages is #5 and is recommended to write for when published in Feb 2010 almost four years ago. Does anybody have any newer comparisons...
by LucidDreams3 months ago
They are just driving home the point that user experience and quality is point one!http://www.eddale.co/google/beware-google-bearing-gifts
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.