|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
People think of duplicate content as a bad thing, but google only defines it as bad if you have duplicate content on a single domain. So now after the google slap, every writing site is trying to make sure they don't have duplicate content (ie. same as another site) when they don't realize its totally allowable.
Think about news articles from rueters and such which are syndicated across dozens of websites. They don't worry about some fictional penalty.
Let's be very clear here. If you are the owner of an article and you post it on two different sites, that's one thing. It's irrelevant which one ranks higher because you own them both.
If someone takes your content and duplicates it on another site, there's a very real chance that the plagiarized copy will rank higher than your own. We all know that Google completely sucks at figuring out which article is the original.
And while they didn't address it too well with Panda, Google is actively looking at ways to smack "...sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content." (From The Official Google Blog.)
Yup, I totally meant if you are the owner of the article, you should be able to do with it whatever you want. Not advocating grabbing someone else's stuff and posting it.
I'm not sure that it's irrelevant, Irohner. If two sites have the same content (from the same author) will not one site get the majority of the traffic? And income?
While the two sites may well get more total traffic together, one site will, it seems, certainly get less traffic than if the other site was not there at all.
That would certainly be "relevant" to the second site that only gets a small portion of the total site revenue.
Agreed. What I meant was that if I posted the same article on two websites, I would benefit from the income on both. So it would be irrelevant which one ranked higher.
But that won't last for very long. As I said, Google is in the process of dinging sites with unoriginal content, so I suspect it won't be "irrelevant" for very much longer.
This idea is a bit disturbing. I don't write for money... as in, nothing I have written is there for the express purpose of getting money. It's there because I wish to be creative, or expressive, period. However, I did sign up with Adsense, because it made sense.
If it had not been for the fact that several of my hubs have been partly or in whole reproduced on high traffic sites, my entire earnings would have been about 5% of what they've been. And they still haven't been significant. And yes, EVERY site that posted my work, when you google keywords and phrases, ranks higher than the original, in Google. It now ranks MUCH higher elsewhere than my originals. They used to be close, now much farther apart.
So, it seems to me that reproducing our stuff on other websites... Ones with high traffic because they're single domain / single interest, is probably the single best way of getting more traffic. Those that posted excerpts and links to the original ranked even lower than my original.
Now, none of the above is a scientific study... it is merely my observation of a few pages over the last few months. It seems to me that the entire concept of hubpages.. .meaning an unindexed collection of relatively random pages, across myriad topics and interests, is simply going to be ever more harshly shoved downward in the link ratings. Hubpages will flag us, if we have our content reproduced elsewhere... it will flag index pages, if we index all our content ourself (or appears to).
In other words, it appears that various protection policies are actually going to hurt us, big time.
Again, like I said, this is not a scientific study, but rather possible coincidence, but it seems to be true to my instincts.
Maybe I'm missing something (I do that quite often) , but all that says to me is that your hubs do better anywhere but here.
HubPage's model of articles spanning a variety of topics isn't the issue, as there are still many successful sites out there like this. It's the quality of the articles that's the issue, ie no editorial QA.
I have seen more "duplicate content" in the Google search engine than ever before ---Since-- the Google change.
Websites syndication such as News, Newspaper, Medical, Sports, etc., are ranking full 1st, 2nd and sometimes 3rd pages in Google and the information is all "duplicates" of each other.
This is my reasoning in my first response to the OP thread about "Money talks loud and clear!"
As far as duplicate content...Google should stop being hypocritical and if they are targeting duplicate content...it should be ALL, not just selected websites!
Duplicate content is filtered not penalized. If you put duplicate content on the same domain Google will choose which page to show and filter the rest. If you put duplicate content on your own site and syndicate it there is a danger that the content on your own site will get filtered (not a good idea). If you syndicate duplicate content then most of it will be filtered. However the links from filtered duplicate content still count and what is filtered to someone in Australia for example may be shown to someone in the US - it all depends on the server location of the dupe content.
Google results are filtered by default, if you want to see the unfiltered results click through to the last page of results and click on the link to show results including filtered pages.
Nothing has changed in the recent updates. What Google is removing is thin content.
I'm moving my excel spreadsheet data of thieves who scrape content to pastebin page. It's one big list so i'm taking some time to sort URL's and then use it for google chrome personal filter add-on. I doubt google will ever take action against autobloggers/theives so we need to filter results on our own.
What about 68articles.com, Google hates dupe content but has banned their Adsense account after dozens of copyright complaints
Google has banned their adsense? Are you sure?
That's really really sad . My living room may even flood out from my tears.
Thanks, Richie - best news I've had since Panda!
Firstly, there is unlikely to be any copyright complaints associated with content you write and syndicate yourself. Secondly, don't syndicate to content farms.
I agree that is good news - but the site is still up! It needs to be totally and finally closed and removed forever.
68articles still has google ads on their site.
I just did a search for a word on Google and the same link in 5 different websites all came up on page one results. But they are come from the same source. How is that those 5 sites don't get penalised for repeating the content. This drives me nuts.
And the source was wikipedia. Are they slapped? Um... no. And the 68 articles mob got their google adsense back.
I think we need a clarification on the whole "duplicate" content thing, cos it's troubling many of us. Who can we ask...
People may have already seen this, but just in case...
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66359
I think duplicate content is a bad thing because it is duplicate, regardless of what effect it may or may not have on Google rank. Unique content gives the best value to the reader.
by HSanAlim6 years ago
Given all the time spend world wide worrying about Panda and Google's poor quality and duplicate content comments, what the hell does this post from GOOGLE themselves mean. Talk about...
by Gold Money7 years ago
My most recent hub was flagged as duplicate. It is not a duplicate hub but I have published it elsewhere on the net. Is this why it was flagged? If so, can I get it unflagged? How bad does this...
by Terri Wilson5 years ago
I want to get back to publishing more on Hubpages and intend to use some of my existing articles that are on other sites. The other sites are also my own, but with recent problems with my hosting, I plan on dumping them...
by Moon Daisy7 years ago
Hello, here's something I've been wondering about for a while.I have a few articles on another site, which has recently announced that it's no longer going to pay international contributors. So I'm thinking it...
by Lisa Vollrath3 years ago
Why those of us moving over from Squidoo should not try to transfer our lenses to HubPages manually:I just moved one of my recipes that's fairly new, and doesn't have a high search engine ranking, thinking I would use...
by Keith Schroeder8 years ago
I propose that duplicate content be banned outright on HubPages. Hub Hopping shows the massive amount of stolen or copied content on HP and denigrates serious writers here. Others have made the same complaint, but I...
Copyright © 2018 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.