I know why Google hates us!

1. 74

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   They need our hubbers' content. There ya go. In order for Google Knol authors to produce the type of content that Google deem valid, they need to thieve from HubPages
   
   Duplicate Content - Copyright Theft
   
   NB: At least everything that I have written and published on Hubpages is my own work, 'k Google Knol?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Stacie Lposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      wow..how ironic and pathetic!
      Your work must be great to have Google steal it.:LOL:
      now we know Google doesn't even check for stolen work on their own site..

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry this is happening to you and the rest of us, Andria.  I think we all know G sucks at this point.  They care not if they reward stolen material as long as it makes them money.  The same thing HP did which G punished them for.  Birds of a feather, IMHO.
      
      We work hard to produce informative content and they ignore theft and unethical behavior, plus reward the thieves for stealing.  Are there any honest people running these businesses anymore?  Not that I've been able to discover. 

      replyreport
   3. 74

      IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Also copied on Knol by the same 'author' is
      
      http://sunseven.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10 … ts-On-ebay
      
      http://sunseven.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10 … er-Reviews
      
      http://steelbreeze.hubpages.com/hub/PHP … with-MySQL
      
      http://efeglo.hubpages.com/hub/make-onl … n-facebook
      
      http://sunseven.hubpages.com/hub/Two_Mo … t_Old_Hoax
      
      How utterly shameful of Google to allow this!

      replyreport
2. 73

   Hauntyposted 13 years ago

   Top-notch hubber! Keeps reminding us that her old cr@p is still being copied. Only happens to the best of us.

   replyreport
3. 74

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   Thanks guys
   
   Just sharing because you know, the irony and all that. You gotta laugh, right?
   
   @ Randy - For sure I'm as sorry as hell to but sometimes the cookie crumbles more badly for some than others. I haven't lost any sleep over the shambles. I can't change the things I have no control over. However as much as I've loved witing on HP, as much as I've had enormous fun, met some wonderful people and learned so much in the last two and a half years, my fingers have been well and truly burned. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me
   
   @ Haunty - goes with the territory I guess. One frog's crap is another man's fortune. Good to see you alive and well

   replyreport
4. 73

   Hauntyposted 13 years ago

   Irony or not, to me it's no laughing matter to always have to be looking out for who is stealing what. But there is no shame on you frog, as you haven't been fooled twice. You're just paying the price of that one time.
   
   Of course, it is great to see you too!

   replyreport
5. 74

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   
   
   Well for sure I no longer engage in USG type sites. You know I was sat last night filing copyright notice after copyright notice Haunty. Someone sure loves my crap. Google too, because it was all showing up higher in the SERPS than the original content.
   
   Unlike milk - Google is not brilliant.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      healthwealthmusicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am a newbie on HP, but I just discovered something this morning that was irritating and puzzling to me. I was checking out a competitor's website, her site was a PR3 and looked great. She had 300 something backlinks showing up in SEO Quake. I was curious where they all came from and did a backlink watch on her site. What I discovered was that most of her backlinks came from very plain, awful looking sites with weird domain names, topics that were not at all revelant,  and bad SEO, grammar and content. Yet most of those domains were ranking a PR2 or 3! How can such bad sites get good ranks? They did not have many backlinks per site. In my opinion, they looked a lot like auto blogs.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         frogdroppingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Usually the most obvious answer is the right one

         replyreport