I posted a hub about an email I got from Netflix. I quoted the letter so that my commentary had context and I gave full credit to the original source etc. I am wondering why my hub has been dubbed as such when I posted it early enough that was the first if not one of the first posts about this particular issue and yet I am suffering from the removal of my post because of this policy. I have not plagiarized. I have not broken any laws. The article I posted had a lot of traffic to it until it was removed and now I am losing out on that. Supposedly the review process is 72 hours, but what of the traffic that I lose? Is the review personal or specific to my case or is it a program that looks for the duplicate then someone clicking a button saying no, I cannot post this. I am a little frustrated here. I am feeling very wronged by how this is being handled. Please, someone with a little power give me a hand here.
Duplicate content means content posted ANYWHERE else on the internet that the search engines can access. On your hub, in the black warning box, there should be a link to the original location of the content you copied. Have a look - someone may have created another similar page before you.
Either that, or did you publish the same content on any other site?
And as for the review process, did you have your hub unpublished and leave it at that? If so you'll need to follow it up.
If you've contacted the team directly (via team@ or the contact link in the help section) they will look at the hub personally and let you know the issue.
There is one way to fix the problem - add more content. Duplicate is only marked as such if you have over a certain percent of duplicate content. So if you add a few hundred more words you may be ok.
Edit: What was the original name of the hub? If it's still in the cache I can take a look.
Netflix Apologizes, Explains and Announces is the title. I provide a copy of an email sent to me personally from Netflix. I also provide commentary. I did resubmit after modifying and it was rejected again. I tried finding a link to similar content page and they provided none. As far as I can tell, it seems that it is a stupid program that has ID this and is assuming that I have copied off of the other site, whatever it is. I have in fact used an email I received and I can back that up.
Even with commentary, I imagine the letter content itself is the duplicate. Duplicate doesn't necessarily mean you copied it, but that it's duplicate content already found on the web.
It still seems lame considering I was up at the crack of dawn and posted this just after the original email and blog post. It feels like I am being punished from something I didn't do. There is an obvious glitch in the system by my estimation. I have been writing for years and this is the first time I've had this happen.
Seems that it has already been de-indexed. With the amount of copies that have likely been posted since then, Google will definitely see that email content as a duplicate if it gets re-indexed now.
It doesn't matter where you got that content - it's like quoting a Bible verse - if it's been put on the internet anywhere else, it's considered duplicate content, no matter where or how you got it.
Like I said to rebekahELLE, I posted this early this morning, so it is just a little frustrating that what I have posted is judged on the basis of what people posted after me. There is a flaw and I am the one who as paid for it. I re-wrote the entire thing and re-submitted it, but I feel like my efforts were wasted because of a poorly written rule enforced by automated systems and people who don't bother to look beyond the fact that there is duplicate info out there. Yes, I am feeling a little bitter. Can you blame me?
How is the rule poorly written? Basically, Google devalues content if it is considered duplicate, so it's in your best interest that the rule is enforced. Google is basically a robot - it doesn't see anything but text, not the origin of the text or anything else, just the text.
You really need to discuss this with the team if you haven't already. The automatic content filters are there for a reason, but they can do a manual review.
So it was likely the letter Netfix sent to you that was duplicate?
They maybe sent you a standard letter that is already available to see online.
You could take a snapshot of the letter and post it as an image, that should get round the duplicate content rule, then make sure your writing is at least 300 words.
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 pat20046 years ago
Hi. I am finally getting around here. Registered in Jan but JUST getting going. Life's been busy.Before I do something silly, is it permissable/acceptable to repurpose your own articles here? I've got about 70 some...
by Marisa Wright9 years ago
I was reading a Hub on Hubpages, and was concerned to read the advice that the content we use in our Hubs should be unique, not something we've posted elsewhere on the net.I started out on Helium and have nearly 200...
by Gary Anderson7 years ago
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...
by Peeples3 years ago
I am doing a 20 "such and such" quotes about "such and such" hub. I even went back in after they marked it duplicate and made sure 400 of the words are my words, even though I know people googling it...
by Time Spiral6 years ago
Hubbers,My latest Dexter review is being blocked, essentially, by HubPages. They are saying it requires revision for all sorts of reasons. I will post the exact warning below. But, it is a 100% original, handwritten...
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.