Internet Marketing with Josh SpauldingMaking Money through Ethical Internet Marketing.

56 comments

1. Courtney
   21st November, 2008 at 5:16 pm 

   Thanks for sharing your results! It’s interesting to see how a lot of “golden rules” in IM don’t necessarily apply in all cases. I hope people pick up on the fact that you were targeted non-related areas with duplicate content or they are going to be very surprised that they don’t have the same results!

2. Mark Mason (78 comments.)
   21st November, 2008 at 5:16 pm 

   Well, that is pretty cool. I completely agree about “user experience”. That is what drives their market share.

3. Josh Spaulding
   21st November, 2008 at 5:17 pm 

   @ Courtney – You’d be surprised how many “golden rules” are bullsh** rules

   I was still targeting very related content… my page was just more optimized.

   @ Mark – And that’s what Matt Cutts and other Google people keep saying over and over and over again.

4. Tamara
   21st November, 2008 at 5:23 pm 

   Ahhh….Josh….it sets you apart from every, and I do mean every other marketer out there, to lead by example.

   Since I have been to that site…I totally get it.

   I have N2H translator….it creates duplicate content by its nature….I had zero idea for remedy….so if I am to understand you correctly I should just not worry about it….correct!

   Bravo!

5. Josh Spaulding
   21st November, 2008 at 5:25 pm 

   @ Tamara – I’m not sure what N2H translator is, but if it translate text to other languages Google doesn’t look at it as duplicate content anyway, so you absolutely don’t have to worry about it.

6. Vijay
   21st November, 2008 at 5:32 pm 

   I recently bought PLR website in the finance niche for 5$ and then just took the 10 articles in them and published it on a new domain.

   I only rewrote the titles.

   Now the blog ranks on the first page for a 2 work keyword which has about 350,000 results and has already made about 20$ via adsense .

   If only I promote..or maybe I’ll just flip it.

7. Bob Blick (2 comments.)
   21st November, 2008 at 5:33 pm 

   Josh-

   That is interesting but doesn’t really guarantee at some time down the line Google might not drop you or maybe even ban your site?

   Which is sad. I agree with you. You put up a site with a lot of good info, and your goal is to give good solid information. Using some articles as you mention, or some plr – so what.

   I’ve done searches and seen the same articles over and over again – lined up in rankings in the top 10. So who knows?

   I would like to see Google take some things like this into consideration in the future. I know from experience that things can happen and Google will drop right now (PR6 site – 10 years old), and not communicate with you as to why. The problem there is, then you worry if the same thing might happen to your other sites – but you don’t know what to do because they don’t talk to you.

   I know it caused me to think twice about duplicate articles. As you point out – maybe it is not actually a problem.

8. Andy Bacon (7 comments.)
   21st November, 2008 at 5:34 pm 

   Josh,
   Just found you on the web a few weeks ago and I’m really glad I did. I am new to IM and trying to learn all I can. Info like how Google looks at duplicate content really helps me as I try to sort this out. What did you do to optimize for those phrases that Wikipedia was not doing?
   Thanks,
   Andy

9. Patrik Berggren
   21st November, 2008 at 5:39 pm 

   Yes, it do!

   I also performed a test since a discussion on a Swedish SEO forum with “all the swedish gurus” is member of that forum and kept talking about the “worries” for duplicate content.

   I created ONE unique text and put it up on 2 different web 2.0 properties and one of my blogs. The exact same text, with all links and stuff exactly copied. ALL 3 got indexed within 30 minutes and all 3 started to rank within 3 hours.

   And, it has always been treated that way, and is also a “known” SEO “blackhat trick” to speed up campaigns and rankings.

   /Patrik Berggren

10. Rod Davis (1 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 5:45 pm 

    Im glad someone finally said it. When it comes down to it, Google doesn’t care about the technical things that most people are teaching. Although it SEO helps, Google values what users think even more than it values its own algorithms. The algorithms only reflect what Google thinks users want to see.

11. saltwater aquarium guide
    21st November, 2008 at 5:48 pm 

    i still say that you are safer in the long run using unique content, as time goes by I am sure Google will tighten up their policies on duplicate content as their technology advances.

12. Brian Foley
    21st November, 2008 at 5:48 pm 

    Josh,

    Once again I’m impressed with your thoroughness and innovation. I’m glad I joined your coachingwithjosh site. I’m getting a lot out of that, too.

    I’ve recently gotten my “shirt” together, and have started submitting articles scientifically and systematically, using mostly your advice, and have seen a spike in visitors.

    Thanks for the good work,

    Shoene Feiertage wuenscht Dir und Deiner Famile,

    Brian

13. Kathy (1 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 5:48 pm 

    Yup! I’m constantly explaining and proving this to people all the time

    I’m constantly using unedited PLR articles on ZipPoster powered sites, and unedited Affiliate Datafeeds on ADPS powered sites with great results.

    I even show an example of the results from a brand new site using PLR content on the ZipPoster page.

    The key is in the optimization and presentation yes, but also the consistency of updates, which is why I prefer sites that automatically keep themselves updated as much as possible.

    - Kathy

14. Spencer Chun
    21st November, 2008 at 5:50 pm 

    What if you took content from Amazon and promoted a product. How would you rank in Google? Thanks for the information.

15. Peter Tremayne
    21st November, 2008 at 5:56 pm 

    Hi Josh,

    Thanks for the good example of how duplicate content can bring in traffic.

    It just goes to show how powerful articles can be.

    I put up a simple adsense/affiliate site about 6 months ago with 12 unique articles. Haven’t touched it since and it now brings in around 900-1000 unique visits a month!

    Content really is a proven traffic generating method – original or duplicate!

    Cheers,

    ~ Peter Tremayne

16. Nate
    21st November, 2008 at 6:29 pm 

    Another great post, Josh. People always argue and speculate about the duplicate content issue, and you go out and prove the truth about it. Thank you for doing what 99% of others do not do.

17. Paul Easton (3 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 6:51 pm 

    Josh,
    My question is around duplicate content- sort of….

    I am article marketing for links back to my site and to similar theme social media sites (squiddo etc)

    When an article is duplicated, using services which place the article on blogs, article submission sites etc – only a fraction of the links are every found using yahoo explorer.

    so really isn’t this what the duplicate content rule is really, that google (and yahoo) wont reconise the links back as the article is the same?

    You can get the articles to rank, if you drive enough links at it

    Paul

    PS: nice design on your Germany site- using no follow on the about/privacy pages

18. Mike Collins (15 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 6:57 pm 

    I’ve never really bought into the duplicate content hysteria…it just doesn’t make sense when you see news sites ranking with the same AP stories that have been reprinted all over the internet. On page optimization and good backlinks are key.

19. Yavor
    21st November, 2008 at 7:04 pm 

    Interesting stuff…

    The wiki search does suck I agree

    Yavor

20. Terry
    21st November, 2008 at 7:23 pm 

    Hiya Josh,

    Geez, you just confirmed what I have been saying and doing. I first started using duplicate content when I got Jonathan Leger software, and I noticed how the top three and alexa ranked me.

    As a matter of fact, I’ve found that you can easily get top rankings by using duplicate conyent from several different sources at once, piecing it together as one article, report, or page… and the top three search engines, and alexa ranks it as original content.

    Thanks much for helping to disspell one of the biggest myths of using duplicate content.

21. Steve@Solar Panels for Homes
    21st November, 2008 at 7:55 pm 

    I have read different things from Jon Leger about this same topic. He came to the same conclusion that you have. Great job, Keep up the good work,
    Steve

22. Paul
    21st November, 2008 at 8:06 pm 

    Great article Josh…This means I can make a blog about the mountains in New Mexico. And use some of the content on Wikipedia…yes or no? By the way I was stationed in Hanau Germany in the early 70′s seen the mountains loved it. Paul

23. Chuck (4 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 8:19 pm 

    Fascinating insight. I know I don’t need to point out to you that duplicate content is not a great long-term strategy in terms of adding value to the web at large, but I must admit, it’s good to know this as an occasional strategic tactic.

    I have a site on Niagara Falls, and I lifted a bunch of stuff from Wikipedia rather than hire a writer for one of the pages. However, I pretty much rewrote every line of it. It’s good to know, though, that I needn’t have killed myself.

    Fortunately, though, I just found a terrific, affordable article writer last week…and I’d much rather have “the human touch” where possible.

24. Soso (5 comments.)
    21st November, 2008 at 8:26 pm 

    Interesting point Josh. Thanks for the eye-opening srticle

25. miguel
    21st November, 2008 at 10:35 pm 

    i dont know,
    i started one page about hipnosis (in spanish) about 4 month ago, i published about 10 articles (not duplicate) x day the first month.
    The page reached 50 unique visitors per day.

    The second month y started to publish only duplicated articles, and the visitors went down to 5 visitor per week!!!!!

    that is my experience.

    sorry 4 my english, i hope you can understand what i wrote

    saludos

26. Success University Review
    21st November, 2008 at 11:30 pm 

    It seems that worked because as you say ” a gap was filled ” DP worked on this occasion but i wouldn’t go copy everything on the net to fill my website.

    DP can also work when you are doing a review site ,like my site, i added DP to enhance my site and it’s ranking well in google & yahoo,

    A good read , i enjoy reading your blog,

    Jason

27. Make A Video
    22nd November, 2008 at 12:17 am 

    I was going on vacation a few months ago but wanted to keep some content auto-posting to one of my sites. It was fairly (6 months old) and most of the content on it was unique.

    I didn’t get a chance to write any more unique articles for it before I left, so I just scheduled 25 posts of some PLR articles I had on my hard drive.

    Fast forward 4 months. Every one of those PLR articles are indexed and 4 of them are on the first page of Google for their keywords. And my site went from PR 3 to PR 4 at the last update.

    Bottom line. I think a good combination of unique and duplicate content can still get the job done.

28. Wally
    22nd November, 2008 at 3:25 am 

    This is great Josh. I have started using some of your other ideas and they have been successful. I may give this a go and see what happens!

    Cheers!

29. Rob Forbes (7 comments.)
    22nd November, 2008 at 4:14 am 

    Hi Josh

    Thanks for that insight. I has occurred to me that there is a limit to knowledge on a lot of things, but no limit to the number of people wanting to write about the same thing – so there has to be tolerance for duplication.

    I think the key that you have hit on is the optimisation.

    Thanks again for your blog – I glean tons from it.

    Rob

30. Mike Hawkins (3 comments.)
    22nd November, 2008 at 10:22 am 

    That is a very interesting find Josh. It has always been my opinion that it would be mighty strange for Google to “punish” you for putting together a site full of relevant, quality information on a given topic.

    I still agree with some of the other commenters though – for maximum longevity of the site you need to have some elements that are at least somewhat unique to your site.

    Not to be a killjoy or anything. But when it comes to Wikipedia you should also remember that, according to their terms, you ought to link back to them when you have used their material. Here’s the full copyright statement:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

    From what I can see there is nothing stopping you from using a nofollow tag on the link, if you are concerned about SEO. Not sure if that might be considered bad form though…

31. Review FAQ (4 comments.)
    22nd November, 2008 at 10:54 am 

    A few points on this Josh:-

    1) Wikipedia get very tough on copying without acknowlegement so always put a link back at the bottom of the page.

    2) Duplicate content is not a problem between sites but you will tend to get filtered out of the SERPs within a few months if your off page SEO isn’t too hot.

    3) The longer the duplicate content stays up then the more the search engines like it – I’ve gone from nowhere to top of page one just by leaving sites up for a couple of years!

    4) Duplicate pages (important difference) are OK in Yahoo but will absolutely be filtered out by Google and MSN.

32. Ottawa SEO (3 comments.)
    22nd November, 2008 at 12:16 pm 

    I think you could easily elaborate from information digested from Wikipedia especially if you have first hand information and some general knowledge to make an article your own and insert some new keywords that others may not have thought of.

33. Wayne
    22nd November, 2008 at 1:52 pm 

    When I first read this it really suprised me, but looking at it closer it really makes sense. You just took some info and reformated it. Gotta admit, its a great idea!

34. Prepaid cell phones (9 comments.)
    23rd November, 2008 at 2:10 am 

    Wow,
    I am blown away that Wikipedia can just be copied. Isn’t Wikipedia content copyrighted?

    Thanks for another very interesting post.

    Rick

35. Valentin
    23rd November, 2008 at 9:42 am 

    Hi Josh,

    Where can I buy articles for $5 like Vijay did for his blog ?

    “I recently bought PLR website in the finance niche for 5$ and then just took the 10 articles in them and published it on a new domain.”

    Valentin

36. Martin
    23rd November, 2008 at 11:06 am 

    great post, a bit concerned about the copyright aspects, however if you attribute (linkback) you should be fine. The important thing is not to claim ownership of something that is not yours, but republishing should be ok.

37. Josh Spaulding
    23rd November, 2008 at 4:00 pm 

    @ Rick & Martin – Wikipedia content is all public domain. It’s perfectly legal to use the content on your own site.

    @ Valentin – Try looking for people through forums like http://ww.warriorforum.com/ and http://www.digitalpoint.com/ Also take a look at digital point’s marketplace.

38. Duplicate Content Penalty Doesn’t Exist | Internet Marketing Ramblings
    23rd November, 2008 at 5:51 pm 

    [...] that details his own experience with using duplicate content on one of his sites. Check out his duplicate content case study – proof that duplicate content [...]

39. wai kei, hooi (1 comments.)
    23rd November, 2008 at 9:34 pm 

    Josh,your responses to Rick and Martin stated that Wikipedia is public domain material.
    So does it mean that with Wikipedia, there is no need for attribution, despite the blurbs about copyright?

40. Josh Spaulding
    23rd November, 2008 at 9:56 pm 

    @ Wai – I’m not an attorney, so I won’t attempt to translate any kind of legal terms. As far as I know it’s perfectly fine to use Wikipedia content on your own sites, but you should always have an attorney look into legal matters you’re unsure of.

41. Rika Susan's Home DIY News (10 comments.)
    24th November, 2008 at 8:51 am 

    Excellent stuff, Josh. This is a common sense approach that works. I think there are tons of duplicate content myths out there. It is good to get some of them cleared up.

42. Review FAQ (4 comments.)
    24th November, 2008 at 9:42 am 

    As per Wikipedia:Copyrights:-

    “Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement).”

    Note, that covers even modified/spun versions.

43. john
    24th November, 2008 at 11:25 am 

    hmm, this is a good bit of info!
    i didn’t know this is allowed but as i can see, it can!
    now my advice is: be creative though, don’t just copy and paste, put your own knowledge, your personality, just a small touch should do it.

44. Stan Craigie (1 comments.)
    26th November, 2008 at 1:58 am 

    I’ve always believed it to be a myth, for one thing how do you define duplicate content. Same subject, similar words, identical words? Let’s remember it’s a ‘robot’ that’s checking this stuff!
    This may be too big a question for here but how do you optimise your content? Is it in the meta tag keywords as that’s also becoming a contentious area if you listen to some of the ‘experts’!

    Stan

45. Ted
    28th November, 2008 at 11:05 pm 

    Half of the info on the net is duplicate, so in this case the trick was to use quality duplicate.

46. Money with clickbank (1 comments.)
    29th November, 2008 at 4:50 am 

    Yeap, duplicate content still doest get ranked but, like how Josh put it succintly, if you’re able to products quality duplicate content quicker and faster to searchers, you don’t get penalised – you get rewarded!

47. Franck Silvestrea (1 comments.)
    3rd December, 2008 at 2:26 pm 

    Awesome Josh.

    I am going to make a little test as well in a brand new niche and see what’s hapenning

    Franck

48. I don't know my name
    3rd December, 2008 at 6:21 pm 

    Simply find your favorite Wikipedia article, grab a sentence from it, and google it (with quotes around it. You can do this with any content-based site (e.g. EzineArticles) and you will always find duplicat content in the results. At teh end of the results though, you will almost always find “repeat the search with the omitted results included” at which point it will show many more sites.

    There are a couple things about this though if you want to be absolutely sure your content ranks. 1. Make sure you have other unique content on the page, even if its just in the header/footer. 2. Get some inbound links to your page. 3. Don’t do this too much though, meaning, dont simply have a site built from 100% scraped content.

49. Proof that Manual Link Building still works!
    10th December, 2008 at 3:52 pm 

    [...] a year! I haven’t built links, added content, nothing! Some of the content on the site is duplicate content too. The only thing I have done is something most SEO “Experts” will tell you is a bad [...]

50. Prepaid Cell phone guy (9 comments.)
    11th December, 2008 at 5:10 am 

    I just reread this post and your comment about User experience hits home. One of the other blogs I follow–I won’t mention his name—puts out a lot of pages that are cr@p.

    I am trying to improve the user experience at all of my sites.

    Thanks
    Rick

51. Anther
    17th December, 2008 at 11:50 am 

    Its not the case at all situations.Some times Google may find the content is duplicated it will not rank in the Google…So need to try differently..

52. Josh Spaulding
    17th December, 2008 at 4:57 pm 

    @ Anther – ok, my proof is above, where is yours? thanks, have a good day

53. Tis The Season For Link Love | Money Making Secrets
    24th December, 2008 at 3:42 am 

    [...] Josh Spaulding that duplicate content can rank in the SEs.  [...]

54. Paull Hamilton
    3rd January, 2009 at 5:41 pm 

    I have to take your word for it, but I find it quite strange that you can just copy stuff from Wikipedia. That is quite good news though and I shall keep that in mind for the future. Good site and good commenters.

55. Steve (1 comments.)
    19th January, 2009 at 4:01 pm 

    hey Josh,
    I just checked and you’re still #1 for “German mountains.” Thanks for demonstrating instead of pontificating.
    I’ll be reading more here.
    ~ Steve

56. SEO Campaign 003 | I'm a Money Grubber
    9th February, 2011 at 8:54 am 

    [...] that syndication is not considered spamming. I have, however, seen case studies put together by other SEO experts demonstrating that unique content ranks faster and higher than copied content. This led me to form [...]