Search:

Reused content - Parable Or Fact?

The reasons why are straightforward, and plain. Search engines are constantly developing, and have moved past the point at which this kind of 'trick' could trick them. ( as an important point, Google became able to cope with these 'splogs' back in 2003, and rolled out the tech in 2004 ). Bitching against the fool content penalty fall into a few camps, typically stressing that major reports sites, Yahoo, for instance, have small on them that isn't printed some place else, and THEY appear to do OK. What this debatable claim misses is the 'penalty' does not need to be an explicit punishment or downgrade, it can be a derivative of the way search engines work today. So how can they work? Modern search engines try very hard to supply what they call a 'good user experience' to surfers who use them. This suggests that whatever you search for, they try to find something topical. How can they do this? First, find something that matches precisely. And the remainder of the page? There is no point filling it completely with the copies, as the first result already contains that user experience, should they wish to click it. This Augments the experience, and thus is a GOOD THING so far as the search engine ( and user ) is anxious. Unless you chance to think your tiny spammy blog is more crucial that ezinearticles, or goarticles, or 'daytrading.com' for instance. You should now be in a position to see that there's no motivation for google, yahoo etc to feature YOUR spammy blog, unless you can get it up to a PR6 or seven. And it is getting worse than that too. The end result? If you search for your exact domain / blog, you will doubtless find it. If you search for any of the keywords you are looking to rank for, you will not find it, as it's been pushed down 5 hundred places - after all IT'S reused content, and thus valueless as a consequence. Basically, the MORE copied content you push onto it, the worse you will make it. Can you 'fool' the engines by 'mashing up' content from diverse sources? No. This lets them fingerprint content at a fragmentary level and check for it somewhere else quite simply. And if they identify that you try to 'game' them by mashing up, you really WILL get banned. Once again, the statistics tracks you leave by doing this stamp you out as someone that thinks he is a 'baddass blackhatter', and the engines will take great entertainment in banning you, and linking this ban to all the other sites they say that you own too. Don't forget, Google are under no legal need to treat your sites 'fairly'! Can you fool then by 'spinning' the content? Yes, but you need to spin down to the sentence fragment level - a job so advanced that there's now only 1 solution that may do it - hint - you are on the site now, and it is no longer 'spinning', it's content wrangling. What occurs then? You may not feature in the number 1 spot ( unless you are that PR seven site ), but you will include somewhere close to it, because YOUR CONTENT IS UNIQUE and therefore MAKES THE USER EXPERIENCE BETTER. With unused content, it's even feasible to 'dominate the serps' with multiple sites, as the search engines will assume the close but different content on those sites will be relevant to the user, and thus a reference to each site is worth showing. You can never get banned as a spammy blog if you use fresh content either - as you won't trip the statistics spam filter the engines use to see spam blogs ( disclaimer - if its a bad blog, and you get 'dobbed' in it by a rival, you can still get banned ). So there you have it. You want unused content on your sites. Throwing up site after site that just scrapes content from somewhere else, or uses unchanged articles is ... Every hour you waste on that purposeless task makes it less complicated for the remainder of us to make money!

Niche Article Directory: http://www.thatsmyniche.com

Try www.contentboss.com and earn cash online with PLR Articles.

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated