The real definition of duplicate content?

[KSA]

Hi,

I'm hoping to get the definitive answer to what is considered duplicate content, and how the SEs react to it. I'm not talking about duplicate content resulting from duplicate domain names, but just publishing the same page content.

In different places, I've read that duplicate content penalties don't exist, that the same page on two+ websites will just be ignored by the search engines without penalizing the overall site, and that a site can only be penalized if there is duplicate content on the same site.

I've been told that the search engines don't penalize anyone for posting articles from the free-content sites. But, do the SEs ignore those pages - so the publisher doesn't get credit for additional content, and the author doesn't get any benefit from the link to their site in the "bio" for the article?

Can anyone help me out? There is so much conflicting information on this topic, my head is spinning!

Kathleen

[Homesurfer]

Great question.

There is a lot of conflicting information because it is all based on opinion and because not all search engines react the same.

Duplicate content doesn't mean the two pages are exactly the same, but that the content on those pages, or at least some of it, are duplicates of one another.

As a result, if someone hopes to get a link by submitting an article to another site -- but that article already appears elsewhere on the web -- it does not add value as far as Search Engine Optimization is concerned. It gets ignored by Google.

Some experts in SEO also feel there may be an additional penalty against the site displaying the duplicate content. I don't feel there is, but...that is just an opinion.

However....

...Additional content, even if it is duplicate content, is NEW to the visitor who sees it for the first time. Search engine optimization is not the ONLY reason to add content to a site.

[frobn]

I've been told that the search engines don't penalize anyone for posting articles from the free-content sites. But, do the SEs ignore those pages - so the publisher doesn't get credit for additional content, and the author doesn't get any benefit from the link to their site in the "bio" for the article.

My experience with duplicate articles is that they are helpful to the author's site and to the site publishing the article and not penalized by Google--both sites benefit. Here is recent (duplicated) article by Joel Walsh SEO Duplicate Web Content Penalty Myth Exploded. I have discussed Joel's philosphy with him and for myself I believe he is correct. I am considering a slightly different approach that I posted here http://www.realestatewebmasters.com/thread4936.html

I am of the opinion that as long as the material is not on the same class C IP or on a fraternal site Google doesn't consider it duplicate. This does not hold true for substantially similar websites. At least for now, the data and the logic support this conclusion.

[wadowiczanka]

I have a question I hope someone can help me answer. Right after the Jagger, when my website dropped from sight and I had no mail to answer, I put together an HTML website to help me in the future with ranking and to be in total control.

Last weekend I decided to switch to a hyphonated version of that URL (access-to-toronto-real-estate.com). I transfered the contents, and asked the owner of the server to re-direct the other, un-hyphonated URL to the new one. He replied that he did it by the way of "alias", which means the un-hyphonated URL soes not change in the address line, but only the new content is displayed.

Will this cause Google to treat the two as "mirror sites"? Am I getting myself into trouble, instead of doing something good? Anyone knows? Help!!!

[KSA]

Oddly enough, when I check the headers on the sites, they both come up with a status of 200-OK. Both the one with hyphens and the one without.

Can anyone tell us how that's possible, and if it's a problem?

I thought you could only have one status 200 domain name at a time????

Kathleen

[frobn]

I have a question I hope someone can help me answer. Right after the Jagger, when my website dropped from sight and I had no mail to answer, I put together an HTML website to help me in the future with ranking and to be in total control.

Last weekend I decided to switch to a hyphonated version of that URL (access-to-toronto-real-estate.com). I transfered the contents, and asked the owner of the server to re-direct the other, un-hyphonated URL to the new one. He replied that he did it by the way of "alias", which means the un-hyphonated URL soes not change in the address line, but only the new content is displayed.

Will this cause Google to treat the two as "mirror sites"? Am I getting myself into trouble, instead of doing something good? Anyone knows? Help!!!

The identical site comes up with both the hyphonated URL and the un-hyphonated, I believe that will be considered duplicate content. You need to have a 301 redirect for the old site so when someone types the un-hyphonated url it will switch to the hyphonated url.