<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Duplicate content question</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/</link>
	<description>neat fun stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:35:07 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ashish</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-405912</link>
		<dc:creator>Ashish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-405912</guid>
		<description>Matt,

One of my site has become so popular recently and gaining momentum per day, i have started receiving lots of requests from other site owners to give them access to fetch my full article via RSS and show on their sites. My main concern is, what if those sites are ranking higher on said keywords? would my original article will be penalized?
Basically, i am looking for Content Syndication Best practices which gradually promote original content with any penalty.

For e.g. builder.com.au is fetching the same articles from techrepublic.com but i don&#039;t see if they are penalized by Google. What should be the best way for distributing original content via RSS to multiple site owners?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt,</p>
<p>One of my site has become so popular recently and gaining momentum per day, i have started receiving lots of requests from other site owners to give them access to fetch my full article via RSS and show on their sites. My main concern is, what if those sites are ranking higher on said keywords? would my original article will be penalized?<br />
Basically, i am looking for Content Syndication Best practices which gradually promote original content with any penalty.</p>
<p>For e.g. builder.com.au is fetching the same articles from techrepublic.com but i don&#8217;t see if they are penalized by Google. What should be the best way for distributing original content via RSS to multiple site owners?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jean MORVAN</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-382612</link>
		<dc:creator>Jean MORVAN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:08:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-382612</guid>
		<description>I read regularly your interesting blog.

I need your help our your advice.
A new site has copied my site www.jm-contacts.net
I am very afraid about the reaction of google for the duplicate content.

The duplicate content is a matter on which you have write a lot.
Could you tell me the risk of blacklisting from google for my site?
Could you also give me an email address and a name at Google Company for relating my problem? Perhaps you can transfer my mail to the right person.

Thank you very much for your help
Best regards.

JM-CONTACTS managing director
Jean Morvan

PS: excuse me for my poor English</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read regularly your interesting blog.</p>
<p>I need your help our your advice.<br />
A new site has copied my site <a href="http://www.jm-contacts.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.jm-contacts.net</a><br />
I am very afraid about the reaction of google for the duplicate content.</p>
<p>The duplicate content is a matter on which you have write a lot.<br />
Could you tell me the risk of blacklisting from google for my site?<br />
Could you also give me an email address and a name at Google Company for relating my problem? Perhaps you can transfer my mail to the right person.</p>
<p>Thank you very much for your help<br />
Best regards.</p>
<p>JM-CONTACTS managing director<br />
Jean Morvan</p>
<p>PS: excuse me for my poor English</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Spencer</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-380872</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Spencer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-380872</guid>
		<description>I just ran a test by syndicating an article and, even though every copy of the syndicated article links back to the original, Google is _still_ unable to determine which article is the original.  And the original is on a website which shows a PageRank of #5!

My original article now ranks #6, where it used to rank #2.  It is now preceded in the results by two syndicated copies (both of which link back to the original), two pages which are completely irrelevant to the search, and one other page on the same topic.

Google tells us &quot;Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines.&quot;  However, their inability to tell original content from syndicated content forces us once again to ignore what is good for the users and focus on what is required by the search engines.  From now on, when I syndicate content I will be sure to alter the page titles and perhaps even some of the content.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just ran a test by syndicating an article and, even though every copy of the syndicated article links back to the original, Google is _still_ unable to determine which article is the original.  And the original is on a website which shows a PageRank of #5!</p>
<p>My original article now ranks #6, where it used to rank #2.  It is now preceded in the results by two syndicated copies (both of which link back to the original), two pages which are completely irrelevant to the search, and one other page on the same topic.</p>
<p>Google tells us &#8220;Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines.&#8221;  However, their inability to tell original content from syndicated content forces us once again to ignore what is good for the users and focus on what is required by the search engines.  From now on, when I syndicate content I will be sure to alter the page titles and perhaps even some of the content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Sparshott</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-357098</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Sparshott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-357098</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt,

Just a quick question really about duplicate content, and the &quot;punishments&quot; Google are supposedly hand out for cheating sites, I was wondering whether this sort of website would constitute as duplicating content (big style)?

http://www.evoluted.net/towns/

each and every one of the town links within this page has duplicate content, other than a difference in the town name.

I have seen many websites like this, and I have also informed Google by using the webmasters tools (twice) but nothing has ever happened.

It&#039;s websites like this that spam their way to the top of Google search results, and it&#039;s cutting out the ability to provide search engine users of more relevant smaller web design agencies or freelancers in those local towns.

I am interested to hear any thought&#039;s by either yourself or any other commenters!

Chris Sparshott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt,</p>
<p>Just a quick question really about duplicate content, and the &#8220;punishments&#8221; Google are supposedly hand out for cheating sites, I was wondering whether this sort of website would constitute as duplicating content (big style)?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.evoluted.net/towns/" rel="nofollow">http://www.evoluted.net/towns/</a></p>
<p>each and every one of the town links within this page has duplicate content, other than a difference in the town name.</p>
<p>I have seen many websites like this, and I have also informed Google by using the webmasters tools (twice) but nothing has ever happened.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s websites like this that spam their way to the top of Google search results, and it&#8217;s cutting out the ability to provide search engine users of more relevant smaller web design agencies or freelancers in those local towns.</p>
<p>I am interested to hear any thought&#8217;s by either yourself or any other commenters!</p>
<p>Chris Sparshott</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wingthom</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-348839</link>
		<dc:creator>wingthom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-348839</guid>
		<description>Matt, we found a case where it might make sense to think about the class robots-nocontent.

At least we didn&#039;t find a way to sell around the issues with other techniques Google offers.

The case: to help our users who download a business sofware version from our site we offer links to business news that are hosted in another section of our site. Now we got alerts from Google Webmaster Tools that those download description pages are a News Hub, and some of those downloads are even included into the Google News Index, but of course they are filtered away from appearing on the front pages. 

But not only the Downloads are filtered away, but also the regular News. Maybe there is a filter &quot;site has too many low quality news so don&#039;t trust them&quot;. We couldn&#039;t sell around this by submitting News Sitemaps, Writing Mails to the Google News team etc. 

In this special case a robots-nocontent class tag would be great: we could just tell Google and other search engines that a certain part of the page is for human navigational purposes only and not for Bots.

For Adsense purposes Google offers such a tag - to &quot;ignore&quot; a special part of the page and to focus more on other parts of the page.

From the earlier post:

Yahoo provides a robots-nocontent class tag that can be used to remove content from the page flow from being indexed (or used in determining a pages weight). Does Google support this tag? If not, are there are plans to support such a tag?.

Veign, we don’t current support that tag, for a couple reason. We think we do pretty well on detecting boilerplate (e.g. you’re not likely to run into any issues of duplicate content for header/footer type stuff). The other reason is that we haven’t seen a lot of sites using the tag after Yahoo mentioned it. Given the choice on where to put engineering resources, not a ton of people have asked for this feature.

Would be great to get an update on this. It is a spam issue too. We don&#039;t want dowloads to show up in Google News - it is not the type of Editorial Content we stand for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, we found a case where it might make sense to think about the class robots-nocontent.</p>
<p>At least we didn&#8217;t find a way to sell around the issues with other techniques Google offers.</p>
<p>The case: to help our users who download a business sofware version from our site we offer links to business news that are hosted in another section of our site. Now we got alerts from Google Webmaster Tools that those download description pages are a News Hub, and some of those downloads are even included into the Google News Index, but of course they are filtered away from appearing on the front pages. </p>
<p>But not only the Downloads are filtered away, but also the regular News. Maybe there is a filter &#8220;site has too many low quality news so don&#8217;t trust them&#8221;. We couldn&#8217;t sell around this by submitting News Sitemaps, Writing Mails to the Google News team etc. </p>
<p>In this special case a robots-nocontent class tag would be great: we could just tell Google and other search engines that a certain part of the page is for human navigational purposes only and not for Bots.</p>
<p>For Adsense purposes Google offers such a tag &#8211; to &#8220;ignore&#8221; a special part of the page and to focus more on other parts of the page.</p>
<p>From the earlier post:</p>
<p>Yahoo provides a robots-nocontent class tag that can be used to remove content from the page flow from being indexed (or used in determining a pages weight). Does Google support this tag? If not, are there are plans to support such a tag?.</p>
<p>Veign, we don’t current support that tag, for a couple reason. We think we do pretty well on detecting boilerplate (e.g. you’re not likely to run into any issues of duplicate content for header/footer type stuff). The other reason is that we haven’t seen a lot of sites using the tag after Yahoo mentioned it. Given the choice on where to put engineering resources, not a ton of people have asked for this feature.</p>
<p>Would be great to get an update on this. It is a spam issue too. We don&#8217;t want dowloads to show up in Google News &#8211; it is not the type of Editorial Content we stand for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Densepense</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-347084</link>
		<dc:creator>Densepense</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-347084</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt,
I was wondering about whether checking Broken Link in AddMe.com results in adding negative effect to our site by duplicating the content?

AddMe checks broken link and make one report by fetching Title and Meta Description of any website. I used it once and now I want to know about, is to bad for our website or it is ok to use it?

Hoping for your answer.
Thank you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt,<br />
I was wondering about whether checking Broken Link in AddMe.com results in adding negative effect to our site by duplicating the content?</p>
<p>AddMe checks broken link and make one report by fetching Title and Meta Description of any website. I used it once and now I want to know about, is to bad for our website or it is ok to use it?</p>
<p>Hoping for your answer.<br />
Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bristol Web Design</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-343241</link>
		<dc:creator>Bristol Web Design</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-343241</guid>
		<description>Hi..

I am designing a site where the owner asked for a wordpress based &quot;news&quot; section (as he wants all the nice features of wordpress)
He also want the RSS feed from wordpress to be displayed on the homepage - so visitor as aware of new news stories in the news section. 

Is this setup is a good idea or not?
Will there be duplicate content problems with google?
I&#039;d probably just display the summary of the news on the homepage, but it will be rendered as HTML

thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi..</p>
<p>I am designing a site where the owner asked for a wordpress based &#8220;news&#8221; section (as he wants all the nice features of wordpress)<br />
He also want the RSS feed from wordpress to be displayed on the homepage &#8211; so visitor as aware of new news stories in the news section. </p>
<p>Is this setup is a good idea or not?<br />
Will there be duplicate content problems with google?<br />
I&#8217;d probably just display the summary of the news on the homepage, but it will be rendered as HTML</p>
<p>thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-330207</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-330207</guid>
		<description>I have read in various forums that Google (potentially) penalizes a business that utilizes more than one website to promote itself online.  There seem to be many businesses who create separate websites to promote different services they offer or different locations they serve.  I have not come across any examples of businesses who have been penalized for this type of optimization practice.

Will search engines penalize me for creating 10 websites with 100 pages each instead of compiling the same content into one large 1,000 page site?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have read in various forums that Google (potentially) penalizes a business that utilizes more than one website to promote itself online.  There seem to be many businesses who create separate websites to promote different services they offer or different locations they serve.  I have not come across any examples of businesses who have been penalized for this type of optimization practice.</p>
<p>Will search engines penalize me for creating 10 websites with 100 pages each instead of compiling the same content into one large 1,000 page site?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steph</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-271461</link>
		<dc:creator>Steph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-271461</guid>
		<description>Hi Matt.

I found your blog trying to find why google would show me the same site twice when searching for wedding bands !

It showed me the same site twice!, for the same term!

I found http://gilletts.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm
and http://myring.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Matt.</p>
<p>I found your blog trying to find why google would show me the same site twice when searching for wedding bands !</p>
<p>It showed me the same site twice!, for the same term!</p>
<p>I found <a href="http://gilletts.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm" rel="nofollow">http://gilletts.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm</a><br />
and <a href="http://myring.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm" rel="nofollow">http://myring.com.au/custom_titanium_rings.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-262678</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/#comment-262678</guid>
		<description>Always best to get it from the horse mouth so here’s  My question I previously work for a company and unfortuanly that company when bust, I wrote about 100 articles for them and now the site is no more.  Now if I republish them on my site will I get a duplicate content penalty? The content is mine and the site no more, but Google would have record of them as the first publisher of the content. Will I get penalized for using this content as I see how this could be exploited? Thank in advance for any replies</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Always best to get it from the horse mouth so here’s  My question I previously work for a company and unfortuanly that company when bust, I wrote about 100 articles for them and now the site is no more.  Now if I republish them on my site will I get a duplicate content penalty? The content is mine and the site no more, but Google would have record of them as the first publisher of the content. Will I get penalized for using this content as I see how this could be exploited? Thank in advance for any replies</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
