---- Scraped content ranking higher than the original source
kaled - 9:25 am on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0)
The definition of intellectual property is becoming fuzzy.
To be blunt, this is nonsense.
I haven't bothered to read a copyright notice in full for many years but they are pretty all-encompassing as are relevant laws. They are certainly able to cope with the digital age.
The part of Google's algorithm that is supposed to locate the original and filter out the copies is currently broken. Make that more broken than it was before.
Maybe I'm cynical but I think this is an absolute classic mistake. I doubt there ever was or has been a filter that attempted to distinguish copies from originals. Any perceived filter is almost certainly a side effect of other algorithms.
Frankly, I'm fed up of saying it but, just one more time...
The only way Google could implement automated identification of copies would be by using the age of urls. If Google (and others) had ever done that, there would be very little professionally copied material on the internet.
Google has an interest in removing duplicate content because it clogs up its database but it has no interest in determining what is original and what is the copy. Google does not care and has never cared about third-party IP rights and they never will until someone forces them to do so. PS I hereby recind all IP rights to the above paragraph. Copy, paste do whatever you want, start a new thread but please stop talking about Google's broken filters, etc. - this is almost certainly pure fantasy.