TheMadScientist - 3:01 am on Jan 24, 2011 (gmt 0)
But for article that was there 2 years and then scraped - this is obvious, isn't it?
Obviously only to us unedukated types... If we had a doctorate of any kind I'm sure we would see the faulty reasoning in ranking the original content source over the later found duplicate.
ADDED: I've gone down this road before, aakk9999 ... Aggressively
IMO It's one of the stupidest things they do... They want to find content farms and weed them out, and IMO it's much simpler if they just rank the originally found source and let the content 'owners' fight it out if there's a dispute over who truly published or authored the content originally... It's what I think they should (have to?) do if they are truly an unbiased information retrieval system.
Before anyone tells me how tough it is or why they can't, please read my arguments in the linked thread...
### # ###
Apologies for getting a bit OT there for a minute.