Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
The results were like this:
Search: "bla bla bla"
Results:
bla bla bla quoted from: Example1.com @ quoter1.com
bla bla bla quoted from: Example1.com @ quoter2.com
bla bla bla quoted from: Example1.com @ quoter3.com
For more similar results click...
*Click*
bla bla bla @ Example1.com
-------------
Search: "ble ble ble"
Results:
ble ble ble quoted from: Example2.com @ quoter1.com
ble ble ble quoted from: Example2.com @ quoter2.com
ble ble ble quoted from: Example2.com @ quoter3.com
For more similar results click...
*Click*
bla bla bla @ Example2.com
---------------------
What does this means? Google can't distinguish original content from quoters? That's so ridiculous.
Does this means that if a site wants to bomb a competitor out of search only needs to copy their contents into a dozen of blogs or something and be done with it?
Google can't distinguish original content from quoters? That's so ridiculous.
How would you suggest this be done, technically? In many cases Google gets it right, but there are certainly major challenges here. What if the originating page makes a small update so the last modified header is more recent than the quoting site? Especially problematic depending on the spidering schedule.
If there's an outgoing link in a content linking to a content of the same exact nature, it doesnt takes a genius to figure out its a quote.
CNN.com for instance, could just stop writing news and use their massive PR and status just quoting the others and still appear in the search for those subjects way before the guys who actually had the trouble of writing them.
I know that the CNN example is ludicrous for several reasons, but in my specific case and talking of the inverse, (hypoteticaly) a site of guys quoting CNN appearing before CNN on the search.
That's kind of weird, but i'm seeing it happening. Is it a simple matter of PR?
Is it a simple matter of PR?
Matt Cutts has stated that PR is a factor, but if you would spend time marketing and promoting your site, other sites would have less chance of quoting you and ranking above you.
Read the posts, learn and execute.
Cheers,
CaboWabo
It does makes sense what you say, but it opens wing to alot of black hat tricks.
Lets say CNN has 1000 domains. For ever new news site that appears, they would just need start a quoting site from that and ramming their google results.
Original source should be a rock solid concept in SERPS.
In a perfect SE, if a blog of a Bush's friend would post a scene with Bush's ass on fire, the results for "Bush's ass on fire" should be like:
#1 Bush Friend Blog
#2 CNN
#2 BBC
etc.
Fair, neh?
How to make it? That's not my problem, I don't own a SE :)
To distinguish an original from a copy, the most reliable method is to keep a first_spidered_date for every url.
This method could be abused but it would be easy for a tech to identify such a page once a complaint was made and the offending page could then be excluded. In other words, the abuser could pay a heavy price.
Any other method is guaranteed to have such a high failure rate that assigning techs to deal with complaints would be a waste of time.
Kaled.
Does this means that if a site wants to bomb a competitor out of search only needs to copy their contents into a dozen of blogs or something and be done with it?
I had a client's home page main text copied by another site and they categorized it under 13 keywords and put it on 13 pages on their site. They claimed it was a "review" of my client's site and even dated the "reviews". My client's site dropped PR almost immediately and disappeared from Google's index except for a few bogus pages and SERPs and traffic dropped also, around the same date. The site owner had no contact data in WHois so we contacted the host who required a DMCA report before they would take actiion. We sent one to Google also and used the Google spam report on that site also and requested reinclusion for my client's site and explained what happened.
The culprit site went down shortly after sending the letters. My client's PR came back quickly but SERPs and Traffic came back slower but traffic is now double what it was previously.
So, while this may work, the culprit stands a big chance of loosing their whole website.
BTW, comments in blogs won't work because most blog programs have installed rel="nofollow" tags on every comment link.
