Duplicate content - why do search engines care?

[Daniels_Web]

I have a question about the duplicate content stuff. Why would a search engine care if data is a duplicate? My site is mostly historic or research orientated, and it is mostly duplicate content. After all how many U.S. Constitutions are there?

I haven't had any problem yet, but it is none of the search engines business what is on the site they need to index it without judgement. Copyright and trademark law is about protecting people's intellectual property, not web crawlers.

I guess search engines feel like the can censor people's thoughts and access to information even if it's un-constitutional for the governemnt to censor the internet. Maybe Jesus came back as a search engine--LOL. Later.

[tedster]

Search engines are in business most of all to serve their users -- those who are doing searches. If a search engine gives them results that all go to basically the same content, then the user will not have a good experience.

So when there is duplicate content, they need a way to decide which version should show in the results - and whether the copies should be moved down the results. It's not a straightforward "penalty" -- it's a complex algorithmic decision.

If one version of the content is returned, then no information is being censored. Amd if the algorithm sees many pages on the same domain that are essentially duplicate, the algo might well smell an attempt at spamming and decide not to show any of those pages.

It's their business, with their goals, not the sites owners' goals. Understanding this, and coordinating our goals with the SE goals, can be a big key to doing well in acquiring search traffic.

[caveman]

Exactly. And BTW, in my personal experience, the SE's are less likely to filter out in-tact copies of important works like the US Constitution or a great poet, than they are to filter out near dup pages generated by, for example, affiliate sites displaying product feeds.

Intent matters, and if you think that there are no clues to help the SE's discern intent, think again.

[Daniels_Web]

There is nothing like getting it from all sides! However, you are wrong about duplicate content.

Just because the content is a duplication doesn't mean the websites are equally attractive to all people. For instance my site has no advertisements and the pages are small in Kb's this allows for fast load times and you only get what information your looking for, however, other sites with the exact same information are loaded with advertisements, pop-ups, and spyware that makes finding or accessing the information almost impossible. Which site should the search engine list? The answer is both and let the user decide which is best for their needs.

[tedster]

you are wrong about duplicate content

Well, I wasn't defending it, I was explaining it.

Having a philosophical difference with the way search engines do things, or just wanting it to be different -- that doesn't change the way things actually are. Understanding how the land lies is an important step in planning a good campaign. A general can't win a battle just by wishing the terrain was different - he's got to work with what is actually there.

There's plenty of room in the algo for one site to bump another site. If a newer site is really felt to be better by users, then it will naturally gather traffic and links over time -- and all kinds of quality signals will build up.

[Daniels_Web]

The original thread I was talking about was banned sites for duplicate content. Not the order of results. That's the problem w/moving stuff.

Personally I could care less because my site is not for profit, and I could really care less what the search engines think. The people I want visiting are friends, family, and associates, and they will find it without search engines or the crap that is involved with them.