Ask Friedrich Naumann

This debate corner is for discussion purposes only. While all views are welcome, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty reserves the right to remove posts it considers not related or disruptive.

Post Your Comment | Back to Main Discussion


I really apeitcrape what Google has been doing with this blog. The information that it contains generally has been quite helpful to the webmaster community. However, this post about duplicate content is misleading and inaccurate.1) I will grant you that it's partially true that if duplicated content includes a link back to the original article that Google generally gets it right. However, many Googlers, including Matt Cutts, have admitted that this is not *always* the case, and even with the link back, Google doesn't always recognize the original source. This is a problem because people seem to think that if they take content and include a link back to it that this is fair use and that they are not causing any harm to a site. It is not fair use, and they very well may be causing harm to a site, particularly small-to-mid-size ones.2) If, by scraper sites, you mean, places where a short phrase from an article is randomly intermixed with other short phrases from other articles to create something that reads like utter nonsense, then, yes, Google OVER TIME will figure out which is the original source. However, the victim site can be harmed by a scraper site for the short term because its ranking can be lowered or it can be tossed from the index entirely until Google has a chance to sort it out. This can take months.3) When large portions of articles are scraped and duplicated without a link back to the original source, Google does a HORRIBLE job of determining the original source, except for very very large sites. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant about including the link back to the original article, so they think they are sharing something that can help a site. In reality, they harm the site by failing to include a link back to the original article. Even if they put a link back to the main page of a site, Google doesn't get it right. When you factor in made-for-AdSense sites that merely duplicate/aggregate content, you open the door to harming a lot of innocent sites that are creating the quality content.I'm sure you saw the article on WebProNews regarding Michael VanDeMar's situation. I think what he was doing was wrong, and he had no business archiving materials like that. I think it's right that he suffered for it. However, I have seen and heard of effects similar to what happened to him where the duplicate content filter was applied incorrectly to entire sub-folders/sub-directories when a lot of the material within them was pilfered illegally by another site or, worse, a lot of other sites.Even before such an extreme situation happens, I have seen cases where postings that were published within a few hours of each other were both removed from Google's index when the Scraper Site stole just one of them. I have also seen cases where on the day that something is stolen from an Original Site, everything else it published on that day is suppressed by Google. I have even seen cases where a single paragraph that is stolen from the middle of a 6-paragraph article causes the original source to be tossed aside. Sometimes these effects can last for days, sometimes for weeks, and sometimes for months. It's very troubling, and there is no real way to defend against it. Every remedy is reactive, and every time copyrighted material is stolen the original source suffers.Is there anything a site owner CAN do to immediately nullify the harmful effects caused by stolen content? Filing spam reports doesn't seem to do a thing. Filing reconsideration reports doesn't seem to do a thing as they are site-wide, not page specific. Filing DMCA complaints takes so long that by the time the item is removed it has lost a lot of its timely relevance. Often, it never fully recovers.It seems absurd that the site that was the victim of the theft should have to block access to the pages that were stolen just to keep Googlebot happy and minimize the harm. It also seems absurd that the site that was the victim of the theft should have to rewrite their content. These, however, are the only two options that seem to work relatively quickly, and neither of them seems very just because they turn the victim of theft into a victim of Google. [url=]neqyxjnn[/url] [link=]xxmwmp[/link]

Posted by: Hanen
Date posted: Nov 27,2015

Post your comment
Comment to
this post:
Security Code
 Type Security Code
Stay in touch, subscribe to our regular e-newsletter at Listen to
The Liberal Times Manila Podcast at