<?xml version="1.0"  encoding="utf-8"?>
	<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<title>Comments to SEO: The Duplicate Content Penalty</title>
		<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/atom/article/444/" rel="self"/>
  	<updated>2007-11-02T21:57:08-07:00</updated>
		<author>
  	  <name>Practical Ecommerce</name>
			<email>info@practicalecommerce.com</email>
  	</author>
  	<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/</id>
		<rights>Copyright 2007 Confluence Publishing DBA Practical Ecommerce</rights>
		<entry>
			<title>Jerry</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment4012" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment4012</id>
			<updated>2007-11-02T21:57:08-07:00</updated>
			<summary>I&#039;m happy to see that my comment generated a response and have considered PocketSEO&#039;s comments. What I think PocketSEO is missing is that highy targeted (BRAND + MODEL NUMER) searches are quite common amongst high-end shoppers looking for discounts on premium merchandise. I have hundreds and hundreds of examples of the page 1 domination that I described in my original post.

One need only look to the success of the shopping comparsion engines for proof of this. From my own site&#039;s statistics, it&#039;s obvious that hits from these searches have a VERY VERY good conversion rate.

Now the thing is... CSN stores has taken this SEO tactic to the Nth degree. CSN is typically using the (BRAND + MODEL NUMER) at the begining and again at the end of each of their product pages&#039; title tags.

Add to that the dozens of CSNstores web sites that each product appears on and what you have is a very large, very clever merchant who has successfully played Google&#039;s current algorithm.

Obviously my...</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Pocket SEO</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3968" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3968</id>
			<updated>2007-10-29T22:33:31-07:00</updated>
			<summary>@Jerry

The keyphrase &quot;Kichler 3849TZ&quot; might be too specific to be an example.  There are fewer than 250 results, so Google is just showing the strongest ones which happen to be CSNstores.

If you type in &quot;Kichler&quot; there are only two CSN results in the top 100 and they are in the 90s.

That&#039;s not to say that CSN has a bad model -- They seem to be doing quite well.

Inbound links will also help overcome duplicate content, if you have enough of them.

I have seen duplicate content seriously hurt Web sites.  Whether it is called a &quot;filter&quot; or &quot;penalty&quot; it can still knock your site down.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Jerry</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3924" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3924</id>
			<updated>2007-10-22T22:40:36-07:00</updated>
			<summary>I don&#039;t think that duplicate content is a factor on Google these days. For an example Google this term: &quot;Kichler 3849TZ&quot;. It&#039;s a popular lighting fixture that we sell.  Have a look at the natural results, 7 out of the top 10 are duplicate/spam content all from different websites run by CSNstores.

I wouldn&#039;t worry about duplicate content, I&#039;d worry about getting muscled off of page 1 via a huge competitor moving into your vertical and cranking out duplicate content across dozens of websites.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Bilal</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3621" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3621</id>
			<updated>2007-09-12T13:10:10-07:00</updated>
			<summary>can we use print version of a page to over come duplicate content issue... I have my site blog ... and the data on the blog is coming from my data base... so everytime it sends the same or with little changes... but we have been facing a great penalty problem since two years ... but now its okay.. but tell me if I use print version for my blog.. thanks in advance..

bilal</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Kenneth Udut</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3546" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3546</id>
			<updated>2007-09-01T08:18:36-07:00</updated>
			<summary>I&#039;m using a CMS called YACS. I&#039;ve had some good successes so far in being indexed by Google.  Probably 1/2 of my useful pages are indexed- I have about 32000 pages of content, and about 14000 are in Google. Happy happy, joy joy! 

BUT --- all of this talk about duplicate content has gotten me nervous.

I&#039;m testing out a new robots.txt addition that will keep googlebot from seeing my pdf, print and msword versions of the documents.  Will this help or hurt?  I really don&#039;t know.

What do you think? Is a PDF version or a PRINT version harmful to the strength of a particular page? Or is it asthetics (wanting to point someone to the real page rather than the PRINT-VIEW version?)

Part of me wonders, though, if having almost duplicated content via a pdf file for example might not actually HELP the ranking rather than hurt them...

...but I guess I&#039;ll find out in a few days :-)

Ken
free.naplesplus.us collier county fl news/info/business directory</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>David</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3269" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment3269</id>
			<updated>2007-07-09T12:31:03-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Is there anyway to find out which pages within our domain is detected as duplicate content by google?
</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Kathryn Beach</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1402" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1402</id>
			<updated>2007-04-20T11:17:12-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Whenever I post an article on my website, whether it&#039;s my own syndicated article or someone else&#039;s, I add something of my own such as a short Editor&#039;s Note at the beginning of guest articles. I add contextual affiliate links, links to other pages on my website, and/or a different resource box at the end of my own articles. The Editor&#039;s Note is a few sentences like a short article review, and the affiliate links are something many if not most article directories forbid. Links to my own web pages add authority to my entire site.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>MayaAndMarketability.com</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1184" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1184</id>
			<updated>2007-04-11T11:17:14-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Stephan, And what of Article Directories? Should authors/writers create 2+ versions (one for the article site and another for their website) for any articles they post? Google Webmaster Central says to, &quot;Syndicate carefully: If you syndicate your content on other sites, make sure they include a link back to the original article on each syndicated article.&quot; Is this the easy fix - a simple reference back? If so, great! Nothing to worry about.

</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Stephan Spencer</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1119" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment1119</id>
			<updated>2007-04-07T18:46:34-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Sandy, I wonder what your purpose is of starting a mirror site? If your site has built up trust and a history, why would you abandon it (or leave it languishing on an unstable server) to start a new site with the same content at a new domain that is not aged (old domains fare better in Google than new ones) and with a URL that has no history (sites with a long history of content in web.archive.org fare better in Google than ones with no history). If your server is unstable, fire your web hosting company and move your site and domain somewhere else. A mirror site is not the answer for what ails your site.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Jigar Gondalia</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment962" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment962</id>
			<updated>2007-03-23T23:50:01-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Yes, that&#039;s a good article. Thanks.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Joe Rahall</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment952" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment952</id>
			<updated>2007-03-22T14:29:05-07:00</updated>
			<summary>This is the first sensible article on duplicate content I have read. All the others appear to be scare tactics written by SEO companies to purchase their services.

Joe Rahall
Domain-Names-R-Us.com</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Sandy Woods artgally.com</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment950" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment950</id>
			<updated>2007-03-22T08:23:07-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Hi. Thanks so much for the article. I was driving myself crazy with the Google thing. I have shut off the ranking tool, and I am now going to concentrate on making sure the content on my page is unique. My server had a major meltdown, and I am considering doing a mirror site. Would this be considered duplicate content? I am not sure what to do to prevent something like this from happening again. I was down for three days. I was told that a mirror site was bad news. So after reading this I am a little more relaxed about it. Thanks for the article. </summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Andrew Jensen with SozoLogic.com</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment940" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment940</id>
			<updated>2007-03-22T07:51:13-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Thanks, Stephan, for clarifying some mud puddles in my thinking.  As always, this is another one of your classic, pertinent articles written for us to understand (and apply!).</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>Leffrey</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment941" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment941</id>
			<updated>2007-03-21T20:13:46-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Lower page rank sounds like a penalty to me.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				<entry>
			<title>rick@theworkwearstore.com</title>
			<link href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment937" rel="alternate"/>
			<id>http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/444/SEO-The-Duplicate-Content-Penalty/#comment937</id>
			<updated>2007-03-21T18:45:06-07:00</updated>
			<summary>Great article! really enjoyed the the helpful information.</summary>
			</entry>
			
				
	</feed>