Can You Rank A Site Using Only Duplicate Content?

[Hawker]

Is it possible to rank a site using only duplicate content? Example, content found in article directories like EA or on other blogs etc that you post to the site.

I mean article directories are there for that very reason so that webmasters could have some content.

I know Internet Ethics say you must link back to the original source if you're using someone else's content/images etc.

I'm still seeing these types of sites popping up that are doing that and mostly they don't link back to the original source.

Usually they just have ads of course or a sign up form, squeeze page etc.

I've never done it as I can't bring myself to post dupe content on one of my new sites because I want that site to rank for its own thing.

I guess the answer is, yes, Google does still index that site and rank it somewhere, but not as high as the original source of that content right?

The only downside I can see about it is that they all have outgoing links to sites you might not want to link out to.

And if you don't include the original links you shouldn't really use the content unless you want to face some takedown notices.

All in all. Not really worth it then? Thoughts?

 

[PTTed]

If the entire site is made up of republished articles from article directories, then your site will be a prime candidate for Google Panda.

You might get the site to rank for a little while, but I doubt it will last more than a few months.

If you added enough unique content to each page in addition to the republished article, then the business model would be more sustainable and you might be able to avoid Panda.

In my opinion, this business model is not worth it at all. You probably won't get much traffic doing it. You certainly won't get any honest links or honest social shares. You will have to manufacture or purchase every single link for that site. And even if you were able to generate a little traffic to the site, the people who arrive there likely won't like the site. You will struggle to monetize it effectively. It is just an overall bad business model.

I won't launch a money site project unless that project is based on providing real value to a real person. That is a fundamental requirement for a successful site. People have to like visiting the site for some reason. Otherwise your site is doomed. This is why the old school niche sites monetized with display ads and affiliate links end up failing. If you don't make the site truly useful to someone in some way then the site will not get enough decent traffic for you to monetize it.

 

[vishwa]

Don't ever try to copy or republish content. Google is much smarter than you. Your site will soon get de index by Google or even you have to face copyrighted issues as well.

 

[Hawker]

Why would it face copyrighted issues when the content is taken from public domain article directories who solely exist for the purpose of providing webmasters with content in the first place? Especially if you contained all the original outgoing links within that article? I'm not sure you've grasped what an article directory is for properly vishwa. They aren't ever supposed to be for webmasters to just get backlinks from. They exist only so that webmasters can find content for their website. Although people did/do use them for the purpose of getting a backlink from that article directory, they also hope that people WILL use those articles on their site and include the links to your site within them. That's the main reason people submit articles to article directories isn't it?

I can't envision anyone bringing a complaint against a website for using an article he/she found in an article directory and using that article and including the links to the writers/authors website. Why would they do that when you are giving them a link? The only time I can see that happening is when you use the article but don't include the original outgoing links that were within it.

That said, PPTed has hit the nail on the head. It kinda confirms what I already thought.

I wouldn't say Google is "smarter" than me. Google is just a machine that is coded in a certain way to act a certain way. It cannot "think" for itself. It doesn't have "free will" like I do. It doesn't have feelings or a morality. It can't make decisions like I can, it can only go on "if this then that" commands. Ergo, I am smarter than Google because Google is and always will be just a machine at the end of the day.

Ergo, I am smarter than Google.

But I get what you're saying though.

Cheers!

 

[rainmaker11]

It is impossible to rank a website with duplicated content

and I agree with @PTTed

If the entire site is made up of republished articles from article directories, then your site will be a prime candidate for Google Panda.

You might get the site to rank for a little while, but I doubt it will last more than a few months.

 

[SenseiSteve]

Well, sure you can rank a site with just duplicate content, but in all odds, it won't be anywhere near page one. When I perform a search query and see 36,000,000 results, I suspect those types of sites will be ... you see where I'm going - not in the first million. But I've learned to never say never.

 

[AngellinaLear]

If we try to duplicate content republish in any website, After Panda is punished of that website. Today Panda algorithm is more smarter and website don't ranked used of duplicate content.