<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Debate Around Duplicate Content</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html</link>
	<description>Reviews &#38; commentary on travel technology today and tomorrow</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:38:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: home builders ranking</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-800</link>
		<dc:creator>home builders ranking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-800</guid>
		<description>quickly, but with an emphasis on quality. The Duplicate Content Debate .... Now that you better understand the duplicate content debate and know how to ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>quickly, but with an emphasis on quality. The Duplicate Content Debate &#8230;. Now that you better understand the duplicate content debate and know how to &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Joyce</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-546</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Joyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-546</guid>
		<description>The real challenge seems to have less to do with the actual duplication of content but rather who is getting the credit for the original article.  A good way to test this is to do a search for the exact title of your article and see which version comes up first.  If the article directory version comes up first then it is considered the authoritative source for the article.  In this case, you will probably want to rename your articles differently and change the content so that it is not seen as duplicates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real challenge seems to have less to do with the actual duplication of content but rather who is getting the credit for the original article.  A good way to test this is to do a search for the exact title of your article and see which version comes up first.  If the article directory version comes up first then it is considered the authoritative source for the article.  In this case, you will probably want to rename your articles differently and change the content so that it is not seen as duplicates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: introspective</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-545</link>
		<dc:creator>introspective</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-545</guid>
		<description>I used to publish my articles, but now I wander should I stop doing this, because the risk of duplicate content penalty. Should I stop publish my articles on article directories?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to publish my articles, but now I wander should I stop doing this, because the risk of duplicate content penalty. Should I stop publish my articles on article directories?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephenjoyce</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>stephenjoyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-207</guid>
		<description>The real challenge seems to have less to do with the actual duplication of content but rather who is getting the credit for the original article.  A good way to test this is to do a search for the exact title of your article and see which version comes up first.  If the article directory version comes up first then it is considered the authoritative source for the article.  In this case, you will probably want to rename your articles differently and change the content so that it is not seen as duplicates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real challenge seems to have less to do with the actual duplication of content but rather who is getting the credit for the original article.  A good way to test this is to do a search for the exact title of your article and see which version comes up first.  If the article directory version comes up first then it is considered the authoritative source for the article.  In this case, you will probably want to rename your articles differently and change the content so that it is not seen as duplicates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: introspective</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>introspective</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-206</guid>
		<description>I used to publish my articles, but now I wander should I stop doing this, because the risk of duplicate content penalty. Should I stop publish my articles on article directories?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to publish my articles, but now I wander should I stop doing this, because the risk of duplicate content penalty. Should I stop publish my articles on article directories?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Joyce</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Joyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-205</guid>
		<description>Well said Darren.  That would certainly be the ideal model in my mind as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said Darren.  That would certainly be the ideal model in my mind as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren Cronian</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-204</link>
		<dc:creator>Darren Cronian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-204</guid>
		<description>Sorry for the delayed response Stephen.

Yes, I do think it depends on the owner of the blog. I’ve never categorised my blog as commercial but I suppose it is considering I have ads on the blog. Loosing revenue isn’t a problem for me because I don’t get paid out on the traffic I get (at the moment) paid up front.

Even so, I don’t want people ‘stealing’ my content that I have worked hard at writing, so I would never provide full-version on my RSS feed.  I also find extract feed means more people click through to the blog.

I’ve no need to visit TIPs at the moment because all of the content is on my RSS reader.

In my opinion I think TIPs would be a better more useful resource if people wrote unique content, exclusively for TIPs that you could also feature in a future book. This would make it more of an authority and be a group effort. Maybe share ad sense revenue as compensation for writing content for the blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for the delayed response Stephen.</p>
<p>Yes, I do think it depends on the owner of the blog. I’ve never categorised my blog as commercial but I suppose it is considering I have ads on the blog. Loosing revenue isn’t a problem for me because I don’t get paid out on the traffic I get (at the moment) paid up front.</p>
<p>Even so, I don’t want people ‘stealing’ my content that I have worked hard at writing, so I would never provide full-version on my RSS feed.  I also find extract feed means more people click through to the blog.</p>
<p>I’ve no need to visit TIPs at the moment because all of the content is on my RSS reader.</p>
<p>In my opinion I think TIPs would be a better more useful resource if people wrote unique content, exclusively for TIPs that you could also feature in a future book. This would make it more of an authority and be a group effort. Maybe share ad sense revenue as compensation for writing content for the blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Joyce</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Joyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-203</guid>
		<description>So is it fair to say that in your example, where the blog is newer than the aggregate blog, that the aggregate blog may affect the syndicated blog&#039;s viewership by ranking higher and with more authority then the blog being syndicated?  If there is a link back to the original blog post, does that increase the syndicated blogs page rank?

Regarding your comment about publishing full versus extracts;  for the most part whether the feed is full or just partial has been left up to the author of the syndicated blog when they send their feed in.  Some of the feeds are just titles, some are titles with descriptions, and some are full feeds.  I suppose it really depends on the comfort level of the individual blog author and whether, like travel-rants.com, driving traffic to your blog directly affects your income from the blog.  Commercial blogs (like travel-rants.com) definitely have different and legitimate concerns regarding re-use of content and sharing of traffic.

Is that a fair statement or am I off-base here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So is it fair to say that in your example, where the blog is newer than the aggregate blog, that the aggregate blog may affect the syndicated blog&#8217;s viewership by ranking higher and with more authority then the blog being syndicated?  If there is a link back to the original blog post, does that increase the syndicated blogs page rank?</p>
<p>Regarding your comment about publishing full versus extracts;  for the most part whether the feed is full or just partial has been left up to the author of the syndicated blog when they send their feed in.  Some of the feeds are just titles, some are titles with descriptions, and some are full feeds.  I suppose it really depends on the comfort level of the individual blog author and whether, like travel-rants.com, driving traffic to your blog directly affects your income from the blog.  Commercial blogs (like travel-rants.com) definitely have different and legitimate concerns regarding re-use of content and sharing of traffic.</p>
<p>Is that a fair statement or am I off-base here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren Cronian</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>Darren Cronian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-202</guid>
		<description>Can we not call it a penalty – where duplicate content is concerned Google does not penalise sites in respect of it’s rankings in the search engines. Let’s pretend article 1 and article 2 are on two pieces of paper. It looks at them together and identifies the level of duplication.

No one knows what percentage of duplication activates this filter but let’s pretend it’s 80%.

If article 2 has 80% duplication of article 1 then Google filters one of these pages from the search engine results. How it decides which one it filters out no one knows but it’s speculated that it will be around how old the domain is, how much of an authority the site is etc.

Let’s pretend..

I have a blog of 8 months old, and Tips from the T-list is 18 months old, and is treated more of an authority, because of the number of quality links pointing to it.  Google is more likely to filter out my blog post, loosing me traffic and potential revenue, than it is the Tips from the T-list blog.

For me as a blogger that would be a problem.

Rather than publishing the full content, why do you not publish an extract and link through to the full blog post.

The Associated Press recently changed it’s policy on bloggers using their content because it was finding that their content was getting freezed out of Google because authority blogs like Tech Crunch carried more weight in Google and Associated Press were loosing traffic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can we not call it a penalty – where duplicate content is concerned Google does not penalise sites in respect of it’s rankings in the search engines. Let’s pretend article 1 and article 2 are on two pieces of paper. It looks at them together and identifies the level of duplication.</p>
<p>No one knows what percentage of duplication activates this filter but let’s pretend it’s 80%.</p>
<p>If article 2 has 80% duplication of article 1 then Google filters one of these pages from the search engine results. How it decides which one it filters out no one knows but it’s speculated that it will be around how old the domain is, how much of an authority the site is etc.</p>
<p>Let’s pretend..</p>
<p>I have a blog of 8 months old, and Tips from the T-list is 18 months old, and is treated more of an authority, because of the number of quality links pointing to it.  Google is more likely to filter out my blog post, loosing me traffic and potential revenue, than it is the Tips from the T-list blog.</p>
<p>For me as a blogger that would be a problem.</p>
<p>Rather than publishing the full content, why do you not publish an extract and link through to the full blog post.</p>
<p>The Associated Press recently changed it’s policy on bloggers using their content because it was finding that their content was getting freezed out of Google because authority blogs like Tech Crunch carried more weight in Google and Associated Press were loosing traffic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Joyce</title>
		<link>http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/2008/08/the-debate-around-duplicate-content.html/comment-page-1#comment-201</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Joyce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tourismtechnology.rezgo.com/?p=163#comment-201</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the insights Scott.  It sounds to me that a good strategy from a syndication side would be to wait 24 to 48 hours after the original article has been written and indexed before syndicating it.  This way, the original article will be considered the real one and attributed to them versus the one that gets posted on the aggregation site.  Since the purpose, in this case, is not search engine rankings or placement but to provide a variety of content from contributors (all around a primary industry) into a unified source, it should work fine and keep everyone (including the search engines) happy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the insights Scott.  It sounds to me that a good strategy from a syndication side would be to wait 24 to 48 hours after the original article has been written and indexed before syndicating it.  This way, the original article will be considered the real one and attributed to them versus the one that gets posted on the aggregation site.  Since the purpose, in this case, is not search engine rankings or placement but to provide a variety of content from contributors (all around a primary industry) into a unified source, it should work fine and keep everyone (including the search engines) happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

