I developed a website (www.sabrehealth.com) for an insurance broker
which went live about two months ago. Since that time, my partners
formed a new venture with another company, resulting in another
website (www.performinsbenefits.com).

The content is largely identical; the only reason for doing it is that
some brokers are affiliated with one company, others with the other.

After a recent presentation, somebody explained to me that Google
would penalize/filter sites with duplicate content. I've searched the
internet for discussion on this topic and am thoroughly confused. It
does appear that Google will punish a site that merely duplicates
another for the intent of manipulating search results. This is not our
intent, but how would Google know this? I'm really concerned that I've
inadvertently caused ranking problems for my partners.

Any thoughts? Many thanks in advance.

"Mambo Bananapatch" <warm_water41@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190468776.421637.35970@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com...
>I developed a website (www.sabrehealth.com) for an insurance broker
> which went live about two months ago. Since that time, my partners
> formed a new venture with another company, resulting in another
> website (www.performinsbenefits.com).
>
> The content is largely identical; the only reason for doing it is that
> some brokers are affiliated with one company, others with the other.
>
> After a recent presentation, somebody explained to me that Google
> would penalize/filter sites with duplicate content. I've searched the
> internet for discussion on this topic and am thoroughly confused. It
> does appear that Google will punish a site that merely duplicates
> another for the intent of manipulating search results. This is not our
> intent, but how would Google know this? I'm really concerned that I've
> inadvertently caused ranking problems for my partners.
>
> Any thoughts? Many thanks in advance.
>
When Google find duplicate text it makes one of the files Supplemental. This
happened to me. It can take a few weeks before Google spots the duplication.

"Mambo Bananapatch" <warm_water41@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> does appear that Google will punish a site that merely duplicates
> another for the intent of manipulating search results. This is not our
> intent, but how would Google know this? I'm really concerned that I've
> inadvertently caused ranking problems for my partners.

There's no punishment.
Google does not like duplication, listing the same content twice is no
service to the searcher.
So Google slects one version, and +denies a full listing to duplicates.

Google don't know (and cannot know) who 'owns' the content, and therefore
which version they 'ought' to display ... so they they select pretty well at
random; may be the best ranked page, may be the oldest on the web, may be
the first one they came across.

This has no bearing on the rest of the site; it's simply a deselection on
the basis of "we don't need that".
If all others were removed, a delisted page would eventually be relisted
(assuming no other issues!).

The process is not rapid; as the spiders wander the web, Google becomes
aware of duplication, and drops one. Sometimes a later find will cause an
earlier one to be dropped; sometimes the newer one never gets to appear.
Sometimes they co-exist for months.

Search news, and you may find 30 identiacla pages of syndicated content (bar
the margins and headers ... eventually most will get dropped.

But this is NOT a penalty or punishment; simply housekeeping.
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

Op Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:27:33 GMT schreef Andrew Heenan:

> "Mambo Bananapatch" <warm_water41@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>> does appear that Google will punish a site that merely duplicates
>> another for the intent of manipulating search results. This is not our
>> intent, but how would Google know this? I'm really concerned that I've
>> inadvertently caused ranking problems for my partners.
>
> There's no punishment.
> Google does not like duplication, listing the same content twice is no
> service to the searcher.
> So Google slects one version, and +denies a full listing to duplicates.
>
> Google don't know (and cannot know) who 'owns' the content, and therefore
> which version they 'ought' to display ... so they they select pretty well at
> random; may be the best ranked page, may be the oldest on the web, may be
> the first one they came across.
>
> This has no bearing on the rest of the site; it's simply a deselection on
> the basis of "we don't need that".
> If all others were removed, a delisted page would eventually be relisted
> (assuming no other issues!).
>
> The process is not rapid; as the spiders wander the web, Google becomes
> aware of duplication, and drops one. Sometimes a later find will cause an
> earlier one to be dropped; sometimes the newer one never gets to appear.
> Sometimes they co-exist for months.
>
> Search news, and you may find 30 identiacla pages of syndicated content (bar
> the margins and headers ... eventually most will get dropped.
>
> But this is NOT a penalty or punishment; simply housekeeping.

Two questions remain.

1. Is content only considered duplicate when it's on the same site or also
on different sites? (in the last case one *could* influence somebody elses
serps by duplicating their content)
2. How much the same is considered duplicate?

On Sep 23, 5:20 pm, Jan Paul van de Berg <j...@ulvandebe.rg> wrote:
> Op Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:27:33 GMT schreef Andrew Heenan:
>
>
>
> > "Mambo Bananapatch" <warm_wate...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >> does appear that Google will punish a site that merely duplicates
> >> another for the intent of manipulating search results. This is not our
> >> intent, but how would Google know this? I'm really concerned that I've
> >> inadvertently caused ranking problems for my partners.
>
> > There's no punishment.
> > Google does not like duplication, listing the same content twice is no
> > service to the searcher.
> > So Google slects one version, and +denies a full listing to duplicates.
>
> > Google don't know (and cannot know) who 'owns' the content, and therefore
> > which version they 'ought' to display ... so they they select pretty well at
> > random; may be the best ranked page, may be the oldest on the web, may be
> > the first one they came across.
>
> > This has no bearing on the rest of the site; it's simply a deselection on
> > the basis of "we don't need that".
> > If all others were removed, a delisted page would eventually be relisted
> > (assuming no other issues!).
>
> > The process is not rapid; as the spiders wander the web, Google becomes
> > aware of duplication, and drops one. Sometimes a later find will cause an
> > earlier one to be dropped; sometimes the newer one never gets to appear.
> > Sometimes they co-exist for months.
>
> > Search news, and you may find 30 identiacla pages of syndicated content (bar
> > the margins and headers ... eventually most will get dropped.
>
> > But this is NOT a penalty or punishment; simply housekeeping.
>
> Two questions remain.
>
> 1. Is content only considered duplicate when it's on the same site or also
> on different sites? (in the last case one *could* influence somebody elses
> serps by duplicating their content)
> 2. How much the same is considered duplicate?

rss feeds pulled into a site can cause content duplication (if theres
not enough original content surrounding them)

mark