<?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: Stopping Self Content Theft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/</link>
	<description>Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:14:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Self-Plagiarism: Ethical Shortcut or Moral Scourge? &#124; Plagiarism Today</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-136713</link>
		<dc:creator>Self-Plagiarism: Ethical Shortcut or Moral Scourge? &#124; Plagiarism Today</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-136713</guid>
		<description>[...] Ethical Shortcut or Moral Scourge?   // When it comes to matters of duplicate content, we are often our own worst enemies. Poor content planning, bad site design and general writing mistakes can make it seem as if [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ethical Shortcut or Moral Scourge?   // When it comes to matters of duplicate content, we are often our own worst enemies. Poor content planning, bad site design and general writing mistakes can make it seem as if [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: home builders rankin</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129841</link>
		<dc:creator>home builders rankin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-129841</guid>
		<description>Though plagiarism and scraping can hurt a site, sometime&#039;s one&#039;s own actions can sabotage them. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though plagiarism and scraping can hurt a site, sometime&#039;s one&#039;s own actions can sabotage them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129442</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-129442</guid>
		<description>To be clear, I agree with most of this but would say that Yahoo! and Bing are both prone to make mistakes too when judging original vs. duplicate content. No search engine is perfect and I don&#039;t really think Google is any better/worse in this area. I&#039;m sorry that you got bit by it though. 
 
I would like to emphasize that the impact is different for every site. Some sites are not affected at all, others are crippled. It&#039;s just a matter of the specific case and there doesn&#039;t seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. 
 
Thank you for your comment and we don&#039;t mind if it&#039;s a rant. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with your site. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be clear, I agree with most of this but would say that Yahoo! and Bing are both prone to make mistakes too when judging original vs. duplicate content. No search engine is perfect and I don&#039;t really think Google is any better/worse in this area. I&#039;m sorry that you got bit by it though.</p>
<p>I would like to emphasize that the impact is different for every site. Some sites are not affected at all, others are crippled. It&#039;s just a matter of the specific case and there doesn&#039;t seem to be much rhyme or reason to it.</p>
<p>Thank you for your comment and we don&#039;t mind if it&#039;s a rant. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with your site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-132106</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-132106</guid>
		<description>To be clear, I agree with most of this but would say that Yahoo! and Bing are both prone to make mistakes too when judging original vs. duplicate content. No search engine is perfect and I don&#039;t really think Google is any better/worse in this area. I&#039;m sorry that you got bit by it though.

I would like to emphasize that the impact is different for every site. Some sites are not affected at all, others are crippled. It&#039;s just a matter of the specific case and there doesn&#039;t seem to be much rhyme or reason to it.

Thank you for your comment and we don&#039;t mind if it&#039;s a rant. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with your site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be clear, I agree with most of this but would say that Yahoo! and Bing are both prone to make mistakes too when judging original vs. duplicate content. No search engine is perfect and I don&#8217;t really think Google is any better/worse in this area. I&#8217;m sorry that you got bit by it though.</p>
<p>I would like to emphasize that the impact is different for every site. Some sites are not affected at all, others are crippled. It&#8217;s just a matter of the specific case and there doesn&#8217;t seem to be much rhyme or reason to it.</p>
<p>Thank you for your comment and we don&#8217;t mind if it&#8217;s a rant. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with your site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129441</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-129441</guid>
		<description>The answer to your second question is that it does count as duplicate content. However, the theory is that by linking to the original source, the repost should be treated as the duplicate and the original as, well, the original. 
 
As the reply below points out that doesn&#039;t always work and different sites seem to be vulnerable to it in different ways. Some seem to be immune to it, others find themselves hurt by it, literally, by accident. 
 
The comment below is right in that you should monitor where your content appears, stop uses that are against your terms and track closely how it affects you in Google. If you&#039;re big enough and established enough, duplicate content from others might not hurt at all. If you aren&#039;t, it can cripple you. 
 
Just keep on top of it and see what the situations is for you and your site. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The answer to your second question is that it does count as duplicate content. However, the theory is that by linking to the original source, the repost should be treated as the duplicate and the original as, well, the original.</p>
<p>As the reply below points out that doesn&#039;t always work and different sites seem to be vulnerable to it in different ways. Some seem to be immune to it, others find themselves hurt by it, literally, by accident.</p>
<p>The comment below is right in that you should monitor where your content appears, stop uses that are against your terms and track closely how it affects you in Google. If you&#039;re big enough and established enough, duplicate content from others might not hurt at all. If you aren&#039;t, it can cripple you.</p>
<p>Just keep on top of it and see what the situations is for you and your site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-132105</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-132105</guid>
		<description>The answer to your second question is that it does count as duplicate content. However, the theory is that by linking to the original source, the repost should be treated as the duplicate and the original as, well, the original.

As the reply below points out that doesn&#039;t always work and different sites seem to be vulnerable to it in different ways. Some seem to be immune to it, others find themselves hurt by it, literally, by accident.

The comment below is right in that you should monitor where your content appears, stop uses that are against your terms and track closely how it affects you in Google. If you&#039;re big enough and established enough, duplicate content from others might not hurt at all. If you aren&#039;t, it can cripple you.

Just keep on top of it and see what the situations is for you and your site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The answer to your second question is that it does count as duplicate content. However, the theory is that by linking to the original source, the repost should be treated as the duplicate and the original as, well, the original.</p>
<p>As the reply below points out that doesn&#8217;t always work and different sites seem to be vulnerable to it in different ways. Some seem to be immune to it, others find themselves hurt by it, literally, by accident.</p>
<p>The comment below is right in that you should monitor where your content appears, stop uses that are against your terms and track closely how it affects you in Google. If you&#8217;re big enough and established enough, duplicate content from others might not hurt at all. If you aren&#8217;t, it can cripple you.</p>
<p>Just keep on top of it and see what the situations is for you and your site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129440</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-129440</guid>
		<description>The problem with showing summaries in your main RSS feed is that, while it limits the impact of scraping, it also limits the usefulness of your feed and the number of people willing to use it.

It has to be weighed carefully but you are right that it can be a valuable tool if appropriate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with showing summaries in your main RSS feed is that, while it limits the impact of scraping, it also limits the usefulness of your feed and the number of people willing to use it.</p>
<p>It has to be weighed carefully but you are right that it can be a valuable tool if appropriate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-132104</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-132104</guid>
		<description>The problem with showing summaries in your main RSS feed is that, while it limits the impact of scraping, it also limits the usefulness of your feed and the number of people willing to use it. 
 
It has to be weighed carefully but you are right that it can be a valuable tool if appropriate. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with showing summaries in your main RSS feed is that, while it limits the impact of scraping, it also limits the usefulness of your feed and the number of people willing to use it.</p>
<p>It has to be weighed carefully but you are right that it can be a valuable tool if appropriate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Problems</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129407</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Problems</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-129407</guid>
		<description>@David - Yes it does count as duplicate content.  It is a *huge* misconception that people have that if there is a link, you will get credit. 
 
Any time your content is taken and posted somewhere else it *is* duplicate content.  It doesn&#039;t matter whether you authorized the duplication or not.  A link can help, but it is *not* a guarantee that the original source will get credited properly. 
 
Yahoo and Bing do a decent job of sorting out the owner and providing proper credit and search engine placement.  Google, on the other hand, is horrible at it.   
 
Older sites can withstand duplication more than newer ones.  But the real factor is the size of the site.  Very big, new sites, created with lots of stolen content rank very well in Google.   
 
On the other hand, the smaller the site, the more likely it is to have problems with Google -- even if a link back to the original source is included with the copy.   
 
Here&#039;s the bigger issue:  If enough content is taken from your site, especially in a short amount of time, Google can decide: 
 
1) not to rank any content that lies along the same path/within the same section of the site (and it bases this decision on your site structure and directory folders.  This means Google will also throw out content that remains unique to your site just because enough other pages in the same section of your site were duplicated; and  
 
2) not to rank any new content you add after it decides your site is worthless. 
 
You also might lose your page rank for the duplicated pages, and you might not gain page rank for the new pages you add.  This can put your site at a serious disadvantage, making it even easier for people to take your content and undermine your search rankings. 
 
If you are concerned about Google placement, monitor your content.  Don&#039;t let others just take it from you without a fight, and make sure you are not duplicating things yourself, either internally or via postings on Facebook or any other social media site. 
 
I do not understand why Google behaves this way.  But it does.  So be vigilant. 
 
On the other side of things, if you are reposting other people&#039;s content, make sure you ask first. Please also don&#039;t get all angry about it when the response you get is &quot;no&quot; or &quot;you can take a short excerpt, but not the whole document.&quot; 
 
Sorry, I know this is kind of a rant, but this touched a nerve, given the damage someone did to my site over the last two months. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@David &#8211; Yes it does count as duplicate content.  It is a *huge* misconception that people have that if there is a link, you will get credit.</p>
<p>Any time your content is taken and posted somewhere else it *is* duplicate content.  It doesn&#039;t matter whether you authorized the duplication or not.  A link can help, but it is *not* a guarantee that the original source will get credited properly.</p>
<p>Yahoo and Bing do a decent job of sorting out the owner and providing proper credit and search engine placement.  Google, on the other hand, is horrible at it.  </p>
<p>Older sites can withstand duplication more than newer ones.  But the real factor is the size of the site.  Very big, new sites, created with lots of stolen content rank very well in Google.  </p>
<p>On the other hand, the smaller the site, the more likely it is to have problems with Google &#8212; even if a link back to the original source is included with the copy.  </p>
<p>Here&#039;s the bigger issue:  If enough content is taken from your site, especially in a short amount of time, Google can decide:</p>
<p>1) not to rank any content that lies along the same path/within the same section of the site (and it bases this decision on your site structure and directory folders.  This means Google will also throw out content that remains unique to your site just because enough other pages in the same section of your site were duplicated; and </p>
<p>2) not to rank any new content you add after it decides your site is worthless.</p>
<p>You also might lose your page rank for the duplicated pages, and you might not gain page rank for the new pages you add.  This can put your site at a serious disadvantage, making it even easier for people to take your content and undermine your search rankings.</p>
<p>If you are concerned about Google placement, monitor your content.  Don&#039;t let others just take it from you without a fight, and make sure you are not duplicating things yourself, either internally or via postings on Facebook or any other social media site.</p>
<p>I do not understand why Google behaves this way.  But it does.  So be vigilant.</p>
<p>On the other side of things, if you are reposting other people&#039;s content, make sure you ask first. Please also don&#039;t get all angry about it when the response you get is &quot;no&quot; or &quot;you can take a short excerpt, but not the whole document.&quot;</p>
<p>Sorry, I know this is kind of a rant, but this touched a nerve, given the damage someone did to my site over the last two months.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Problems</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/02/03/stopping-self-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-132103</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Problems</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=5488#comment-132103</guid>
		<description>@David - Yes it does count as duplicate content.  It is a *huge* misconception that people have that if there is a link, you will get credit.

Any time your content is taken and posted somewhere else it *is* duplicate content.  It doesn&#039;t matter whether you authorized the duplication or not.  A link can help, but it is *not* a guarantee that the original source will get credited properly.

Yahoo and Bing do a decent job of sorting out the owner and providing proper credit and search engine placement.  Google, on the other hand, is horrible at it.  

Older sites can withstand duplication more than newer ones.  But the real factor is the size of the site.  Very big, new sites, created with lots of stolen content rank very well in Google.  

On the other hand, the smaller the site, the more likely it is to have problems with Google -- even if a link back to the original source is included with the copy.  

Here&#039;s the bigger issue:  If enough content is taken from your site, especially in a short amount of time, Google can decide:

1) not to rank any content that lies along the same path/within the same section of the site (and it bases this decision on your site structure and directory folders.  This means Google will also throw out content that remains unique to your site just because enough other pages in the same section of your site were duplicated; and 

2) not to rank any new content you add after it decides your site is worthless.

You also might lose your page rank for the duplicated pages, and you might not gain page rank for the new pages you add.  This can put your site at a serious disadvantage, making it even easier for people to take your content and undermine your search rankings.

If you are concerned about Google placement, monitor your content.  Don&#039;t let others just take it from you without a fight, and make sure you are not duplicating things yourself, either internally or via postings on Facebook or any other social media site.

I do not understand why Google behaves this way.  But it does.  So be vigilant.

On the other side of things, if you are reposting other people&#039;s content, make sure you ask first. Please also don&#039;t get all angry about it when the response you get is &quot;no&quot; or &quot;you can take a short excerpt, but not the whole document.&quot;

Sorry, I know this is kind of a rant, but this touched a nerve, given the damage someone did to my site over the last two months.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@David &#8211; Yes it does count as duplicate content.  It is a *huge* misconception that people have that if there is a link, you will get credit.</p>
<p>Any time your content is taken and posted somewhere else it *is* duplicate content.  It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you authorized the duplication or not.  A link can help, but it is *not* a guarantee that the original source will get credited properly.</p>
<p>Yahoo and Bing do a decent job of sorting out the owner and providing proper credit and search engine placement.  Google, on the other hand, is horrible at it.  </p>
<p>Older sites can withstand duplication more than newer ones.  But the real factor is the size of the site.  Very big, new sites, created with lots of stolen content rank very well in Google.  </p>
<p>On the other hand, the smaller the site, the more likely it is to have problems with Google &#8212; even if a link back to the original source is included with the copy.  </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the bigger issue:  If enough content is taken from your site, especially in a short amount of time, Google can decide:</p>
<p>1) not to rank any content that lies along the same path/within the same section of the site (and it bases this decision on your site structure and directory folders.  This means Google will also throw out content that remains unique to your site just because enough other pages in the same section of your site were duplicated; and </p>
<p>2) not to rank any new content you add after it decides your site is worthless.</p>
<p>You also might lose your page rank for the duplicated pages, and you might not gain page rank for the new pages you add.  This can put your site at a serious disadvantage, making it even easier for people to take your content and undermine your search rankings.</p>
<p>If you are concerned about Google placement, monitor your content.  Don&#8217;t let others just take it from you without a fight, and make sure you are not duplicating things yourself, either internally or via postings on Facebook or any other social media site.</p>
<p>I do not understand why Google behaves this way.  But it does.  So be vigilant.</p>
<p>On the other side of things, if you are reposting other people&#8217;s content, make sure you ask first. Please also don&#8217;t get all angry about it when the response you get is &#8220;no&#8221; or &#8220;you can take a short excerpt, but not the whole document.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry, I know this is kind of a rant, but this touched a nerve, given the damage someone did to my site over the last two months.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.plagiarismtoday.com @ 2012-02-13 16:45:11 -->
