Scraped content ranking above the original source content in Google.
-
I need insights on how “scraped” content (exact copy-pasted version) rank above the original content in Google.
4 original, in-depth articles published by my client (an online publisher) are republished by another company (which happens to be briefly mentioned in all four of those articles). We reckon the articles were re-published at least a day or two after the original articles were published (exact gap is not known). We find that all four of the “copied” articles rank at the top of Google search results whereas the original content i.e. my client website does not show up in the even in the top 50 or 60 results.
We have looked at numerous factors such as Domain authority, Page authority, in-bound links to both the original source as well as the URLs of the copied pages, social metrics etc. All of the metrics, as shown by tools like Moz, are better for the source website than for the re-publisher. We have also compared results in different geographies to see if any geographical bias was affecting results, reason being our client’s website is hosted in the UK and the ‘re-publisher’ is from another country--- but we found the same results. We are also not aware of any manual actions taken against our client website (at least based on messages on Search Console).
Any other factors that can explain this serious anomaly--- which seems to be a disincentive for somebody creating highly relevant original content.
We recognize that our client has the option to submit a ‘Scraper Content’ form to Google--- but we are less keen to go down that route and more keen to understand why this problem could arise in the first place.
Please suggest.
-
**Everett Sizemore - Director, R&D and Special Projects at Inflow: **Use the Google Scraper Report form.
Thanks. I didn't know about this.
If that doesn't work, submit a DMCA complaint to Google.
This does work. We submit dozens of DMCAs to Google every month. We also send notices to sites who have used our content but might know understand copyright infringement.
Everett Sizemore - Director, R&D and Special Projects at Inflow Endorsed 2 minutes ago Until Manoj gives us the URLs so we can look into it ourselves, I'd have to say this is the best answer: Google sucks sometimes. Use the Google Scraper Report form. If that doesn't work, submit a DMCA complaint to Google.
-
Oh, that is a very good point. This is very bad for people who have clients.
-
Thanks, EGOL.
The other big challenge is to get clients to also buy into the idea that it is Google's problem!
-
**In this specific instance, the original source outscores the site where content is duplicated on almost all the common metrics that are deemed to be indicative of a site's relative authority/standing. **
Yes, this happens. It states the problem and Google's inabilities more strongly than I have stated it above.
**Any ideas/ potential solutions that you could help with ---- will be much appreciated. **
I have this identical problem myself. Actually, its Google's problem. They have crap on their shoes but say that they can't smell it.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the response. I'd understand if the original source was indeed new or not so 'powerful' or an established site in the niche that it serves.
In this specific instance, the original source outscores the site where content is duplicated on almost all the common metrics that are deemed to be indicative of a site's relative authority/standing.
Any ideas/ potential solutions that you could help with ---- will be much appreciated.
Thanks
-
Scraped content frequently outranks the original source, especially when the original source is a new site or a site that is not powerful.
Google says that they are good at attributing content to the original publisher. They are delusional. Lots of SEOs believe Google. I'll not comment on that.
If scraped content was not making money for people this practice would have died a long time ago. I submit that as evidence. Scrapers know what Google does not (or refused to admit) and what many SEOs refuse to believe.
-
No, John - we don't use the 'Fetch as Googlebot' for every post. I am intrigued by the possibility you suggest.
Yes, there are lots of unknowns and certain results seem inexplicable --- as we feel this particular instance is. We have looked at and evaluated most of the obvious things to be considered, including the likelihood of the re-publisher having gotten more social traction. However, the actual results are opposite to what we'd expect.
I'm hoping that you/ some of the others in this forum could shed some light on any other factors that could be influencing the results.
Thanks.
-
Thanks for the link, Umar.
Yes, we did fetch the cached versions of both pages--- but that doesn't indicate when the respective pages were first indexed, it just shows when the pages were last cached.
-
No Martijn, the articles have excerpts from representatives of the republisher; there are no links to the re-publisher website.
-
When you're saying you're mentioning the re-publisher briefly in the posts itself does that mean you're also linking to them?
-
Hey Manoj,
That's indeed very weird. There can be multiple reasons for this, for instance, did you try to fetch the cached version of both sites to check when they got indexed? Usually online publication sites have fast indexing rate and it might be possible that your client shared the articles on social before they got indexed and the other site lifted them up.
Do check out this brilliant Moz post, I'm sure you will get the idea what caused this,
https://moz.com/blog/postpanda-your-original-content-is-being-outranked-by-scrapers-amp-partners
Hope this helps!
-
Do you use fetch for google WMT with every post?
If your competitors monitor the site, harvest the content and then publish and use fetch for google - that could explain why google ranks them first. ie google would likely have indexed their content first.
That said there are so many unknown factors at play, ie how does social stack up. Are they using google + etc.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is it a good strategy to link older content that was timely at one point to newer content that we would prefer to guide traffic and value to
Hi All, I've been working for a website/publisher that produces good content and has been around for a long time but has recently been burdened by a high level of repetitious production, and a high volume in general with pages that don't gather as much traffic as desired. One such fear of mine is that every piece published doesn't have any links pointing to when it is published outside of the homepage or syndicated referrals. They do however have a lot (perhaps too many) outbound internal links away from it. Would it be a good practice, especially for new content that has a longer shelf life, to go back to older content and place links pointing to the new one? I would hope this would boost traffic via internal recircultion and Page Authority, with the added benefits of anchor text boosts.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ajranzato91 -
Duplicating relevant category content in subcategories. Good or bad for google ranking?
In a travel related page I have city categories with city related information.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse
Would you recommend for or against duplicating some relevant city related in subcategory pages. For visitor it would be useful and google should have more context about the topic of our page.
But my main concern is how this may be perceived by google and especially whether it may make it more likely being penalized for thin content. We already were hit end of june by panda/phantom and we are working on adding also more unique content, but this would be something that we could do additionally and basically instantaneously. Just do not want to make things worse.0 -
Google Not Indexing App Content
Hello Mozzers I recently noticed that there has been an increase in crawl errors reported in Google Search console & Google has stopped indexing our app content. Could this be due to the fact that there is a mismatch between the host path name mentioned within the android deeplink (within the alternate tag) and the actual URL of the page. For instance on the following desktop page http://www.example.com.au/page-1 the android deeplink points to http://www.example.com.au/android-app://com.example/http/www.example.com.au/4652374 Please note that the content on both pages (desktop & android) is same.Is this is a correct setup or am I doing something wrong here? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you so much in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | InMarketingWeTrust0 -
Thin Content to Quality Content
How should i modify content from thin to high quality content. Somehow i realized that my pages where targetted keywords didn't had the keyword density lost a massive ranking after the last update whereas all pages which had the keyword density are ranking good. But my concern is all pages which are ranking good had all the keyword in a single statement like. Get ABC pens, ABC pencils, ABC colors, etc. at the end of a 300 word content describing ABC. Whereas the pages which dropped the rankings had a single keyword repeated just twice in a 500 word article. Can this be the reason for a massive drop. Should i add the single statement like the one which is there on pages ranking good? Is it good to add just a single line once the page is indexed or do i need to get a fresh content once again along with a sentence of keyword i mentioned above?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | welcomecure1 -
Is tabbed content okay or bad for SEO? Google takes both sides.
Hello Moz Community! It seems like there are two opinions coming from directly from Google on tabbed content: 1) John Mueller says here that content is indexed but discounted 2) Matt Cutts says here that if you're not using tabs deceptively, you're in good shape I see this has been discussed in the Moz Q & A before, but I have an interesting situation: The pages I am building have ~50% static content, and ~50% tabbed content (only two tabs). Showing all tabbed content at once is not an option. Since the tabbed content will make up 50% of the total content, it's important that it is 100% weighted by Google. I can think of two ways to show it: 1) Standard tabs using jQuery Advantage: Both tab 1 and tab 2's content indexed Disadvantage: Tabbed content may be discounted? 2) Make the content of the tabs conditional on the server side website.com/page/ only shows tab 1's content in html website.com/page/?tab=2 only shows tab 2's content in the html. Include rel="canonical" pointing to website.com/page/. Advantage: Content of tab 1 indexed & 100% counted by Google Disadvantage: Content of tab 2 not indexed Which option is best? Is there a better solution?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamiestu130 -
Does having all client websites on same server/same Google Analytics red flag Google?
If you have several clients, and they are all on the same server, and also under ONE Google Analytics account, will that negatively impact with Google? They all have different content and addresses, some have the same template, but with different images.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BBuck1 -
How much content is needed to be competitive and rank well?
When considering on page / on site seo what process do you use / take to evaluate how much content is needed to be competitive and rank well?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marknorman0 -
Google Places - How do we rank
So, google places showing up on search results is great feature . . . But how can we get our results to the top? I mean I can see some terrible websites appearing at the top of the google places with their places page having no activity whatsoever. Is there a trick to this at all? What can we do to increase our ranking on Google Places because our old GOOD rankings are now appearing BELOW the map results Cheers
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kayweb0