Many online publishers are paranoid about “duplicate content” and go to great lengths to avoid the “penalty” they think Google levies against them if they happen to publish material published elsewhere on the web.
In a blog post from Google’s Webmaster Central Blog called Demystifying the “duplicate content penalty”, Google staffer Susan Moskwa tries to set the record straight. She says,
Let’s put this to bed once and for all, folks: There’s no such thing as a “duplicate content penalty.” At least, not in the way most people mean when they say that.
To make a long story short, Google is not opposed to you publishing content found elsewhere, as long as you are not trying to manipulate search results. They just won’t feature multiple instances of the same text in their search results.
For example, if you publish an original article word for word in three different places, they will not list all three of those instances in their search results. Usually just one. You might consider this a penalty (that content not being listed in search results), but it is not a penalty in the sense that such content will degrade your entire website. At least that is how interpret this explanation.
What Google wants to feature in their SERPS is content that adds something unique to searchers. In another Google blog post the staffer says “During our crawling and when serving search results, we try hard to index and show pages with distinct information.”
In a response to a comment on the same Google blog mentioned above, Susan Moskwa goes on to say about duplicate content, “…remember that, if you are providing content that a) you didn’t generate, and b) is available elsewhere, it’s important to add some sort of value of your own.”
So if you are republishing material and you care about search results, it is important to add some unique content to make it distinctive from other instances.
Just exactly how much “unique content” is an important and difficult question. In another response to a very insightful question about templated or syndicated content, Susan M says, “When in doubt, I’d do what makes most sense from a user perspective (what is most helpful to human visitors).”
Content for humans – This is an important point for people trying to do SEO to understand. When discussing these endless search engine optimization concerns it is easy to forget that your content should first and foremost be for the benefit of your actual readers – people, not computers.
In my estimation this means if you latch onto a piece of syndicated content that you feel will have value for your readers, you should go ahead and publish it.
For example, if you want to embed a Youtube video go ahead and do it if you think your readers will find it interesting.
It’s just that according to the above Google suggestions, the chances are that post will not show up in searches. Unless, of course, you add unique features to it: a unique title, a unique description, unique tags, or a unique review or commentary.
At the same time, that is not to say a bald “duplicated” video running on your site will detract from the search engine performance of the site as a whole. It just won’t help it very much.
Traffic from other sources – You should also remember when considering this issue that search engines are not the only source of valuable traffic.
In fact the traffic gained from Google or Bing may be quite difficult to get and spending all your efforts on conforming to their constraints may preclude you from getting traffic from other equally or more valuable sources.
Some of these sources, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, ActiveRain, other social networks, affiliate networks, JV networks and things such as email campaigns may be much easier to take advantage of and probably much quicker to implement than the long hard grind involved in getting search engine traffic.
Getting that type of traffic may in fact involve duplicating certain types of content in lots of different places – places where you drive eyeballs using methods other than search engines.
As always the first rule should be: “Give your readers something interesting and valuable.” Readers first, search engines second. Unfortunately many of us have been swept up in the search engine game and have our priorities turned around backwards.