Debunking the Myth That Search Engines Hate Duplicate Content
December 2, 2009 By Wendy Montes De Oca
I've been asked if I agree with the idea that Google dislikes duplicate content and that professionals should reduce or refrain the amount of content they syndicate (distribute) on the Web.
I think there's a huge misunderstanding out there about how to distribute your content without hurting your Web site in the eyes of search engines.
If you publish content, you should have the first, original content on your Web site. No doubt. However, you can "repurpose" it and strategically distribute it on the Web, and this will not hurt your search engine/Google SEO efforts.
This is actually something I have used to help my clients quantifiably increase their traffic rank, traffic visits, leads and sales.
I call it SONAR. This method of repurposing and synchronizing content (albeit text, audio, video) distribution into various, targeted channels allows companies, publishers, entrepreneurs—basically anyone with content on their Web site—the ability to ultimately turn traffic into sales.
The method represents the following online distribution platforms:
So not only was the Web site's search marketing efforts not hurt by content syndication, it actually improved exponentially with rank, visits and sales.
The key is to repurpose the content. Tweak, or reposition, an original article on your Web site with minor changes (for example to headline, intro paragraph, closing, etc.) and then syndicate on other different Web sites.
Google tries to look for the best version; where the content originated. It's usually your Web site, and typically that site that gets the "search engine credit," so to speak, via the higher ranking in the organic results listing.
In Google's view, duplicate content is more hurtful for a site if it's posted in more then one place on that same domain (not via syndication on other Web sites such as through online press releases, article directories, etc.) .
I think there's a huge misunderstanding out there about how to distribute your content without hurting your Web site in the eyes of search engines.
If you publish content, you should have the first, original content on your Web site. No doubt. However, you can "repurpose" it and strategically distribute it on the Web, and this will not hurt your search engine/Google SEO efforts.
This is actually something I have used to help my clients quantifiably increase their traffic rank, traffic visits, leads and sales.
I call it SONAR. This method of repurposing and synchronizing content (albeit text, audio, video) distribution into various, targeted channels allows companies, publishers, entrepreneurs—basically anyone with content on their Web site—the ability to ultimately turn traffic into sales.
The method represents the following online distribution platforms:
- S Syndicate partners, content syndication networks, and user generate content sites;
- O Online press releases;
- N Network (social) communities;
- A Article directories;
- R Relevant posts to blogs, forums, and bulletin boards.
So not only was the Web site's search marketing efforts not hurt by content syndication, it actually improved exponentially with rank, visits and sales.
The key is to repurpose the content. Tweak, or reposition, an original article on your Web site with minor changes (for example to headline, intro paragraph, closing, etc.) and then syndicate on other different Web sites.
Google tries to look for the best version; where the content originated. It's usually your Web site, and typically that site that gets the "search engine credit," so to speak, via the higher ranking in the organic results listing.
In Google's view, duplicate content is more hurtful for a site if it's posted in more then one place on that same domain (not via syndication on other Web sites such as through online press releases, article directories, etc.) .

All About Email Creative
Secrets of Paid Search
this article explains a lot. i know myself, and many others have been under a false assumption about duplicate content...thanks for shedding light on the matter!