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
-
I am really surprised to see this page is ranking like crazy even the content is very thin
https://www.hackerearth.com/blog/artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-101-how-to-get-started/ We are ranking for 121KW for this page. And 22KW are ranking in the 1-3 position. I am not able to understand why will it rank like anything. Considering that it has just 4 inbound links. Will some help me to understand this mystery. When we try to write a good in-depth content then we are not ranking but for such content, we are doing fairly good.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rajnish_HE1 -
Google has penalized me for a keyword,and removed from google some one know for how long time is the penalty
i have by some links from fiverr i was ranking 9 for this keyword with 1200 of searches after fiverr it has disappeared from google more then 10 days i guess this is a penalty someone know how long a penalty like this is how many days to months ? i don't get any messages in webmaster tools this is the gig https://www.fiverr.com/carissa30/do-20-unique-domains-high-tf-and-cf-flow-backlinks-high-da?source=Order+page+gig+link&funnel=a7b5fa4f-8c0a-4c3e-98a3-74112b658c7f
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alexmuller870 -
How does putting a trial sign up code mid-blog post effect SEO? Do you think it will make my content seem less pleasing, therefor decrease the page rank??
I'm working on driving trials for our product - we have a number of blog posts that rank on page #1 of Google, and we get 2-3 trial sign ups per day from them. I'd like to put trial signup boxes about midway down each post to see if I can increase the number of trial signups that come directly from our blog. Do you think I can be "penalized" for this, since it's mid- blog-post content? Do you think Google will view this negatively?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Karibeaulieu0 -
Irrelevant Landing Pages are Ranking on Google SERP
Hi, I have noticed that Google likes to rank random pages on my site higher in the SERPs than the actual relevant content page for that service. Please let me know why it is happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RuchiPardal0 -
Websites with same content
Hi, Both my .co.uk and .ie websites have the exact same content which consists of hundreds of pages, is this going to cause an issue? I have a hreflang on both websites plus google webmaster tools is picking up that both websites are targeting different counties. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
Why does Google Claimed Local Listing Ranking Drop?
I have two local google places listinggs unlaimed. Both listings were ranking in the blended search in 7 pack. Once I claimed the local listings for the business both listings rankings have dropped. And one has totally vanished from the search rankings. Is this normal as it appears local places that are not claimed are ranking higher than local places claimed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VivaArturo0 -
Bi-Lingual Site: Lack of Translated Content & Duplicate Content
One of our clients has a blog with an English and Spanish version of every blog post. It's in WordPress and we're using the Q-Translate plugin. The problem is that my company is publishing blog posts in English only. The client is then responsible for having the piece translated, at which point we can add the translation to the blog. So the process is working like this: We add the post in English. We literally copy the exact same English content to the Spanish version, to serve as a placeholder until it's translated by the client. (*Question on this below) We give the Spanish page a placeholder title tag, so at least the title tags will not be duplicate in the mean time. We publish. Two pages go live with the exact same content and different title tags. A week or more later, we get the translated version of the post, and add that as the Spanish version, updating the content, links, and meta data. Our posts typically get indexed very quickly, so I'm worried that this is creating a duplicate content issue. What do you think? What we're noticing is that growth in search traffic is much flatter than it usually is after the first month of a new client blog. I'm looking for any suggestions and advice to make this process more successful for the client. *Would it be better to leave the Spanish page blank? Or add a sentence like: "This post is only available in English" with a link to the English version? Additionally, if you know of a relatively inexpensive but high-quality translation service that can turn these translations around quicker than my client can, I would love to hear about it. Thanks! David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | djreich0 -
Getting a site to rank in both google.com and google.co.uk
I have a client who runs a yacht delivery company. He gets business from the US and the UK but due to the nature of his business, he isn't really based anywhere except in the middle of the ocean somewhere! His site is hosted in the US, and it's a .com. I haven't set any geographical targeting in webmaster tools either. We're starting to get some rankings in google US, but very little in google UK. It's a small site anyway, and he'd prefer not to have too much content on the site saying he's UK based as he's not really based anywhere. Any ideas on how best to approach this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PerchDigital0