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
-
Original Source Tag or Canonical Tag for News Publishers?
I have been sourcing content from a news publisher who is my partner for publishing content online. My website deals with sourcing content from a couple of websites. I did use a canonical tag pointing towards the respective syndicated source but I have not seen traffic for those articles. I did some research and found out that Google does have a tag for news publishers which is the "original-source" tag which helps news publishers to give proper credit for their work. Here's a link to the official word by Google" https://news.googleblog.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html Although Google has officially stated that the "syndication-source" tag has been replaced by the "canonical" tag. However, there is no mention about the "original-source" tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Starcom_Search
Can I still use the "original-source" tag to syndicate content from my partner site instead of the "canonical" tag? P.S.: The reason why I am not convinced with the use of the canonical tag is because:
1. As per what Google says, duplicate content won't harm my website unless it is spam. (And since we are rightfully content from our partner'website and showcasing it to a larger audience by hosting it on our website as well, we are thereby not indulging in any unethical practices) 2. The canonical tag could possibly hamper my crawl bandwidth issues as it would essentially need the crawler to crawl the whole page to figure out that the canonical is present, post which any possible valuation that my site could have garnered gets lost.3. Moreover, since I am from the news, media and publication industry, content republication is a widely accepted practice and in such cases simply including a link to the original source of the article or using the original source tag should suffice, That being mentioned, I do not want to go ahead without taking a second opinion about this. Kindly help me to resolve this issue.0 -
Does blocking foreign country IP traffic to site, hurt my SEO / US Google rankings?
I have a website is is only of interest to US visitors. 99% (at least) of Adsense income is from the US. But I'm getting constant attempts by hackers to login to my admin account. I have countermeasures fo combat that and am initiating others. But here's my question: I am considering not allowing any non US, or at least any non-North American, traffic to the site via a Wordpress plugin that does this. I know it will not affect my business negatively, directly. However, are there any ramifications of the Google bots of these blocked countries not being able to access my site? Does it affect the rankings of my site in the US Google searches. At the very least I could block China, Russia and some eastern European countries.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bizzer0 -
Local Google Place Ranking loss
One of our clients lost rankings on the local map results. Last month we changed the phone number on the G+ page so the number is the same as on the website but it's still a call tracking number. We also changed the url to example.nl/plumber-newyork so it directly links to the local page and we made the local G+ author of the local page in the website. Can these changes have something to do with the ranking loss in google maps results?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | remkoallertz0 -
Why is this site not ranking?
http://www.petstoreunlimited.com They get good grades from the on-page tool. The links are not amazing, but are not super spammy. Yet it ranks for nothing they target Any reason why?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atomicx0 -
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 -
Deep Page is Ranking for Main Keyword, But I Want the Home Page to Rank
A deep page is ranking for a competitive and essential keyword, I'd like the home page to rank. The main reasons are probably: This specific page is optimized for just that keyword. Contains keyword in URL I've optimized the home page for this keyword as much as possible without sacrificing the integrity of the home page and the other keywords I need to maintain. My main question is: If I use a 301 redirect on this deep page to the home page, am I risking my current ranking, or will my home page replace it on the SERPs? Thanks so much in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ClarityVentures0