Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Wow! Thank you all for such fast and excellent responses.  I guess you've all confirmed my suspicion.  In looking again at the mercola.com website, I see that they are actually adding some unique content to each post.  I suspect they may have a staff person or copywriter doing this since none of the posts are very long.

I'll re-approach my client and see if I can explain to them a better approach and why it's better in the long run to provide good unique content themselves.

Thanks everyone!

I have a new customer that wants to build a comprehensive website to provide dental health information.  However, he's a busy dentist and can't develop all the content himself.  He particularly  likes what mercola.com (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/current.aspx or http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/default.aspx) is doing to provide content from other sources.

At first I thought this could be a good thing and that we could setup some Google Alerts that would alert us to new content related to specific topic areas and then post excerpts and links to the original source of the content.

But now I'm concerned that we'll get penalized for this.

Can you give me some advice on how to go about getting new/fresh content on a new website that doesn't require someone to write it all themselves?

Thank you!