Google Dupe Content
Googles Dupe content filter isn’t so cut and dry as people would have you believe, I have seen it happen so many times, an article is released and syndicated around the world a day or too later, but because google’s spiders didn’t see the orginal article ( usually bad seo 
), a syndicated site gets the golden original content flag and the the rest get the :
“repeat the search with the omitted results”
a Good example is a Wired article on “The internet’s two largest search engines are begging to get hacked.” this article was written on July. 02, 2005 – but Google indexed on the 4 Jul 2005
the www.crime-research.org syndicated the story and give credit to Wired and a nice little link on July 03, 2005
But, and this is a big but, google indexed them the same day …. way to go www.crime-research.org 
so let see what happens….
everything looks ok : normal serps
but what about : quoted serps
and finally : the omitted serps
So it’s not just about getting content out there it’s about getting Google to see it first
DaveN
Brian Turner 2874 days ago
http://www.platinax.co.ukLooks like IranKicks is now winning.
Navito UK 2874 days ago
http://navito.blogspot.comThat’s why I run a blog with my site and try to write a new blog post and link to any new site pages I create.
Kim @Neteffects 2874 days ago
http://www.neteffects.bizWhy is IranKicks the leading ranking page now?
It propbably wasnt first?
Dan Thies 2874 days ago
http://www.seoresearchlabs.comDave, I didn’t know this was news until I saw it on Aaron’s blog… the stuff you think is common knowledge sometimes, eh? Anyway, nice illustration of the problem. Google’s dupe filter is no doubt a product of the same design mentality that created their scheme for handling 302 redirects.
Johann 2873 days ago
That’s an excellent point Kim! There’s more to it than the first to be crawled..
Toren 2872 days ago
http://www.tacgroup.bizVery interesting, if you look at the inbound links to the root URL of Irankicks vs. Crime-research it has roughly 40,000 more links. My first thought is that it is another case of the rich getting richer in Google based on links. If Crime-research was first and it’s on page SEO elements appear better why would Irankicks usurp it in Google?
However Wired, which of course should be the top listing, has millions more inbound links, so if it was merely a case of the highest ranking site getting the most credit Wired should reign supreme. My question is Wired suffering from an internal dup content penalty? They have three seperate caches of the article in Google’s SERP. Their onpage SEO is not good but neither is Irankicks. Any ideas?
Sally 2866 days ago
I must be on overload. I’ve read duplicate content is okay and I’ve read it’s not okay. Are there specific ‘ifs’ to the okay and not okay situations?
caveman 2865 days ago
What toren said. We’ve got a number of examples we’re looking at right now that involve this sort of filtering, not all related to articles.
It’s not just about what gets found first. It’s almost more about backlinks and certain kinds of backlinks, IMO.
And as revealed in this example, G’s selection for “winning site” can change in short order.
They’ve got to get this sorted out. Loads of quality pages are getting hit by this lately.
JetteroHeller 2425 days ago
http://jetteroheller.wordpress.comI’ve definitely found empirically that Google will dupe out content for static pages, but definitely haven’t gotten the beat yet for syndicated content. In their Enterprise search appliance documentation, they say that their duplicate filter in the search results will dupe out two results that have the same snippet. I’ve been able to see this empirically by doing one search, seeing a page missing in the serps, and then adding a “&filter=0″ to the query string and then getting the page back. In this case, the pages that were similar had totally DIFFERENT content, but had identical meta description and meta keyword tags. So, Google duped them out.
David Kirk 2181 days ago
http://www.twentythirdfloor.co.zaWhen a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Isn’t there are argument to say that, if the aim of search engines with their great yet imperfect algorithms is to reward fresh, relevant, useful content, then the best long-term strategy would be to continue to write and publish fresh, relevant and useful content?
No quick wins, and with less of the alchemy involved SEO companies wouldn’t get as many customers, but why isn’t this the best advice for long term traffic and search engine ranking?