Many sites have a press release section, or a news section that re-posts relevant articles. Since it’s all duplicate content, they be better off removing these sections (even with plenty of other unique content)? Gus, MA
Have a question? Ask it in our Webmaster Help Forum: https://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!forum/webmasters
Want your question to be answered on a video like this? Follow us on Twitter and look for an announcement when we take new questions: http://twitter.com/googlewmc
More videos: http://www.youtube.com/GoogleWebmasterHelp
Webmaster Central Blog: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/
Webmaster Central: http://www.google.com/webmasters
source
What about RSS witgets? I have a widget in my sidebar with anewsfeed from 3 sites. Is that ok?
Great video, thanks. I've been working on a strategy like this since some months. I publish a weekly post on the best resources on sound design.
I extract data from twitter, google alert and other sources, find the best contents and then show them in a curated way to my readers.
week by week I try to improve my content curation skills and this video confirms my direction, thanks
Awesome video. Matt's explanation is spot on in terms of adding more value. Instead of adding a section that anyone else can have the same content with, using it for other purposes like "success stories", "featured people", (among many others) can add more value.
yeah ny times why dont we find a journalist organization with more false/incorrect/incomplete information like bbc, bild etc. ….
Our site has also become devalued from someone duplicating our content. I plan to speak to someone about this at Google as this is an outrage.
You've got a big whit board. Don't be afraid to fill it up. It would also be good to use a marker that actually put ink on the board.
If users love it and leave a comment to say so – Google will love it and give big hugs towards your site – think what Google plus and Google profiles are all about – Also check out their original mission statement
The assumption here was that content that isn't yours that you put on your site is junky. It's understandable since the way Matt layed it out was to show both extremes. But, syndicated content can be very good content that is relevant to website visitors. I'd really like to hear him discuss the middle of the spectrum more. I say this because my marketing technique is to write articles on my site, then get them syndicated on other sites. It's all quality and provides value to those other sites.
like all other google videos.. a question that was better than the answer given. When will people stop listening or paying attention to this drivel.
If you seriously think google has algos for EVERYTHING, you're mistaken. If you believe this man speaks anything other than educated guesses to questions he or google cant answer.. you're also mistaken.
My guess is that they manually decides a small portion of them to be "trust-worthy" and the rest are impacted by this issue.
How does G decide if it is automated and the results "junky"? Are they implying that if someone does a keyword search on Google for "red widgets" and post them that they are junky because Google's results are "junky"?
What about sites like Techmeme? On our techmeme-like-site for an industry vertical, we utilize a high-end commercial curation engine serviced with queries (we've painstakingly refined over months) to blend news stories. Think Google News for an industry vertical. Our site offers users time-savings and filters away the junk and there is no equivalent available. Users love it.