Shared publicly  - 
It's not about Unique or Original!

One of the reasons I generally steer clear of this stuff is because I find it depressing. 

The fact that even "now", this long after the first Panda, after G providing a ton of info about duplication ... that apparently a % of the "SEO Community" still doesn't get it ... that they need to turn to someone else to get it explained (with pictures!) ...

Further - to make it blatantly clear - it is Not about Original or Unique!
It is about Quality and Value.
You can create 100% original/unique content that is crap - it won't do you much good.
You can take pieces of someone elses good content, add your own original crap ... it still won't be much cop.

As for the "magic number" bit (you need to change it by x%) ... I'm not convinced.
I'm sure G have some stuff in place to try to identify dupes, spun and possibly even poorly paraphrased content ... (I know I would have used a boil down/reduction approach by now) ... I don't see how they could make it to aggressive
(Is it me, or did Rand avoid using the word "paraphrased" for some reason?)

How Unique Does Content Need to Be to Perform Well in Search Engines?
+Rand Fishkin with +SEOmoz is talking about adding unique value to your content:

We heard a ton about "unique content" and "unique value."
I'll just add (and this is not "unique" as you heard million times about it) - don't hit that publish button if you have nothing to contribute. Don't post just because your blog needs "fresh content" or because it's a hot topic everyone's writing about. Rather, if there's nothing new - just post your thoughts and have a discussion on social media - that's better than having "just a typical" blog.

Same applies to social media and content curation. Always contribute something to what you share if you care about building your brand.

#dailyseo   (#055)
Jim Munro's profile photoPeter Driessen's profile photoMartin Harris's profile photoLyndon NA's profile photo
+Lyndon NA, you crack me up! Especially the part about getting it explained with pictures ;)
Lucky I didn't mentioned the brightly coloured, oversized felt pens :D
(And yet, some people wonder why I don't say "I'm an SEO" ?)
Totally agree. And overall - why are we still talking about what quality & valuable content should be? Ridiculous.
They're basically targeting noobs with this preschool content. Sell more moz software subscriptions!
What constitutes "quality and valuable content" is obvious:  stuff I produce.  Duh! ;)
I closed my seomoz subscription on the same day I closed my FB account a week ago. Coincidence? I don't think so. :)
Don't get me wrong. I think their software is valuable and useful.

I also don't blame them for broadening their user base. 
I was only failing again at trying to make a joke, Matt. My seomoz account still has access to Feb 22 and maybe I'll panic and reactivate it before then. I closed it only because I couldn't justify having both Blekko and seomoz.
It's not about unique or original, a little bit more about value and quality... It's all about relevancy, is it relevant to provide the visitor this information? You can use quotations if they are interesting or link to other interesting relevant things. It just makes your page more informative / relevant. 
I had this conversation with an SEOmoz staff member in December suggesting how there's a fine line on dupe content and spun articles. The value is added post launch. Put it this way if the same news story was split between FOX news and BBC news. One will create instant value and one will be ignored (depending on your audience of course haha)
Indeed, if you have breaking news and CNN copies it, you're lost. 
There is an interesting possibility here though,
does G always show the same result out of X potentials?

Take Geo as an example - they may opt for the localised version over the another.
Take Freshness as an example - you may see a social post that occured very recently, rather than the original.
Take Personal as an example - G may know you prefer Fox, and not show the BBC version

But, in the main, Popular wins.
I suppose the real question is does Google decipher between infamy and fame? As Fox news is Infamously shit but still popular... where does the value come in? Is there an Algo for lazy and biased journalism? ;O
And I think that is when G realised they'd screwed up, and shifted.
Rather than trying to find the best, they went for the most popular.
+Martin Harris - do you remember the JP PEnny issue?
I believe G took manual action on that.  They had a lot of bad press, but acquired a ton of links from it ... so G intervened.
Yes and they are still getting links from it today.I think bad publicity needs to be taken into consideration but I'm not sure how Google could measure the emotions and semantics behind a link? I suppose if they were to do this for every site that generated links from bad press, they run the risk of over moderation and you could argue JP earned the right to them links. 
I'm pretty sure that G have at least one sentiment system in place, if not several (secialised) ones.
Add a comment...