Search Engine Watch Forums

dannysullivan · #1 10-04-2005

Threadwatch is looking at how a post from Matt Cutt's blog is being buried under Matt's home page, along with content from others that posted a summary of what he said. You can read more over here: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/4091

Nick calls it a hijacking, but I explain in comments there as to why I disagree with that. But the issue of duplicate content of your own or others duplicating your content is a real one that seems to be growing. I think the problem needs a good name. Here's what I said at Threadwatch:

DupeWash -- the duplicate content filter causes the best pages from your OWN site to get lost. Usage: "I got dupewashed with that update." I'm not wedded to that term, just think we could use something less cryptic than "duplicate content filter."

SourceWash -- Related to DupeWash. It means the source material is washed out by all the duplicate content from across the web. You post, then 8 billion blogs repost what you had, then the source material gets wiped out.

Orlowski called the above (SourceWash) "GoogleWashed" way back in 2003, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04...ed_repurposed/, and when I did my write-up on the miserable failure search back then, http://searchenginewatch.com/serepor...le.php/3296101, I felt like he nailed a real issue that continued to grow. Clearly it has kept on.

Anyone have better names for this? Toss out some suggestions, then I'll do a poll up later on.

NFFC · #2 10-04-2005

GoogleRinse

GoogleCutt "I just got cutt from the results"

PageTanked

bhartzer · #3 10-04-2005

It's really just plain old 'duplicate content'. It's the same thing that happens to all sorts of other syndicated content on the web today. I put out a press release. A site picks it up and publishes it. The first site who gets crawled is considered the original. All others get thrown out.

This stuff has been happening for a long time now. I don't think it 'deserves' a name per se, it's just duplicate content. It's nothing special, really--except that it's happening to someone who is rather public in the search industry.

randfish · #4 10-04-2005

Bacon Polenta'd - it's a perfect fit...

Jill Whalen · #5 10-04-2005

What's wrong with just calling it what it is -- the aging delay at work.

NFFC · #6 10-04-2005

>the aging delay at work

And you in marketing too

Would you have called coca cola, brown sugary fizzy stuff?

Jill Whalen · #7 10-04-2005

Quote:

Would you have called coca cola, brown sugary fizzy stuff?

LOL good point.

But I guess MY point was that this is nothing new, but the same thing many have been reporting for quite some time.

The good news is now that Matt C. can witness first hand how silly it is to think that all new sites have nothing worthwhile to rank for, maybe he can convince the powers to be to get rid of it!

mcanerin · #8 10-04-2005

I called it a "DupeDump" once and everyone listening got the point pretty fast. But that's just me...

But I've never written it down, so I don't know how I would spell it - dupe-dump, dupdump, dupedump, shooboobedoo bop.....

Ian

dannysullivan · #9 10-05-2005

Nope, it's not new -- but I'd say it is rising in attention. I've wondered more and more, in particular at Google, why so many "near duplicate" pages would get rolled up that way when in reality, they weren't really near dupes at all. Anyway, good name suggestions, and I'll get the poll up in a bit.

semsai · #10 11-04-2005

About a year ago a good friend of mine from Intrapromote once referred to the DupeWash phenomena as SyndiDupes, short for synidcated duplication. I thought that was a pretty accurate description.

Others?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)