Is unique content overrated?

**danifer** · 07-27-2006, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattd

Anyway - Digg and Slashdot seem to be doing pretty well for themselves with zero unique content.

So do Google, Yahoo!, and MSN.

I think rather than focusing on unique content, you should focus on the value your site offers its readers. Slashdot, Google, and Digg don't offer unique content, but they provide value with their methods.

Examples of things that have value:
articles that provide a unique insight or perspective to the reader,
blog posts that present theories and ideas that aren't mainstream but should be,
programming that can make my life better, easier, more interesting, or more efficient.

Things that don't have value:
random typing "aldkjfa;l33452f987"
rehashing the same old nonsense (I'm guilty of this far too often)
SEO tricks, email spamming, get rich quick schemes.

**marketjunction** · 07-27-2006, 01:01 AM

Might want to remind yourself that you are not Digg, Slashdot, Google, Yahoo or MSN. So what they do is rather pointless.

**IsMaR** · 07-27-2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketjunction

Might want to remind yourself that you are not Digg, Slashdot, Google, Yahoo or MSN. So what they do is rather pointless.

I think what he's saying is that your site doesnt have to be content oriented to make it big

**marketjunction** · 07-27-2006, 06:05 AM

No it doesn't. Just need a good service. Being unique or better doesn't hurt either.

However, looking at major companies like Google is pointless unless you have their resources.

**imported_DaveTurnbull** · 07-27-2006, 06:07 AM

Unique content is a gold mine. Trends may make a quick buck, but quality & unique content will keep the money comin'

**Jason Webb** · 07-30-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwebuser

it has come to my attention that uniqe content is overrated. it isn;t content that makes oney it is traffic and writing the best uniqie content in the world wont help if it doesnt even rank well to begin with.

There is truth in the statement that the best unique content in the world is worth
nothing if there's no visitors to read it. However, you've got more chance of ranking
well for unique content than for content that appears in an identical form on hundreds
or thousands of other sites.

Also, unique content is what gets you the return visitors. If you can build a strong
base of loyal, regular visitors desperate for your unique content then that's going to
be better than constantly chasing new visitors who will maybe visit your site, find
nothing unique or of interest, and never have the desire to go there again.

Like they always say in business, it's cheaper and easier to sell to an existing customer
than it is to try and find a new one. Unique content is what builds your loyal "customer"
base, even if your only income source is AdSense ads.

Best Regards

**Libertate** · 07-30-2006, 11:29 AM

Quality content is over rated.

Unique content is over rated.

Long live the artificial content with appropriately embedded key phrases.

Google et al "does not care" about content. They cannot - they use algorithms to scan through text, drop out some, and make concrete left and right turns till they come up to a ranking. It is a mathematical process. There is no "fuzzy" (although there might be fuzzy logic) subjective decision in an algorith. (Yes on rare occasion there is human intervention. I am generalizing for the masses of web sites.)

Therefore a well crafted meaningless (to a human) page will rank as well or better then a human readable quality article.

Spam is a perfect example - ever get those strange e-mails that even heuristic spam blockers cannot get, yet the content is gibberish -and we humans instantly recognize as not real content?

**Jason Webb** · 07-30-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertate

Google et al "does not care" about content.

True, but Google is not going to be buying products off me, real people are.

I think this argument is getting torn between two routes here: content for SEO and
content for visitors to read.

If you look at it purely from a search engine ranking point of view then I suppose
you can argue that unique content doesn't neccesarily matter. However, since
this thread has been posted in "Content & Writing" and not "SEO", I'm afraid that I
have to look at it from the point of view of writing content for actual site visitors to
read and enjoy.

Best Regards

**Fatherville** · 07-30-2006, 12:04 PM

Yes, but isn't it in your best interest to allow others to reproduce that content as long as you are given credit for the content and a link back to your site. Seems to me like that's the best way to generate traffic.

Mike Farrell
Fatherville.com

**Libertate** · 07-30-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Webb

[...]However, since
this thread has been posted in "Content & Writing" and not "SEO", I'm afraid that I
have to look at it from the point of view of writing content for actual site visitors to
read and enjoy.

I uniqueness is important to SEs' algorithms. Quality unique content is important to humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwebuser

it has come to my attention that uniqe content is overrated. it isn;t content that makes oney it is traffic and writing the best uniqie content in the world wont help if it doesnt even rank well to begin with.

I read the above to imply that Worldwebuser wants to make money. I cannot tell if s/he wants to do it fast or slow, or if the target is visitors or SEs. It also sounds like s/he is frustrated by all the "write quality continent and they will come" cliche.

I read that people write 5 or 6 quality content "articles", every day!

The term "quality" and "article" - have to be defined to make sense of this. I can write an article a week at best, with appropriate research and references, 1000 words (and not counting stop words). Then it takes me a couple of days to go back and adjust it to work for the target key phrase...

But 5 or 6 a day?!

So what is a quality content? What defines quality? Is valuable to 1 in 100, or 1 in 1,000 quality? How about 1 in 1,000,000?

**wamcon** · 07-30-2006, 12:22 PM

Yep ~ I have to agree completely. Although I may publish an article from someone else, it is put up with an intro and conclusion - my thoughts and feedback on the article which makes it more unique. Pure unique content with strong titles are what search engines love and search engines bring traffic too.

**DronDron** · 07-31-2006, 10:55 AM

I'd say "good content" is more important than "unique". There are tons of site that post AP or Reuter news and these aren't unique.

**DronDron** · 07-31-2006, 10:56 AM

But, of course, it's better to have your own content

**MonkeyBiz** · 08-01-2006, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LukaBuka

But, of course, it's better to have your own content

Any more revelations captain obvious?

**Emultion_Rawks** · 08-01-2006, 09:30 AM

I don't think unique Content is overrated. In-fact, it's proved extremely important on my current forums. If users, for example, have read the same Article you have Posted up on your forums elsewhere, why should they Register on your forums to read it? Where as, if you have Articles that are your own, that they have never read anywhere else, then they will Register on your forums.

My thoughts anyway...

**$5 Submissions** · 08-02-2006, 06:50 AM

You can never lose with original content. If you're having a tough time generating cheap original content, contact me. We can help you.

**Libertate** · 08-02-2006, 10:49 AM

Which is where my question comes from -

Is a 250-word document an article?

How much valuable content a 250 word document can and should have?

The only reference I can find were for printed material, and they tend to be in the 1,000+ range.

(webmasterlabor no disrespect to your business)

**Fredto** · 08-02-2006, 01:19 PM

It's better if it's around 350 - 400 words I think. But a few 250 mixed with other longers is good too.

**GeorgeB** · 08-02-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emultion_Rawks

I don't think unique Content is overrated. In-fact, it's proved extremely important on my current forums. If users, for example, have read the same Article you have Posted up on your forums elsewhere, why should they Register on your forums to read it? Where as, if you have Articles that are your own, that they have never read anywhere else, then they will Register on your forums.

My thoughts anyway...

If they have to register on your forums to read it how will they know it's there and how great it is before they register?

**imported_mattd** · 08-02-2006, 03:08 PM

Depending on the subject matter I'd say 250 is waaaaaay to short. I'd be looking at at least 750 for the sort of stuff I write about (technical mainly).