This Google Query gives the following top two results:


One domain ( forrestcroce.com ) is simply parked on the other, so it should be duplicate content. Very strange that it's not, actually. And it looks like Google hasn't crawled one of them in a long time - I broke a Dreamweaver template and lost all my page titles. Went back and fixed all of them, and this was maybe a month ago.

Digital Black and White Conversion in Photoshop

Digital Black and White Conversion | Photoshop. Black and white photography used to be a limitation of film, rather than a conscious choice the photographer ...
landscapephoto.us/Articles/DigitalBlackAndWhite.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Page Title

Digital Black and White. Black and white photography used to be a limitation of film, ... it's also the ideal way to convert to black and white. ...
forrestcroce.com/Articles/DigitalBlackAndWhite.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Originally Posted by chrishirst

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...e-content.html


NOTE: There is NO duplicate content penalty

I see. That is good to know. Then all these pages that are under this filter will suddenly start ranking again now that we have the official word. That is good to know! Thanks for keeping us up-to-date

Forrest as far as Google is concerned those are two different pages since they sit on different domains. Something tells me in time one or the other or even both will end up in the supplemental index.

Dup content is not a penalty it is a filter. If and once you get to a certain point it can become a penalty but it is a filter. Like supplemental index. Many dup pages are supplementaled(another thing that Matt says is OKAY. It isn't. Supp can't rank link regular index can) or filtered(whichever you prefer) but it does not effect your domain. What can effect you is if your whole site is copied from another site for and example. This can get you penalized. Reprinting an article is likely just to get indexed supplemental but will not hurt you.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Forrest as far as Google is concerned those are two different pages since they sit on different domains. Something tells me in time one or the other or even both will end up in the supplemental index.

Two pages from one of the www subdomains wound up in the supplemental index. I figured out how to set up 301 redirects using mod_rewrite, and told Google that www.* and * are the same using their Webmaster Tools.

Apparently that takes a while to sort out, though. Googling Olympic Nightfall, my site comes up as the first four results. ( The Olympic Range are mountains on the peninsula, west of Seattle; the photo is of the sun having just set behind them. ) That won't last, and probably shouldn't, because I don't want to leave a bad impression with people who are looking for something else. But that does suggest Google doesn't punish duplicate content. Ironically, three of these are to the same page, but cached at different dates, between changes. Which probably makes their job a lot harder. Hopefully my 301s will take effect before they sort that all out.

It might take a little while for them to sort out the 301, but they will.

I think they have already. It was five days ago that I noticed my site was coming up as the first four results for Olympic Nightfall, between my two domains and www.* subdomains. Now I'm only #1 and #2 in the results, both on the same domain: one is the page with the photo itself, and the next is the gallery it's in. ( Basically the rest of the first page is a post to rec.photo.digital with the photo mirrored, blogged, and translated. )

Nice and informative.

thank you

Originally Posted by chrishirst

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...e-content.html


NOTE: There is NO duplicate content penalty

Guys, this is absolutely natural that Google doesn't penalize for duplicate content. Otherwise your competitors could have influenced (negatively) your rankings.

Chris, thanks for the post.

Interesting what with the offer some bloggers to publish one article on million blogs;-)

Originally Posted by mharrisr

Thanks for the link chris. Google looks duplicate content in a very effective manner and treats it very seriously.

I manage to get around it with my bots, they take an article and copy it into 100 different forms, basically, it rewords it. Is that unethical in your opinion?..

Now that's the kind of "duplicate content" that would attract this bit of attention.

In the rare cases in which we perceive that duplicate content may be shown with intent to manipulate our rankings and deceive our users, we'll also make appropriate adjustments in the indexing and ranking of the sites involved.

Hey all (especially to old schoolers, haven't been on forum for a year )
I seem to have forgot some things.

My old website has 40 tutorials www.designplanet.biz, that doesn't get much hits anymore because I haven't updated it for years, and I want to transfer them to my new site www.furix.net , I was wondering if I should just copy and paste them (perhaps furix will get filtered instead of DP?), or whether I should use some tricky 301s, or whether I should just paraphrase my old articles (a lotta work). What ya guys think? ( I would prefer to copy and paste, but I don't want to be filtered etc :P)

Does it make sense to believe Google on this one, though? Duplicate content will land one in the supplemental index, and Google doesn't seem to consider that a penalty, but the people in there do.

Duplicate content will land one in the supplemental index,

Or maybe not. Matt Cutts on "Google hell".
But lets not forget here that the PageRank he is talking about is NOT the same one you see on the toolbar.
So let's have no parroted "get more links" post from the usual suspects, deletion is the fate that will befall them!

and Google doesn't seem to consider that a penalty

Pages being in the supplemental index has never been due to a penalty.
It has always been the pages that are dropping out of the main index, or not "important" enough to be included.

The way I understood Matt is that if a page is in the supplemental index it can still rank, but Google is going to check the main index first.

So let's say there are 100 results for a query all coming from the main index. And the #1 result goes supplemental for whatever reason. Then if I'm understanding right it would now rank #100 because the other 99 results in the main index would rank ahead of it.

I could be misinterpreting, but that was the impression I got and if my interpretation is right then I would think being in the supplemental index isn't a good thing and you're only likely to rank for some very long tail phrases.

Supplemental results can and do outrank main index results sometimes

From John's Blog Post Thread and obviously the top result is NOT a duplicate of anything, but does have a "quality link" problem.

Testing time methinks.

ROS link just gone up on my site, now lets see what happens.

I guess they do outrank main index results. I assume though it's just because of the low competition on the phrase. I can see where a supplemental result will still rank well, but all things considered I'd prefer to be in the main index.

And true supplemental is not the same thing as duplicate.

Hi,

I've just redone our site, and we do use duplication for what we thought was a good idea at the time. Now I am a little worried we may be one of those penalised. With our page rank at 3, we dont particularly wish to go backwards.

Here's what we've done.

I've maped some sub directories in the names of suburbs we serve back to the root of the site. A script in php extracts the directory name and uses this to stuff in the front of the title while showing exactly the same page. The reason is people sometimes type their suburb when looking for a service, so I thought this may help rank.

Is this legitimate keyword matching to reach my target market, or would they consider it manipulating their results? I dont care if the sub-directories are placed in the supplimental results , so long as my sites base url pages are indexed. The supplimental listings for the sub directories would be fine, popping out only when a user gets specific for one of the suburbs I am covering.

?? Took me a while experimenting from scratch on working out a way to do it, so it would be disappointing to have to remove the code.

Cheers..

Jason