Free Article. Any good?

[OldWelshGuy]

Originally Posted by rhyswynne

I think that's a decent idea, but I don't like the methods. If google say you rewrite 30% of the article, then it won't consider it duplicate content. I'm not sure I follow that. Say if you have an article with 10 paragraphs, if you change the first 3, but leave 7 exactly as they were, then surely there'll be a bit of Google Questioning, n'est pas?

It IS illegal to rewrite someone elses article. The fair use states that articles must be shown as they are unaltered. By rewriting an article and STILL linking back to the writer of the original article, you leave yourself open to a claim for damages.at makes you think you can rewrite the article of an expert better than they themselves?

if you want to do this, then write an article about the article, it is called a 'commentary'. THEN link back to the original article (as it is polite to do so and safe if you are grabbing a lot of snippets from it, as it protects you legally).

These article spinning software are ILLEGAL to use, they are plagiarism of the highest order, and you CAN get slammed for breach of copyright, as it is now covered by intellectual property rights, and changing a few words of an original article is CERTAINLY illegal use of the originators intellectual property.

Be VERY careful.

As an aside, there is no duplicate content penalty with regard articles on multiple sites. The way it works is that you will not appear in the serps. However if ALL you have is dup content, then you could be seen as a worthless site.

SO the simple answer is to post the article, and get a LOT ommentary wording about the article on there. But, then again, doing that you just as well write the commentary, link to multiple articles on the subject, and bee seen as a hub page for that subject

[stefan_w]

If there is an article what I rewrite in my own individual style may not be a theft then. If there is a given social problem about what he is an article and I write it enlarging it with my own words, and I mark the source of the not rewritten parts and I refer to the original one, it may not be a theft then. I share my opinion somebody else from an approach. Mutual if I cite it, and I leave the original source, it already duplicating, it is necessary to find a solution to 2 problems in a time in this manner. Own opinion, and the duplicating his elimination.

[OldWelshGuy]

you can ONLY use other peoples material without their permission on a fair use babsis, which realy means that you MUST use it in order to refer to it. EG 'microsoft windows Vista' is a trademark, but it is impossible to write about it without referring to it. This would be classed as fair use.

if you STEAL someone intellectual property then you have stolen the IDEA, and that is illegal.

I am amazed at how many people publish online without having the faintest idea about IP law.

The law changed from whole item copyright, to Intellectual property ownership a while back. AND, shortly in the Uk breach of IP will NOT be a civil matter any longer, it will be a CRIMINAL matter, ie you can get ARRESTED and jailed for it. The reason for this is that there is an almighty oversight in the laws the EU has pushed through to cover illegal breaches of copyright like DVD's etc. Without realising, they included the phrase 'intellectual property', and now it is there, like it or not.

So the upshot is that within a year or so, when I see my content on a site in the European Union, I will not bother getting into arguments with site owners, I will simply call the police who HAVE to see the case through. This will mean the arrest and questioning under caution of the owner of the site ANYWHERE in the EU. & I will also be able to make claims under the victim compensation scheme.

As someone who CONSTANTLY has to deal with thieving little toads who are to damn lazy to write their own content, and too self obcessed to reproduce the content as per the terms and conditions of the site, I can't wait.

[stefan_w]

I studied something today again, in this direction the police imprisonment I would not count on a thing onto so much. His reality UK there are not much without. According to me. Although he is who without reason steals the articles, and there is not a reference, or does not take the trouble to are in individual one may be would deserve it. It true, that we are saying that stealing with more imprisonments is a content slowly nowadays is due than a murder. How UK is going I do not know it, but at us slowly this tendency. This is a joke.

[kappa84]

OWG, what about an article that you find it on 10-12 online publications in different forms? Are you allowed to make an idea of what's about and then write an article with your own words?

[OldWelshGuy]

IP is getting more and more difficult to master, and it is not made much better byt he crooks on the web. many 'resell rights' or PLR content is stolen from other sources.

In fairness, many articles are similar, so it would be difficult to prove where the article originated. reading many different articles then writing one yourself is 'technically' plagiarism, but really counts as research. If you do it, then change the flow of the information at the very least.

I often see results in copyscape where little snippets of my content has appeared, I ignore it. I only attack wholesale content theft.

[livetech]

Looking at the 30% rule duplicate (I'm not sure if I agree with it, but we'll use it as a guideline), how about this:-

Say if I publish the said article on a site - for arguments sake, it is a three paragraph article on Red Wine from Italy. The article is published, in it's entirety, under the terms of use and has the links in. On the same page, there is articles on French Red Wine, Californian White Wine etc. all written by yourself. Would google class the whole page as duplicate content, or will view it as not as the overlying factor in the page is fresh content?

This is hypothetically speaking, as most of us from a usability standpoint would split it up into separate pages.

[TeamPlayer]

Originally Posted by KingPin

If you was clever about it and didn't want to get slammed for dupe content, you could always use the robots.txt and/or the nofollow tag for that page

KP

I looked at such an article publishing site earlier today. I too had thought about why not add "nofollow" but, one of the terms of being able to reprint any article was that "nofollow" could not be used. Obviously they want the benefit of having the search engines view their link as a proper backlink with value.

Whether all article publishing sites require the same thing I don`t know, but I would suspect many do.

[OldWelshGuy]

Here is my advice.

1. use the article as is, including the bio.
2. Split the article into multiple sections, and include other content in these sections. Use some sort of clear demarcation in these sections such as a different colour background to ensure it can't be confused with the article.
3. In these 'content areas' include outbound links on topic. (do a search on Google and add the top 10 or the like (making sure that your chosen link (affiliate etc is Number 1 )
4 have other 'unique to page' content (not sitewide) on each page. Again it could be pulled from wiki or rss feds etc.
5. Sit back and watch all your 'unique with value' pages getting spidered, and all those clicks/affiliate sales rolling in.

There you go, how about that in one fell swoop you have managed to use articles without fear of upsetting the originator, added value to your pages with links etc, gained valuable click throughs to your deliver target page (adsense or affiliate stuff), and made money and improved the web by adding content with a value due to content aggregation.

Result = $£$£$

Originally Posted by livetech

Looking at the 30% rule duplicate (I'm not sure if I agree with it, but we'll use it as a guideline), how about this:-

Say if I publish the said article on a site - for arguments sake, it is a three paragraph article on Red Wine from Italy. The article is published, in it's entirety, under the terms of use and has the links in. On the same page, there is articles on French Red Wine, Californian White Wine etc. all written by yourself. Would google class the whole page as duplicate content, or will view it as not as the overlying factor in the page is fresh content?

This is hypothetically speaking, as most of us from a usability standpoint would split it up into separate pages.

[ms4u]

Hi oldwelshguy,

Let me see whether I get it right. You said:

1) Use the free article without alteration (no using our own words, stick on original copy)

2) Split the article into sections or paragraphs

3) In between them put a "content area", this area can put affiliate link or banner or other similar things

4) Have "unique to page" content

I can understand the top 3 but I don't understand what do you mean by "unique to page". A news feed?? or affiliate banner?