<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Duplicate Content, Generic Content, Scraped Content, Syndicated Content&#8230;What&#8217;s The Diff?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/</link>
	<description>A Real Estate Network</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:23:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Dansereau</title>
		<link>http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/comment-page-1/#comment-729</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Dansereau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/?p=1623#comment-729</guid>
		<description>@ James - I have linked, as a citation in this post, to several Google articles where more info can be found. These links are to Google&#039;s official blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style='float: right; margin-left: 10px;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=726b3e14f4968919696fbb6331fa84bc&amp;size=60&amp;default=http%3A%2F%2Fuse.perl.org%2Fimages%2Fpix.gif' alt='' />@ James &#8211; I have linked, as a citation in this post, to several Google articles where more info can be found. These links are to Google&#8217;s official blog.
<div style='clear:both'></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Goksina</title>
		<link>http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/comment-page-1/#comment-726</link>
		<dc:creator>James Goksina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/?p=1623#comment-726</guid>
		<description>Very useful post. where can i find more articles on this subject ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style='float: right; margin-left: 10px;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=fe6f8816324c11f03e34c80b8093811f&amp;size=60&amp;default=http%3A%2F%2Fuse.perl.org%2Fimages%2Fpix.gif' alt='' />Very useful post. where can i find more articles on this subject ?
<div style='clear:both'></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Dansereau</title>
		<link>http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/comment-page-1/#comment-607</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Dansereau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/?p=1623#comment-607</guid>
		<description>@ Mihaela Lica - I can definitely see your point. By Google&#039;s own statements, they try to find the original source of information and cluster all the URLs behind what they feel is the original URL. Google also freely admits that though they are very good at finding the original URL, they do not always get it right. This is a disturbing but not altogether unexpected admission. It does seem that if you are part of Google&#039;s cluster but not the &#039;original&#039; URL and therefore do not show that that is a penalty. I do think that perspective, whether Google&#039;s or the webmaster&#039;s plays a huge part in how this non-penalty, penalty is viewed. I am a proponent of original content with source citations if someone else&#039;s content is being cited for authoritative or incidental purposes. This source citation is something I learned in school. IMHO, credit given to the original author coupled with new, original material can enhance and further the thinking of the source material but simply using (or plagiarizing) the source material of someone else is completely unacceptable and does nothing to further either the thinking or the conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style='float: right; margin-left: 10px;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=726b3e14f4968919696fbb6331fa84bc&amp;size=60&amp;default=http%3A%2F%2Fuse.perl.org%2Fimages%2Fpix.gif' alt='' />@ Mihaela Lica &#8211; I can definitely see your point. By Google&#8217;s own statements, they try to find the original source of information and cluster all the URLs behind what they feel is the original URL. Google also freely admits that though they are very good at finding the original URL, they do not always get it right. This is a disturbing but not altogether unexpected admission. It does seem that if you are part of Google&#8217;s cluster but not the &#8216;original&#8217; URL and therefore do not show that that is a penalty. I do think that perspective, whether Google&#8217;s or the webmaster&#8217;s plays a huge part in how this non-penalty, penalty is viewed. I am a proponent of original content with source citations if someone else&#8217;s content is being cited for authoritative or incidental purposes. This source citation is something I learned in school. IMHO, credit given to the original author coupled with new, original material can enhance and further the thinking of the source material but simply using (or plagiarizing) the source material of someone else is completely unacceptable and does nothing to further either the thinking or the conversation.
<div style='clear:both'></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mihaela Lica</title>
		<link>http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/blog/2009/07/12/duplicate-content-generic-content-scraped-content-syndicated-contentwhats-the-diff/comment-page-1/#comment-605</link>
		<dc:creator>Mihaela Lica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://positiverealestateprofessionals.com/?p=1623#comment-605</guid>
		<description>Well, the idea that there is no penalty always bugged me somehow. If they choose not to show your pages, they call it &quot;filtering&quot; - but for the webmasters affected by this &quot;filtering&quot; I think it is a penalty. It&#039;s a matter of walking in different shoes. Google&#039;s shoes say :&quot;duplicate content penalty is a myth.&quot; The webmasters say: &quot;my site was penalized for having duplicate content.&quot; Probably everything that doesn&#039;t go according to some peoples&#039; will can be regarded as a penalty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style='float: right; margin-left: 10px;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=2ee8ca79b96d3599428f78ee6d569530&amp;size=60&amp;default=http%3A%2F%2Fuse.perl.org%2Fimages%2Fpix.gif' alt='' />Well, the idea that there is no penalty always bugged me somehow. If they choose not to show your pages, they call it &#8220;filtering&#8221; &#8211; but for the webmasters affected by this &#8220;filtering&#8221; I think it is a penalty. It&#8217;s a matter of walking in different shoes. Google&#8217;s shoes say :&#8221;duplicate content penalty is a myth.&#8221; The webmasters say: &#8220;my site was penalized for having duplicate content.&#8221; Probably everything that doesn&#8217;t go according to some peoples&#8217; will can be regarded as a penalty.
<div style='clear:both'></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
