Would this work to get around duplicate content?

**mboxl1** · 08-02-08

I am in the proces of setting three very similar sites up for my company (only a slight difference between each of them.

Much of the content will be very similar.

I know wthat if we have have the same text on each site they information will be ignored as duplicate content.

If, however, I were to rearrange the order of the text, would this be subject to the same problems.

As an example:

==================================

Site 1:

We stock the best drumsticks in the UK.

Our drumsticks are sourced from the best manufacturers worldwide.

If the drumsticks do not pass our own testing, we refuse to stock them.

Site 2:

If the drumsticks do not pass our own testing, we refuse to stock them.

We stock the best drumsticks in the UK.

Our drumsticks are sourced from the best manufacturers worldwide.

==================================

Will that be enough to convince the search engines there is different content?

Thanks,

James

**moredial** · 08-02-08

each character has a numeric value. each database has a checksum. if checksums are 'similar' there is a risk of the duplicate penalty. only the SEs know what 'similar' means.

Just use a different vocabulary for each of the 3 sites - write for the 3 main reader ages/abilities and aim each site at a different segment.

**tbp** · 08-02-08

Yes, I agree with moredial, the search engines are smart enough to pick this up. You need to do a bit more work to avoid a duplicate content penalty.

I agree it can be difficult to write the same text in a number of different ways, but then its worth the extra effort.

**Top banana** · 08-02-08

There is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty, that is an SEO myth.

There is a duplicate content filter.

**gadget** · 08-02-08

Originally Posted by Top banana

There is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty, that is an SEO myth. There is a duplicate content filter.

Care to elaborate and reference your sources?

**tbp** · 08-02-08

There is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty, that is an SEO myth. There is a duplicate content filter.

I don't see it matters what you choose to call it, either way only one of the pages will be listed in the index rather than all of them, which isn't what the original poster wants.

**MrCatz** · 09-02-08

Originally Posted by tbp

I don't see it matters what you choose to call it, either way only one of the pages will be listed in the index rather than all of them, which isn't what the original poster wants.

Agreed!

To the OP, rewording the whole stuff should be your best opt. It may take some of your time but its better to be on the safe side.

**Brendon** · 14-02-08

>> There is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty, that is an SEO myth.

>> There is a duplicate content filter.

Both exist. Most people fall foul of the filter. Try scraping a bit, then tell me there's no dupe penalty after every site you own dies in a ball of flame

<added> Oh yeah, to the OP : just reword stuff, as well as reordering it, and you should be OK </added>

**jezaff** · 28-02-08

I was curious about this and read up on all I could find related on google's blogs. From what I understood there is no imposed "penalty" as such, but we can argue about the semantics.

They seemed to say that similar sites are filtered and only 1 of them will show up on a search, this is because users dont want to see dozens of similar sites so google tries to pick the 'right' one. Sometimes they dont get it right and you can contact them to say that a duplicate site has ousted your original content.

The other main point they make is that the "penalty" comes from when people back link to you. Maybe this is what people get confused about? All the official information I could find on duplicate content points to this kind of scenario.

So you have mysite.com, mysite.org and mysite.co.uk all with the same content. When people backlink they may use anyone of those 3 links. Google sees this as eg 10 links to 3 different sites and not 30 links to one site.

Most people would rather have 1 site ranking well with lots of backlinks than 3 sites that don't quite make it to page one because all the backlinks are split.

This also applies if you have are using mysite.com/page.php?1 and mysite.com/friendlyurl.html to link to the same page. Google claims it is clever enough to show mysite.com/friendlyurl.html but there are guidlines to ensure SEO. But again your backlinks will be split and yes ok this is a "penalty" but not one they impose intentionally as far as their blog posts claim at least!

Google offers lots of advice on how to improve this and ensure you minimise the impace - ive never seen anyone talk of them imposing penalties - I too think this is a myth as someone said above, show us your sources! Id be happy to learn the truth

Im sure OP has his own reasons for wanting to split his traffic and back links 3 ways. Or at least I hope he does!

Im pretty sure the 2 good articles I read where in the "Official Google Webmaster" rss feed. If anyone finds them let us know id like to read it again.

Cheers