Near Identical Articles for Content Syndication & Link Building?

People have asked my thoughts on content remixing and syndication. It is an ineffective approach to marketing.

There is enough content on the web, which is why Google is getting selective with their index. The problem with ineffective content is not that it needs mixed up and syndicated. If a site syndicates watered down vanilla remixed content they have too much content for their link authority, and most of their pages are doomed to Google's supplemental results. Lots of content and little link authority means remixing and syndicating is NOT the answer. What is the solution?

Rather than syndicate garbage, create things people would want to talk about and link at.

Published: March 16, 2007 by Aaron Wall in seo tips


March 16, 2007 - 11:04am

One of my rules is that if a site 10 times as popular as mine has already written about something then there is little point in me covering it as well unless there is an opportunity to add value.

March 16, 2007 - 11:42am

People are always seduced by these "no effort" solutions. Personally I prefer to create things of value.

I even read on Liz's blog about people being paid to write comments praising products (this may or may not be related to the thread you link, nudge nudge). It strikes me if the only positive word of mouth a product gets is ones you have to pay for there is something very wrong.

Why is it so few people want to make money at creating something remarkable and brilliant rather than mediocre and spam the ass off it?

Quick buck scams and laziness mentalities I am sure are a large part to blame for SEO poor image.

March 16, 2007 - 3:07pm

Chris, I guess it still has a lot to do with the "get rich quick" idea that is so fascinating for people who get into the whole Internet marketing circus.

They hear one success story and it sounds so easy to do that as well. I guess the best advice is to really create sites that matter to you and that you are passionate about. Depending on the value of the niche it might not bring you good money right now but it will pay in the long run.

I do have some syndication sites but they just exist on domains that wait to be developed.

March 16, 2007 - 3:10pm

Phew - When I read the headline I thought you were actually going to support that method.

"too much content for their link authority" = interesting idea. Do you think individual pages could get affected negatively when a whole site it too big for itself?

March 16, 2007 - 3:42pm

"Why is it so few people want to make money at creating something remarkable and brilliant rather than mediocre and spam the ass off it?"

Great point, Chris.

My feeling is this is often about strategy vs tactics:

To create somethign mediocre & spam it everywhere, you just need to know what the tactics are & follow well-defined formulas. To create & promote something truly remarkable, you need to think at a higher level.

The web has been good: Low barriers to entry & fast word-of-mouth means that 'brilliant' usually rises to the top quicker, while 'mediocre' plods along slowly, or adapts to become brilliant.


March 16, 2007 - 4:02pm

hi, Aaron,

I know you're talking about 'content remixing', but I think the wider idea of 'remixing' can work & is important. You can take a pre-existing (even clichéd) idea, do it really, really well & rise to the top .

I've heard this called "vu ja de" which I think is a great term: something familiar, changed around in a way you never thought possible. GMail, Firefox, Trillian are all applications that would fall into this category. Apple do this with almost every product they release.

A simple way to move toward this philosophy is to shift your thinking from "What can I do to sell to my audience?" to "What can I do to improve the lives of my audience?".


March 16, 2007 - 6:49pm

Do you think individual pages could get affected negatively when a whole site it too big for itself?

If they waste their link authority on garbage then they have a limited amount left for any real content on your site.

Hi Daniel
I agree with remixing ideas to create something better. But unlike those looking to create something real, this post was about remixing watered down versions of one's own content, and thinking that having 100 copies of similar stuff is what this article was referencing.

March 16, 2007 - 7:18pm

aaron, shouldn't google's new (or even upcoming) phrase matching technology penalize this type of content appropriately?


March 17, 2007 - 8:17am

I think that your line item directly below "clear writing" was meant to be "fewer words."

March 19, 2007 - 3:44am

I started my blog 2 and a half weeks ago with the idea of posting useful, no bullshit info relating to Internet marketing, SEO, copywriting, etc. I haven't monetized my blog and don't plan too. I'm just sick of the idiots promoting get rich quick schemes and crappy $50 marketing ebooks like RichJerk. You should join in the crusade at to bring Rich Jerk down. You have a wide reach and could really make an impact.

March 19, 2007 - 5:43am

this is why bh seo'ers make thousands of sites.

March 19, 2007 - 7:37am

shows that other people syndicating your content in a remixed version helps.

March 19, 2007 - 6:34pm

Original content is the solution to start getting better rankings and avoid the supplemental index, I have seen it myself. If you have a brand new site you want to add original content to it. If your site has been around for a while and has gained some link authority then you might get away with some content remix.

March 20, 2007 - 3:09pm

Opportunists vs. Creators of Value. The ratio is probably 20 of the former for each of the latter. I've been guilty of opportunism, so I won't throw too many stones here.

Thanks for helping keep marketers accountable... or at least encouraging us to consider accountability ;)

March 22, 2007 - 1:07am

My long standing assertion that people will work harder (thinking they are actually being lazy) at trying to cheat the engines, their visitors, and themselves, stands supported here.

The work it takes to choke other peoples' articles through a content regurgitator, build sites that still have no value whatsoever... it's just ridiculous.

I can write 30 original, very informative, very sticky and linkable posts in the time it takes the people buying into this content spinning myth to learn how the cheating is done and then set up their first 5 plagiarized articles.

When did people become so freakin' stupid and lazy?

Funny thing is, I work 1/2 as hard as these guys and I write 100% original content everyday.

Illiterate? Have Write-o-phobia? Hire someone! Otherwise go sell crap on Ebay.

It isn't a god given right to be able to publish and succeed on the web!

March 22, 2007 - 4:32pm

Remixing/Regurgitating one's own content over and over is useless and, as you said, there seems to be a law of diminishing returns.

Unfortunately, those who write and write and write and write--and it's all original, and it's all new---and write and write--and it's all ranting and raving, and it's all verbal masturbation--and write and write, can still benefit in terms of having that content indexed.

What I like about your blog is that, although you inject your opinion (which is how it's supposed to be), I can still come here and learn something useful. I can't say the same for many syndicated content providers out there.

Deonte Jeff
May 11, 2007 - 10:53am

Please give me some tricks to fid link resources

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.