Scraped content ranking above the original source content in Google.

[Martijn_Scheijbeler]

When you're saying you're mentioning the re-publisher briefly in the posts itself does that mean you're also linking to them?

[ontarget-media]

No Martijn, the articles have excerpts from representatives of the republisher; there are no links to the re-publisher website.

[ontarget-media]

Thanks for the link, Umar.

Yes, we did fetch the cached versions of both pages--- but that doesn't indicate when the respective pages were first indexed, it just shows when the pages were last cached.

[ontarget-media]

No, John - we don't use the 'Fetch as Googlebot' for every post. I am intrigued by the possibility you suggest.

Yes, there are lots of unknowns and certain results seem inexplicable --- as we feel this particular instance is. We have looked at and evaluated most of the obvious things to be considered, including the likelihood of the re-publisher having gotten more social traction. However, the actual results are opposite to what we'd expect.

I'm hoping that you/ some of the others in this forum could shed some light on any other factors that could be influencing the results.

Thanks.

[EGOL]

Scraped content frequently outranks the original source, especially when the original source is a new site or a site that is not powerful.

Google says that they are good at attributing content to the original publisher.  They are delusional.  Lots of SEOs believe Google.  I'll not comment on that.

If scraped content was not making money for people this practice would have died a long time ago.  I submit that as evidence.  Scrapers know what Google does not (or refused to admit) and what many SEOs refuse to believe.

[ontarget-media]

Hi,

Thanks for the response. I'd understand if the original source was indeed new or not so 'powerful' or an established site in the niche that it serves.

In this specific instance, the original source outscores the site where content is duplicated on almost all the common metrics that are deemed to be indicative of a site's relative authority/standing.

Any ideas/ potential solutions that you could help with ---- will be much appreciated.

Thanks

[EGOL]

**In this specific instance, the original source outscores the site where content is duplicated on almost all the common metrics that are deemed to be indicative of a site's relative authority/standing. **

Yes, this happens.  It states the problem and Google's inabilities more strongly than I have stated it above.

**Any ideas/ potential solutions that you could help with ---- will be much appreciated. **

   I have this identical problem myself.   Actually, its Google's problem.  They have crap on their shoes but say that they can't smell it.

[ontarget-media]

Thanks, EGOL.

The other big challenge is to get clients to also buy into the idea that it is Google's problem!

[EGOL]

Oh, that is a very good point.  This is very bad for people who have clients.

[EGOL]

**Everett Sizemore - Director, R&D and Special Projects at Inflow:  **Use the Google Scraper Report form.

Thanks.  I didn't know about this.

If that doesn't work, submit a DMCA complaint to Google.

This does work.  We submit dozens of DMCAs to Google every month.  We also send notices to sites who have used our content but might know understand copyright infringement.

Everett Sizemore - Director, R&D and Special Projects at Inflow Endorsed 2 minutes ago Until Manoj gives us the URLs so we can look into it ourselves, I'd have to say this is the best answer: Google sucks sometimes. Use the Google Scraper Report form. If that doesn't work, submit a DMCA complaint to Google.