1. 15 points via michaelkovis on Jul 10 2012  Flag    7 comments
    5 DISCUSSING
  • Paul Mackenzie Ross   Jul 10 2012   Flag

    Really? So, as a content manager, you find a great story in your field, want to (re)write & share with your own audience, you do extra research and completely "flesh out" and improve upon the original article, adding value for your readers but you won't rank for it? Hmm...

  • Ross Hudgens   Jul 10 2012   Flag

    If you add value, I'm certain you'll still rank. But if you don't, and it's a rewrite, even intelligently done, you won't (or maybe you won't eventually). That's where they've evolved.

  • Ryan McLaughlin   Jul 10 2012   Flag

    Yes, this.

  • Ryan McLaughlin   Jul 10 2012   Flag

    This post really deserves some discussion on Inbound. Great write up by Ross. This type of change is huge for companies that hire lazy ghost writers that research and regurgitate.

  • Iain Bartholomew   Jul 11 2012   Flag

    It's one of those things where I read it and I thought "people do that?". It just seems like common sense. Every other thing we read, every other piece of advice stresses 'unique content'. What did people think 'unique' meant?

  • Steve Morgan   Jul 11 2012   Flag

    Another animal mention from Google! They're obsessed! Unless this becomes a new iteration of Google Panda, I bet this becomes known as Google Frog...

  • Steve Morgan   Jul 11 2012   Flag

    Whoops, misread - the frog example was Eric's creation, not Matt's. Oh well, it'll still be known as Google Frog...

You must login to post comments.