The Subject of Duplication

The New Intimacy

The Subject of Duplication

Skip to last post
Set alerts
Updates
Forum search
Contributor: LicentiouslyYours LicentiouslyYours
One or two of you may have recently received a note from me, asking you to revise your review because of duplicate text. Since we have several new reviewers in the community and this has been occurring even among reviewers who have been around awhile, I thought it would be good to bring up this topic.

Duplicate Text = Bad

It doesn't matter if you've put a review on your blog and then cut and pasted part of the review into the summary for the on-site portion or if you even pull text from earlier in your on-site review for the summary or experience section.

We just can't do it.

I am hoping one of the more technically oriented staffers here at EF can say something about why. I know it has to do with SEO and search engine thinking it's plagiarism, but I just don't know enough about it to speak with any authority.

But, either way, it's a good idea to avoid the practice altogether.
11/18/2009
  • Save Extra 50% On Sexobot Attachment
  • Upgrade Your Hands-Free Play!
  • Save 70% On Selected Items. Limited Quantity
  • Complete strap-on set for extra 15% off
  • Save 50% On Shower Nozzle With Enema Set
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Contributor: Carrie Ann Carrie Ann
Great reminder, Laurel!
11/18/2009
Contributor: Luscious Lily Luscious Lily
Thanks for the reminder, Laurel! It would also bear saying that reusing text in two different reviews and just editing portions to make it apply to both is not cool either.
11/18/2009
Contributor: Sir Sir
Laurel, I actually wanted to ask you about something that I've been doing. I have on my reviews on my blog the Summary, Pros, and Cons the same for both on-site and on my blog (since I put them on my blog posts just in case people don't read the review on-site). Is that alright, or should I stop doing that?
11/20/2009
Contributor: Adriana Ravenlust Adriana Ravenlust
I think you pretty much summed it up Laurel. Sites rank higher on search engines when they have original content and duplicating your reviews makes it look.. unoriginal. It really hurts both your blog and EF. In fact, pages with duplicate content may not show up at all, may not be indexed or could halt the indexing of an entire site (by the engine's bots).
11/21/2009
Contributor: Dragon Dragon
There were some technical issues about this when I first joined. It was actually written into the agreement that I signed - and no longer have a copy of. I'm not sure who at Eden would still "know." It was expressly forbidden. There were some very clear statements at the time that a separate review on your own blog required DIFFERENT text. The current version of off site-reviews are different, but they are structured to be linked backwards very specifically.

It's plagarism. Even if you are posting from your own work to your own site. I believe that you are "technically" stealing from work that is now owned as by EdenFantasys. This includes the "Summary, Pros, Cons."

As for what Adriana is saying about duplicating content preventing the way search engines work - I "don't" think so. I know people that work at Google and I've heard a lot about the spiders that crawl the network. Almost all of the ranking is done by page rank - not content.

It does make the site look "cheaper" though.
11/22/2009
Contributor: Sir Sir
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragon
There were some technical issues about this when I first joined. It was actually written into the agreement that I signed - and no longer have a copy of. I'm not sure who at Eden would still "know." It was expressly forbidden. There ... more
Well, that confuses me because the problem wasn't in the labeling and transferring, it was in the reuse of text for separate sections (at least, that's what it seemed like the problem was).
11/22/2009
Contributor: Adriana Ravenlust Adriana Ravenlust
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragon
There were some technical issues about this when I first joined. It was actually written into the agreement that I signed - and no longer have a copy of. I'm not sure who at Eden would still "know." It was expressly forbidden. There ... more
I didn't say it prevents the way it works. I said it's something it takes into account. And, of course, Google is only one search engine.
11/22/2009
Contributor: Sammi Sammi
Under the writing guidelines for onsite is this:
"The summary is 1-3 sentences of the review; how you felt about the product overall, whether you would recommend it, and a highlight/lowlight, etc - it should not be a copy/pasted portion of review. "

There is a section in the Off-site Review Guidelines under reposting that says:
"However, do not post the text from the review; posting duplicate content is detrimental to our (and your) web status because it is technologically interpreted as plagiarism - no matter how it is cited. You may post a few sentences leading into the link, such as: "My review of the Snugglepuss is posted on EdenFantasys.com. This toy took me for quite a ride; find out how…" Or "I had a great time playing with my new toy, click here to get the full story." Another way our reviewers have posted "teaser" or intro texts for reviews is by writing two different accounts. The review they submit to us is generalized, more opinionated, and practical. The text posted on their blogs is a more explicit, erotic account of their experience with the toy; containing COMPLETELY different text than the review submitted to EdenFantasys.com. The choice is up to you. "

The off-site guidelines are more specific about it, but both do mention it.
11/22/2009
Contributor: Sir Sir
Quote:
Originally posted by Sammi
Under the writing guidelines for onsite is this:
"The summary is 1-3 sentences of the review; how you felt about the product overall, whether you would recommend it, and a highlight/lowlight, etc - it should not be a copy/pasted portion of ... more
Alright, thank you, Sammi! That helps a lot. I'll change those tonight so that it's in compliance with that.
11/22/2009
Contributor: Gary Gary
How the search engines works is a bit of a mystery to me, but the way it was explained to me...

Duplicate text does not prevent the search engine from working, BUT, it does affect page ranking which does affect how you come up in a search.
11/23/2009
Contributor: Champagne and Benzedrine (Roland Hulme) Champagne and Benzedrine (Roland Hulme)
Bravo, Laurel, for tackling this! I know some people can be sensitive about it as they feel very attached to their reviews.

But really, it's no different from writing an article for a paper or online magazine and then pasting it on your blog. Sure, you wrote it - but if you received any compensation (like a free toy, or even just a name mention) they 'own' the copy and you're basically just pirating it if you post it somewhere else.

It's also ridiculously easy to trace. I have google alerts set up for key phrases in my vanilla writing and when somebody reposts it, I get an email alert. Generally, I'm not bothered as long as they link back - but I like to know where my writing is being used.

I had a long argument with a book reviewer once. They said that because all they got was a free book out of it, the review they wrote for the paper was 'theirs' and they reposted it on their blog. They didn't think it was 'fair' that the newspaper got ownership of 'their' writing. The editor then explained that if they didn't think it was 'fair' they would graciously solve the problem by not giving him any free books or printing his reviews any more.
11/23/2009
Contributor: Adriana Ravenlust Adriana Ravenlust
Quote:
Originally posted by Adriana Ravenlust
I think you pretty much summed it up Laurel. Sites rank higher on search engines when they have original content and duplicating your reviews makes it look.. unoriginal. It really hurts both your blog and EF. In fact, pages with duplicate content may ... more
Wish I could edit it because of my poor choice of words. It would be more accurate to say that the spiders which see duplicate content, it can negatively affect your ranking or even appearance at all. Not that it stops them from working but that it is precisely how it does sometimes work.
11/23/2009
Contributor: Gary Gary
Quote:
Originally posted by Adriana Ravenlust
Wish I could edit it because of my poor choice of words. It would be more accurate to say that the spiders which see duplicate content, it can negatively affect your ranking or even appearance at all. Not that it stops them from working but that it ... more
Well that was pretty good!
11/23/2009
Contributor: Adriana Ravenlust Adriana Ravenlust
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary
Well that was pretty good!
Thanks
11/23/2009
Contributor: Owl Identified Owl Identified
I think it's weird that EF "owns" my writing and this hasn't been made more explicit.
11/23/2009
Contributor: LicentiouslyYours LicentiouslyYours
Oh man! I go away for 2 days and you guys get chatty on my thread! Thanks Sammi, DBD, Red and Adriana for the insight and explanations. (and yes, Sir, you should stop copying your summary, pros and cons.)

Sex, Lies & Pre-Law - I guess, as a reviewer, it doesn't surprise me that writing submitted here is considered the property of EF. They "publish" it, and often we are compensated with merchandise. Much like the example Red Roulette used about the book reviewer, it's a pretty standard practice in the world of journalism.

Still, you inspired me to go looking for something that specifically states the terms of what belongs to who and I've not found anything yet. I think I have a new small project....heads off to Skype Gary...
11/23/2009
Contributor: Rockin' Rockin'
I'm onboard with the compensation of a toy for a review, but even though EF owns my reviews, they aren't the author. They can't claim that they wrote the review, or refuse to acknowledge that I wrote the review, right? While I'm not allowed to repost my review elsewhere, I can always claim authorship of the writing and point people to the review. Am I on the right page here?
11/23/2009