The End of Derivative Content

In the blogosphere they call regurgitated/recycled content made primarily from a derivative of other works as “blogoreaha”. I suppose we could call it “articleareeha” but I prefer to call it “article vomit.”

You know what I’m talking about as it’s very easy to spot this type of content. Usually the author is so embarrassed that they won’t even put their real name on the article or they won’t include their name in the resource box or the landing page that the URL in the resource goes to.

One of the foundations of the success of EzineArticles (besides its’ its highly successful, intelligent and attractive expert authors (nice suck up, eh?)) is our ability to detect in real-time exact duplicate and duplicative article submissions and then use that algorithm to either tag the content as suspect to be further processed or hard reject it before our 2 human editors even see it.

We call it CASM (Content Association Sequence Matching) and this has been 3+ years in development behind-the-scenes.

Over a million articles have been processed by the proprietary EzineArticles CASM system and this allows us to know many distinctions about every article that our members submit and about the pattern of various accounts…including (but not limited to):

  • Article content submitted is infringing on itself (meaning the author is rewriting his or her own works by way of rearrangement (not cool))
  • Article content duplicates in part or whole on other alternative authors within an account
  • Article content duplicates in part or whole against another author’s account (whether their articles are live or not)
  • Article content duplicates in part or whole against other articles that have been since deleted or rejected.
  • Lots of data about the date history of the duplicated or duplicative content… ie: Article content submitted a bunch of times by various members is a clue we use.

It’s not a perfect system, but we’ve had years of refinement to improve our ability to prevent false positives. There’s quite a bit more to the above list that I can’t share… including how we vary the shield frequency harmonics to prevent enemy ships from beaming non-unique content through our shield.

CASM was originally created to defend against PLR (Private Label Rights) non-exclusive rights content being submitted, but it also proved further useful to defend against plagiarism…something we have a zero tolerance for.

Millions of weekly EzineArticles visitors do not want to see duplicate or duplicative content and we’ve bent over backwards to keep it out of the site.

Read This Tip A Few Times Please: The absolute best way to beat duplicate content filters is to create unique article content in the first place!

IMPORTANT: We recognize that some authors submit duplicate content by innocent accident. This system is not designed to scold or punish you if you submit duplicate content, but rather to give you another tool to help identify if you’ve submitted the same content in the past.

If you have more ideas for how we could improve our ability to keep duplicative content out that we haven’t already thought of, we’d love to hear it.


Paul Lalley writes:

Hi, Chris,

While I recognize the editorial need to keep pushing forward with new ideas and new approaches to content development, as a copywriter who cranks out the content you dismiss so easily, I feel you’ve missed some critical considerations.

1. There’s only so much you can say about SEO/M and conversion ratios so you have to slice the baloney pretty thin. It ain’t brain surgery. It’s marketing.

2. Just because a post appears on your blog or SEOmoz or some other web-related blog doesn’t mean it can’t be rewritten to be read by another couple thousand folks on another blog.

3. You know the web gobbles content like taco chips and sites want content. If the check clears, I’ll write it (as long as it isn’t personally offensive, i.e., hate speech.)

While your sentiments are noble and on target, take it from someone slogging through the blog meat. We’re just out here “singing for nickels and dimes.”

Thanks for the post.
Paul Lalley

Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM


Allen Graves writes:


If you’ve rewritten it in your own words, doesn’t that make it original?

Some will say yes and some will say no. It’s still the same information, just conveyed with different words.

As a visitor to a blog or article directory, if I see the same info over and over, I will most likely move along and try to find another source for the information I am seeking on a daily basis.

Therefore, rewriting the content, while making it pseudo-original, is not necessarily a good idea.

Are we talking original words or original information…I think that should be cleared up.


Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Hi, Allen,

Chris’ post mentions duplicate information not the wholesale lifting of content (which, of course, we’ve all encountered.)

I blog a lot of SEO sites and see the same information over and over. You can’t swing a comatose copywriter within hitting a “Six Quick Tips to Boost Conversion” post in a blog or forum.

I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. People are opening on-line businesses and some of them won’t know a thing about SEO or SEM. So basics are always a good topic. If the reader already knows those six tips s/he can scroll to the next post.

Finally, I think content of all degrees of difficulty are useful on the same blog. More from which to choose.

New ideas in SEM are simply re-hased variations of traditional marketing. Viral marketing is nothng more than digitized word of mouth.

The SEO rules keep changing as SE algorithms are tweaked so there’s always something new to write about. I just don’t see why repititious blogorhea is “bad”. It serves a variety of useful purposes.

Freely admit that my view is biased since writing that cr@p pays my mortgage.

For clarity sake, I’m referring to new, innovative ideas. I’d like to see more, too, but new ideas are hard to come by.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Paul Lalley

Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM




Is your argument that we should allow derivative content?

I’m also not clear if you’re saying that we specifically have already rejected your content as derivative or are you saying that you fear we will dismiss your content as derivative?


At this time, we’re beyond words & sentences and we’re evaluating exact match sentences, rewritten sentences, root word analysis, comparisons over time and against existing live, deleted, & rejected content. I’m sure there will be a day that we open up our CASM engine to include data beyond our own data silo of information archived to help make better decisions.


For clarification, I don’t care how many times you duplicate exact match articles or sentences or derivative content on any site other than

This whole discussion is about what is accepted on

We feel a strong obligation to not have duplicate and derivative content in the site and are continually overhauling our systems to provide that in real-time analysis upon incoming submissions.

Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM


Dave writes:

I think that there are two ways of looking at this thing:

1. There really is no completely new content. Everyone gets information from some place. (School, books, internet, etc.) Everything written then is the authors take of what they have studied and what they then put into their own words.

2. There are those out there who have no concern other than making money and they will steal any information that puts a dollar in their pocket.

Original content is my version of what I have studied and what I know about a particular subject. But taking something that someone else wrote and switching up a few words and sentence orders is not cool!

Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Hi, Chris,

No, I’m not concerned about having a blog post rejected. I’m simply pointing out that what you call derivitive content actually has some use.

As I stated, not everyone started learning SEO/M at the same time so some of the content I develop is for site owners who have to look up SEO, while other content is for a more sophisticated reader. Simply because the content has been covered before does not make it derivitive. But, hey, it’s your blog so you can set the rules.

New people join the web community everyday. The rules of the marketplace change daily and what worked as best practices SEM five years ago isn’t good SEM today.

So, to answer your “subtle-as-a-sledgehammer” loaded question, “Is your argument that we should allow derivative content?” Nope. Doesn’t matter a whit. You are the arbiter of what constitutes rehash and what consitutes the next great idea. As long as you keep coming up with brand new, never before considered content every week, you won’t ever have to work the same information more than once. I would never suggest that you post something you felt was below par.

I look forward to future insightful, original ideas in your posts.



Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 11:54 PM


min writes:

Good! I found in here the other day 5 or 6 articles by the same author, they virtually all said the same thing, just different headings, and a paragraph moved here and there, changed a few words here and there. It made the rest of their articles redundant and boring after reading the first one. As a newish marketer, I understand it but I don’t like it, it provides little value to the end user. It’s all a game of re-hash to fool the algorithms. I will continue to write fresh articles, it isn’t hard, and feels more ethical.

Comment provided June 20, 2008 at 11:58 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Hi, Min,

I’m certainly not diminishing the value of original topics and creative, innovative new marketing tactics. I’m a copywriter who very much values innovation.

The problem is the narrowness of the topic itself. I write three blogs on various aspects of SEO for two sites. I’ve been doing both for 18 months. Three 1200-word posts a week for 78 weeks – that’s over 250 pieces, not counting the ebooks on on-line security, ebay and how to make a million on the web.

I always try to find new topics and introduce a couple of new terms and concepts that are actually indexed. So, like you, my attempt is to always find new content.

However, I think it’s unfair to dismiss what Chris calls derivitive content. Here’s an example:

I recently wrote an article on Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, guaranteeing access to all to government buildings and unclassified data. It’s the law.

And the W3C has established three levels of accessibility compliance, as well. So I read up on the act, how it’s being implemented and by whom and drew some conclusions why becoming Section 508 compliant benefited the site owner.

This became site text for one client, a blog post for another (in a different industry) and an article for syndication (in the works). Is that duplicate content? Same topic but configured differently to best suit the marketing needs of the client. Is this redundent? Unfair to the three clients who each recieved a completely original piece on Section 508 compliance? I don’t think so.

I call it the judicious use of the knowledge that I acquired writing the first piece and extending the value of this new knowledge. I see nothing unethical about this whatsoever.

Here’s a link to my post on SEOmoz on plagerizing yourself:

I, too, am concerned about repitious content but as a copywriter I write what clients require to meet their editorial needs, and if one of those clients wants a piece on basic SEO tactics (yet again), I write it.

This isn’t a question of cheating. It’s pure economics. The beast must be fed daily and I intend to help feed it – even if it is my 15th diet download book.

So, to keep your ethics in tact, please forward those jobs you feel violate your standards to me.

Thanks for your input,

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 8:00 AM


Vicki Flaugher writes:

It’s clear to me that this post was about content published on this site, not the same thing (reworded or not) published to multiple places. The whole purpose of this site is that people pick up your articles as content for their website, so exactly duplicate material is being used. And, the market is the one doing that. That’s coo. That’s not the issue.

@Paul, I agree with much of what you are saying. Some narrow topics do have very similar content. But, even you call it cr@p. Why? Because much of it is (a general comment—I am not critiquing your own work).

For me, as a writer, it’s not enough that something makes money. And, even narrow topics can be flavored with your personal point of view. Hollywood’s written hundreds of love story movies. People love to read reviews. It’s not that there isn’t a market or need out there for derivative or narrow topic work, but rather that this is not the place to publish it.

I appreciate that EzineArticles is taking a stand. It keeps it a place where I want to visit and can count on finding great stuff. For me, even when the story has been told before, you can always put a new and interesting twist on it. And, those new and fresh articles are the ones I pick up, not the others. IMHO.

Together, we are stronger.
Vicki Flaugher, the original SmartWoman

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM


James Drummond writes:

We have mixed opinions about this. It really depends on how the software works and how close the tolerances are. In some cases we need to restate facts that are used in our other articles to give a reader a point of reference. If the software calls this duplicate content then we will have a problem. We can cite our other articles but most readers just do not want to jump between articles. This can cause a loss of article value. In addtition recent EzineArticle link policy changes basically prevents us from linking to our other articles.

We have to agree with Min in that we also have found several articles that are basically spun around the same frame work. When you are trying to do some research for original content this can be a real pain.

We just hope that CASM software does not make EzineArticles a place for elitist BS artist only. In the last year we sent about 11 percent of our work to other directories that previously would have been submitted and approved by EzineArticles.

On the positive side two of our partners submitted the same article to be published and you have caught the mistake which we appreciate.

We will just have to hide and watch see if CASM and the new link restrictions kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The good thing is that there are more geese on the Internet, of course not all their eggs are golden.

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Hey, Vicki,

I don’t know your circumstances but I rely on web writing for my income so, if my stand against machine read editing and post submission is out of line, so, perhaps, are our circumstances.

As far as Ezine taking a stand against rehashed web mash, I’d prefer readers (the market) determine what makes worthwhile reading and not some algo that’s been tested three years.

These machine readers don’t get the jokes. They don’t get the nuance or insight a writer brings to what Chris refers to as derivitive content.

From Chris’ post:

Read This Tip A Few Times Please: The absolute best way to beat duplicate content filters is to create unique article content in the first place!

What a concept.

As I stated in an earlier post, I eagerly await this “original content.” There’s no such thing and that’s my point.

I recently posted a piece on quark mechanics inside the atom for a client. Discovered that there are at least 12 other articles on the same topic. So, we are left with Chris’ filters, set by him complete with the organic biases that are part of all of us, to decide what topics have been beaten to death and which are worthy of publication.

Do you have a new slant on using title tages? Do you have some new insight into Google’s Orion or new tips to improve PR in just 12 weeks? If so, I’d love to read them. However, when you crank out 270 articles on the same topic, you tend to become a little cycnical about (1) the usefulness of this type of blanket editing guideline and (2) the reader only gets to see what Chris’ machine reader determines non-derivitive.

Everything is derivitive. We get ideas derived from other sources. Why would this blog benefit from one individual and his CASM (?).

I’ll submit posts to blogs that aren’t quite so eager to determine the quality of what I read. Frankly, I’d rather define what’s good, bad and derivitive myself.

Thank you for your thoughts,

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 1:28 PM




Please clarify if you’d like:

You sent 11% of your articles elsewhere because we rejected them as duplicate or derivative?

I see you have 31 articles with us so far, so you’re telling me a handful were not sent here because we rejected them for being derivative or duplicative?


Keep in mind that our algorithm is a defensive tool because if had a high percentage of duplicate or derivative works… the market would speak by a drop in traffic to the site and a lack of user trust.

That’s the core reason we do this: User trust.

Clarification: It’s not TOPICS based. There’s no weight or bias against any topic or niche category.

As far as what Google will or won’t do; I have no idea nor do I have inside info.

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 1:47 PM


Vicki Flaugher writes:

@Paul. Well-stated. I can see where you are coming from. Our circumstances are different. Thank goodness there are other sites where you can post your wares.

@Chris. Thanks for your efforts. Even with the controversy, speaking as a user, I appreciate not having to scroll through a bunch of same ‘ole, same ‘ole to find something useful. I would vote with my mouse and go somewhere else less time consuming. A digg style “digg it or bury it” user rating sytem might be interesting to incorporate so that quality writers get as much opportunity as others who just flood the market with hot topics, thus shutting out others. I guess we’ll wait and see if the alogrhythm helps with that without editing too much.

Vicki Flaugher

Comment provided June 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM


Martin writes:

I think Chris is doing the right thing as long as he doesnt treat authors as mushrooms. His leadership keeps this elite site at the top of the heap and will continue to.

A caveat though, he should remember that his sharp tools are extremely sharp and affect people, real people, people that helped him.

Of course, the truth is, we didnt help him, he helps us. Without EzineArticles I’d be at squidoo making 50% of their pathetic adsense income and giving another 10% to charity (against my will I might add!) lol

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM


Martin writes:

Actually, that sounded bad, is awesome and have my respect. I was kidding around.

Chris, I have noticed that many of my article resource boxes have a sudden virus ie the hard earned link has melded into the text rendering the link useless, have you had any reports of this from others?

I have edited one, but it seems there are many and I know I have not made this spacing mistake on such a grand scale.


Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 11:49 AM


Allen Graves writes:

Paul says that everything is duplicate content, just rewritten. That is an extreme end of the stick. I happen to look at things from the other end.

Paul and those that agree with the statement that there is no more unique content, it’s just not true! For instance, I wrote an ebook recently that has content in it that has never EVER been written before. I created the content by thinking outside the box and coming up with things that have never even been thought of before. It is without a doubt, 100% unique.

I think that unique content must be created, not regurgitated. In fact, if it is regurgitated, then it wouldn’t fall into the unique category at all then, would it?

Now, I am speaking on the extreme opposite end of that stick than Paul is.

Chris, are you looking for something in the middle, or closer to the end that I am referring to?

Allen Graves

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 12:13 PM


Martin writes:

Was just about to go dumpster hunting for lunch, when I read another post. I didnt really make a point about this topic (though my concerns above are still urgent)

>Summons all his 230cc of brain power….

Quality and originality are 2 different things.

I meet a blonde….same content different packaging…

next day I meet a brunette…

same content different packaging.,…

next, I meet a red head (my favorite) same content diff packaging.

Am I looking for originality as a guy looking for a gurl? or am I looking for quality?

I already know the damn content…right?

I want quality.

Sell me! dont be weird, dont be original, be superb…be detailed and interesting…tell me the story but entertain me…engage me…make me love you…right?

Make me interested….I already KNOW YOUR STORY!!

Show me you’re interested in me and what I want!

I already know your story…but if you tell it to me in a new way I may decide you are quality. (Thats GOOD for you)

Be fresh…be ALIVE….be vital.

Works for me :)

More importantly it works for absolutely everyone. If you bump into to the exactly the same red head and u already know her…ur going to move on right?


Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM


George Chernikov writes:

Can you please clarify whether this system is just being implemented or it’s already been up and running for a while?

Based on the description, it would appear that a lot of “regurgitated” content will no longer be accepted at EzineArticles. While I can see the rationale behind it, I also find it slightly disturbing, since it would deal a severe blow to people who do not optimize their articles for Google placements and instead rely on one-off boosts generated by each article submission – traffic that usually disappears after a few days.

The problem is, this approach – which I know is used by many marketers – requires you to keep writing articles on the same subject, over and over – and there are only so many unique angles you can take on the same content before you start repeating yourself to some extent.

It is unfortunate, but if you’re going to rely on one-off traffic boosts from article submissions (instead of optimizing articles for Google SERPs), it’s the only way to do it.

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM



To those who believe that “original thought” is never to be seen again; I don’t buy it.

I’ve read this before elsewhere …the idea that everything written is a rehash of something else. I just don’t buy it.

Reason: No one evaluates life like you do. Everyone sees the world uniquely and therefore given the intent to write original works, they will most likely never trip our CASM filters.


The newest release of our CASM system is live as of last week.

I will release graphs/charts this week on what it’s catching.

If you rewrite content, this is who we’re after to deny.

If you write original content from your brain, this is what we’re after to accept.

This software should be a blow to article rewriter software (that we’ve purchased to mute their advantages).

We’ve been trying to communicate for a year that if you’re here for SEO-only, we’d prefer you find another outlet for your content. Seems like articles designed for SEO only ….care very little for the quality of the content being delivered to the end-user.

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 1:53 PM


George Chernikov writes:


Thanks for the clarification – I must admit CASM sounds a lot less scary now! :-)

I fully agree on the need to prevent article re-writing (especially using software) – and for the record, I was never a fan of using EzineArticles for SEO purposes, simply because it’s often very difficult to optimize your article around a long-tail keyword.

Looking forward to submitting more articles to EzineArticles in the coming weeks (just got my Platinum upgrade this Friday – yay!) :)

All the best,

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Hey, Chris,

You can call it what you want. You can describe the improvements it will make to your blog. But you and your dagnabbed machine reader still add up to censors who determine what visitors will read and not read.

Of course, all editorial content comes with bias so this isn’t at all unusual. (You should read my local newspaper. From another dimension entirely.)

From Chris’ post: Keep in mind that our algorithm is a defensive tool because if had a high percentage of duplicate or derivative works! the market would speak by a drop in traffic to the site and a lack of user trust.

That’s a gross assumption and more than a bit elitist (Obamaesque?). New visitors arrive on the site daily and want to learn. Publish everything and let the reader decide what’s worthwhile, not Chris and his software word checkers.

It is your blog so,of course, you can run it anyway you see fit and if I want an open blog I should shut my pie hole and build one, right? You betcha.

But the EzineArticles blog will still be here and Chris, the blogmaster, will still decide the worthiness of articles.

I prefer the more democractic, open blog at YOUmoz and the sense of community at Linkedin where members are atually trying to help each other.

Sorry, Chris, you can defend your editorial methodology ’til the cows come home. It still comes down to your editorial bias (yes, you have one; we wll do).

Thanks for your thoughtful posts, all. Civility rules.

Best to all,

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM


Dave writes:


I was with you for the most part until you said that you didn’t buy the “no new original thought” idea.

Now I a sure I know what you mean, however, you cannot mean that we all have a world of never before thought of ideas about anything under the sun.

If you are a capitalist and you say that a person who invents a product should be able to profit in its sale, that’s not original.

Do you remember the old Siemen’s ad campaign, “We don’t make the (name a product) we just make it better.” They were talking about innovation. I think that is what you are trying to get across here.

If I sit down with all my personal knowledge and research and write from what I have come to know, it is not original to me, it is my innovative way of saying it. I agree that we ought to always seek to be innovative in our writing.

I am really new at this and if you check up on me will see that you have never rejected one of my 6 (yes that’s 6 article submissions). The reason is that I write from my brain not from someone’s blog. But I am not original in my thinking I am like Siemens, taking what is already know and making it better!

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM



While I take responsibility for what happens on this site, our anti-duplicate and anti-derivative software filters is way beyond what “Chris Knight” deems is duplicate/derivative or not. … ie: Our team of developers are involved in the design, execution, and monitoring of its effectiveness.

Paul, you seem to be arguing that we should allow duplicate and derivative content? If so, you know our position and it’s never if we can help it.

A Challenge: I’d like to challenge anyone who is a member who had an article rejected for derivative submission to allow us to expose the two articles we determined were too similar to allow the newest submission. I know if people saw what we were rejecting, there would be no argument similar to Paul’s and the only ones objecting to it would be non-ideal members trying to get us to accept something we’ve mechanically identified as duplicate or derivative.

My point: It’s much more mechanical than human subjective.

One more side note: Our CASM software also comes fully into play on articles that are edited; helping our human editors to quickly identify what changed, what percent of original the content was, and if any new duplicate or derivative risks were introduced that might not allow us to re-accept the content.

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM


Paul Lalley writes:

Umm, Chris,

If you read back through this thread, my original post supported your efforts.

However, in your last post in which I was lumped in with the “non-ideal members trying to get us to accept something we’ve mechanically identified as duplicate or derivative,” you’re hitting below the belt.

I’m not some loon radical or a digital Luddite. Keep it fresh. In the past few months I’ve introduced new topics on infomration velocity, building web rings and improving data utility so I ain’t no hack.

I’ve been paying the mortgage for 35 years writing and I know good, original thought when I see it and when I don’t.

But when you lump me with the non-ideal members, you know nothing about me nor, after two attempts at explaining it, you still come down to Paul wants me to post rehash.

You don’t get it. You censor content. You decide what’s worthy of post based on your preferences, biases, background and the girl who turned down your prom date. All of these enter into your decision. And your little word reader? Has the same taxinomical bias that you and your programmers bring to the project.

I don’t care what you post or if you post. And I certainly don’t appreciate being labeled “non-ideal” as a member simply because I don’t agree with your editorial methodology.

Seems like a good time to mosey on. The personal slams are begining.

Paul Lalley

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 5:17 PM


J writes:

Hi Chris,

That’s actually a good idea/challenge since this seems to boil down to semantics.

I often write about weight loss – exercising, etc… and I write A LOT about the same exercises as well as the same parameters for them OVER and OVER because they’re in my expert opinion… ideal… the exercises and the parameters I lay out.

I don’t want to dumb things down or have to change parameters and exercises I recommend to less than ideal just so something would be considered original.

So far, none of my articles have been rejected because of duplicate content. Not sure if that’s because the “theme” of my articles are all different or what.

Or if it’s because I kinda mix and match. I write about A & B, then I write about B & C, then I write about C & A, then I write about A, B & C.

Any thoughts on what I said Chris? I was kinda worried by your posts, but I guess I’m fine doing what I have been doing?

I’m 100% against people just changing a few words around here and there since that’s just pathetic, but I hope if a person (namely me :) gives the same advice in different ways it’s ok.

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM




First, it’s not personal. Sorry if you took it any other way.

Second, Yes, I’ll admit to having a hard time identifying your position.

Third, it seems you’re making an argument that we should not censor any content submitted?

I never labeled you as a non-ideal member. No disrespect intended. If I’m understanding your position is that we shouldn’t censor anything, I wouldn’t label you as a non-ideal member… I’d just agree to disagree on that position.


Our CASM software a version ago was already tuned to identify sentence and paragraph re-ordering.

If you’re not getting flagged, it’s because you’re writing original enough to not trip the filters.

You won’t be penalized for getting caught because we know some members do this by innocent accident and our tool is designed to acknowledge that fact.

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM


Min writes:

“This became site text for one client, a blog post for another (in a different industry) and an article for syndication (in the works). Is that duplicate content? Same topic but configured differently to best suit the marketing needs of the client. Is this redundent? Unfair to the three clients who each recieved a completely original piece on Section 508 compliance? I don’t think so. ”

Chris, using your examplem above, this is fine to me – as it is not 3 articles here on ezines that are virtually the same. It’s 3 different places, and whilst the info might be the same, I’m betting they aren’t virtually word for word?

“Or if it’s because I kinda mix and match. I write about A & B, then I write about B & C, then I write about C & A, then I write about A, B & C. ”

this post has the right idea to me. Some authors have similar sounding titles, but the content of each article IS different, perhaps I will see one point repeated, say, 7 articles later. Thus, the content has value for the end user.

Its the articles that use spinning software to change a word here and there, move a paragraph, and change the title for re-sub HERE that’s annoying. By all means spin it and re-submit it – Somewhere Else!.

I found this blog post that seems to capture the essence of this debate from…I agree entirely…

Comment provided June 22, 2008 at 10:35 PM


Allen Graves writes:

I am speaking now from an article directory owner perspective.

What you guys are argueing is just silly. I cannot speak for Chris and I am not attempting to do so.

Articles that are submitted to any article directory are edited/reviewed for a reason. Some directories will let crappy and duplicate articles go through.

Go take a look at those directories (if they are still there) and see what kind of traffic they are pulling in.

Now, taka a look at the directories that do not allow duplicate content and where they rank and the kind of traffic they are pulling in.

See the difference?

This huge gap in traffic and rankings is because of one thing. The content they offer is (or is not) unique and of quality content.

Again, I can’t speak for Chris, but as long as I find results like what you just found, I am not accepting duplicate content either… and I am not even going to offer the chance for my authors to have a say in the matter. So consider yourself priveliged that a directory of such high standards actually listens to what you have to say.

All that being said, I would like to reiterate a point from an article marketer’s perspective. If I submit an article that appears to be duplicative in nature to “Chris’s” software, chances are that Google will think the same thing. I would consider it, not a favor, but a nice warning that my article may not perform as well if I do not do some editing to it.

Dontcha think?

Allen Graves
Long-time Article Marketer,
Article Directory Owner

Comment provided June 23, 2008 at 10:01 AM


Vicki Flaugher writes:

@Allen. Very well said! For me, that sums it up beautifully, both as a user of the articles and a submitter. I now am going to quit watching the fray and get back to creating high quality content that gets me targeted niche traffic. Yoohoo!

Together, we are stronger.
Vicki Flaugher, the original SmartWoman

Comment provided June 23, 2008 at 10:39 AM


ian writes:

Hi Chris..:-)

A few comments – and a question.

1) I love EzineArticles – and it provides tremendous value to me and I’m infinitely appreciative

2) There ARE tons of crappy articles on EzineArticles – and I write in a million markets…MANY of them naturally conducive to attracting less than stellar works of article marketing magic, and the minds that brings along for the ride..:-)

3) As has been pointed out here in the past – a more important focus, in my mind should be some form of qualitative control that negates the saying of nothing, in 250 words, and consider that representative of a quality article…EVEN if the person writing it says nothing using 250 words the next time he (or shes) sets their pen to pixel.

4)This issue is CLEARLY not about duplicate content, or repurposing your OWN stuff across multiple online locales, as that would sort of be a silly rule – and wouldn’t fly well for long. We submit EVERYTHING to EzineArticles first – and then, depending on the niche, appropriate them on blogs and websites accordingly with modifications, and as a rule, this works phenomelly well ( as EzineArticles will invariably outrank our ow efforts, especially in a new niche)

But – Chris – while I love you guys:

When did you decide to stop permitting top level redirection? As an avid author across a broad multiplicity of niches, I find myself getting inundated this afternoon with the ignominious affiliate link violation from problem resolution….when in fact, all of the articles have resource boxes that point to a top level URL that is ours. (registered for the specific purpose of ensuring compliance with EA’s redirection rules, as outlined in the best practices section)

Has there been a rule change? If so – when was it announced? If there is one thing that drives me more insane than getting an email (actually more like 30 today)- which kind of accuses me of NOT following a policy that I clearly have – and I KNOW my sort of response is going to fall on deaf ears for a few days as I backtrack and wiggle to “fix” what is clearly not broken…..I’m just not sure what it is.

When you implement that expedited service for article processing – not only will I be the first to sign up, I’ll pay a little extra for an incoming 800 line so my screams can be heard..;-)

Comment provided June 23, 2008 at 5:24 PM




We still allow top level domains or absolute URL’s to be used for affiliate links. Will look into it for you and get back to you privately.

ETA on the expedited article review and email support priority service is scheduled for launch in July with the functionality will be tested by the middle of this week. There is no plans for telephone support.

Comment provided June 23, 2008 at 5:37 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Wow, that sure was an interesting dialogue, look forward to more discussion on additional interesting topics which this thread brought up, that semi-coincides with the original post. I think you all just gave me about 20 potential articles to write exploring all these other side topics, thus I thank you all!!!

Comment provided June 24, 2008 at 4:10 AM


Darin writes:

I have noticed in the last week or so i cannot find my new articles in Google. Even when i do a search for the title in quotes. What turns up in the search is the articles category with my article title in the description. Is that something to do with whats going on? All the articles were accepted with no problems.

I have always written original content from my brain and have around 250 published articles.

Comment provided June 24, 2008 at 12:31 PM




As you probably know, we don’t control what Google does or doesn’t do. Nothing has changed in the core way EzineArticles has operated for many years now… other than massive expansion in infrastructure & people behind the scenes.

I’m pretty certain that your experience is typical, and not out of the ordinary.

Keep tracking your new titles. They will show up I’m sure in due time…

Comment provided June 24, 2008 at 12:56 PM


Darin writes:

Thanks Chris,

I thought as much but thought maybe you had an insiders idea why? Anyway thanks for providing a great directory!

Comment provided June 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM


Bruce Westbrook writes:

I’m sure you know how to spell, Chris, and this is just a typo which can be fixed. At any rate, your third paragraph has the possessive of the plural of the word it, and your spelling is its’, with an apostrophe. The plural posessive of the word it is spelled its and has no apostrophe, just as the word “their” has no apostrophe even though it’s a possessive.

Comment provided June 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM


Fran Civile writes:

“We still allow top level domains or absolute URL’s to be used for affiliate links. Will look into it for you and get back to you privately.”

Chris, what does that mean exactly – I’m just
starting to write articles again and don’t want
any undue delays.


Comment provided June 29, 2008 at 10:31 PM


ian writes:

Hi Fran –

It simply means that it is kosher to use a top level URL, that you own, to forward to an affiliate offer related to the topic of the article, when appropriate.

So, for example, if you are writing an article about Dog Training, and you have a specific program or product that you feel is beneficial to the reader, you are allowed to simply use a top level (root URL) to forward the reader on to this program directly from your resource box.

Resource Box –>http://BestDogTraining.Com–>AFF Product on Dog Training

Using a sub directory is not permitted as it opens up a pandoras box of potential abuses ( ie – one domain – with veritable unlimited amount of subdirectories redirecting to who knows where)

Hope that helps..:-)

Comment provided June 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM




Let’s say you wanted to promote a product in your resource box and you’ve got your affiliate URL.

In order to get us to accept your article, you’ll need to BUY a domain and forward your domain via a 301 redirect or meta refresh to your affiliate URL.

Examples of an affiliate link we’d accept:

Examples of affiliate links we would NOT accept:

See section 3 of the editorial guidelines:

Comment provided June 30, 2008 at 8:12 AM


George Chernikov writes:

As someone who had run into CASM a few moments ago, I can say with certainty that it’s nothing to be freaked out about.

What happened is that I accidentally submitted one of my articles for review; for some reason, however, it went both into Pending AND Drafts. When I saw it in the Drafts category, I assumed maybe I didn’t submit it after all and hit Submit instead.

I was immediately redirected to a warning screen announcing that my content already matches something available on EzineArticles and suggested that I review it. It did not – that I’m aware of – fire off a warning to EzineArticles or get my account suspended.

From what I can see, the system is really there to prevent you from posting derivative content, not to punish you from doing so; so if you’re writing a ton of articles on the same subject and haven’t run into the filters, then your articles are original enough to be listed on EzineArticles and you have nothing to worry about.

Comment provided July 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.