Content Filtering

Here’s an internal report that shows how many articles our anti-duplicate & anti-derivative content filtering software deflected in June 2008 for EXACT MATCH and DERIVATIVE MATCH article submissions:

How to interpret this report:

  • 2,213 articles were rejected for being exact match duplicate submissions.
  • 4,476 articles were rejected because they were too similar to content already in our database.
  • 6,689 articles were rejected total in June by our automatic CASM anti-duplicate & anti-derivative filters.

When article content spammers/spinners see a report like this, they immediately want to know how much of a derivative of their content will we accept before they hit the hard rejection upon submission. The answer of course is that we change this filter frequently and don’t expect to ever make it easy for spammers to submit derivative content because it ADDS NO VALUE, at least for us.

Non-content spammers but well-meaning newbies will ask this question: How much must I change or rewrite my article so that your content filters won’t reject it or suspend my account? The answer is all of it. Seriously, don’t rewrite your own articles. Just create new ones. It’s not that hard. :) You can do it.

GOOD: For those who do this innocently, we’re not upset if it happens from time to time and hope that our members will use our automated detection of what percentage of your articles are original as a way to help prevent the mistake of submitting the same article more than once.

EVIL: It’s no surprise as we drill into the stats that members who trip our duplicate or derivative content identification filters also have notes in their account for keyword stuffing abuse, thin content, article bodies that don’t deliver on the promises made in the article title and article titles that don’t make any human sense.

GOOD OR EVIL: In addition, a few thousand articles were identified and culled last month that our CASM software further identified as no longer meeting today’s requirements of how unique an article must be for us to accept it. Our users have no tolerance for exact match or highly-derivative created content, nor do we. These are liabilities we can all do without. If your account went down a few articles last month without any explanation, that’s why. If you’re in doubt, write us in member support and there’s a good chance we’ll be able to provide you with proof that backs our article deletion decision.

Lastly, keep in mind the goal here: To only accept original quality article content that the author (our members) have the exclusive rights to the articles they submit.

Articles don’t have to be exclusive to, but they do need to be exclusive by author name to the person who wrote them (meaning, we won’t be able to find your article under someone else’s name and not yours (tells us they are PLR (Private Label Rights (something we don’t accept (can you believe I embedded 5 parenthesis in this sentence?))))).

Ok, any questions?


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Wow! I’d be interested in a place where we could see why our own articles are rejected, just in our personal interface. I know the majority of my own rejections have been due to impatience… LOL

I click twice and the second click is a duplicate article. Somebody ought to remind me to slow up occasionally?!

Either that or misplaced links. Those strange html code links show up in the weirdest places.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

Yea question…

Isn’t there a better way to use parenthesis in multiples so your reader doesn’t get lost in the sections?

Maybe someone ought to write an article?

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM




That’s an idea we thought of… and determined that providing the data would make it too easy to game the system by those with an evil intent.

The CLICK TWICE thing is something we’ve got a lot of time invested in preventing with software. There was a hiccup on it last month that we found but it was resolved.

ie: You shouldn’t be able to submit the same article twice by accident when using the SUBMIT button as your final article submission action.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM


Vicki Flaugher writes:

This is good stuff. Isn’t it fun how the silver hammer head of common sense is helping internet marketing become a respectable profession? Steps like this and the stand EzineArticles is taking helps. Thanks.

My favorite part of your post was about people rewriting their own posts. Do people seriously do that? That’s just silly, I think. Sounds more like a tricky trick than a newbie mistake. Hmmm…who wudda thunk it? :-> I guess it takes all kinds…

I have submitted articles lately, since CASM was full on, about internet marketing and web copywriting, and even though I said things that everyone says, I said it my own way, so I had no problem with the filtering. A little dab of originality and creativity works every time. Keep up the good work!

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

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM


Allen Taylor writes:

Chris, how about including a trackback URL for those of us who like to talk back?

BTW, I’m glad to see you doing this. It benefits us all.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM


Emma Martin writes:

Looks like someone was pretty busy with the duplicate submissions on Day 12. All for naught LOL

Chris, did you get rid of the feature that indicated whether the article title is unique or not? The last few articles I submitted, it didn’t seem to be working. Was wondering if it was my browser (firefox) or whether you’d canned it.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM


Rob Metras writes:

Great education point Chris. Perhaps it will be instructive to the PLR spammers that play upon newbies and others. Original content builds readership and interest, and allows us to have a relationship with our readers. Keep up the filtering.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM




The feature that indicated that your article title is unique was never suppose to notify you if your article was unique, but rather it was and now is designed to notify you when your article title is unique after being told it’s not.

Example: You submit a non-unique article title; in real-time we notify you that your title is not unique… you change it; we then notify you when your article title is unique.

Comment provided July 7, 2008 at 7:22 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

Wow, this is approaching Artificial Intelligence indeed.

Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 8:25 AM


Hendry Lee writes:

Just to clarify, so duplicate articles are deleted when taken down, instead of transferred to Problem Articles?

Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM




Exact-match duplicate articles are moved to DELETED status…which means:

  • Not live any more on the site
  • Not editable by the author
  • Not re-submittable by the author or any author for that matter
Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

This is probably a stupid question, but … short of an accidental duplicate from your own article files, how would you NOT know that you’re publishing a duplicate article?

I mean, we’re writers, we know when we copy information from one place to another that it’s a copy not original content… right?

(This may be one of those duh comments that everyone else understands and I walked right under, but … um… it seems rather redundant if the article has already been submitted, that once should be enough, and it does not need to be duplicated. PLR articles shouldn’t be an issue, because if they’ve been sold more than once, you shouldn’t be using them here.)

Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM




I think you just said: Isn’t it obvious when a writer rips him or herself or someone off when they write articles?

Yes, I think most people do it knowingly… and for those who move too fast or have assistants that make mistakes… well, we’re here to help ensure dupes don’t find their way to the site live.

Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM


Alyice writes:

Nice stats. It’s nice to see your system fighting content thieves and spammers. That’s one thing I find annoying about the Internet…how people can assume that if it’s online it’s free for the grabbing. I wish more sites would implement the same system.

Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM


Borus writes:

I like the idea that EzineArticles has started filtering out the crappy authors and content. The thin or crappy content filter needs to be adjusted up, though as there are way too many poorly written, useless and plain old junk articles on EzineArticles.


Comment provided July 8, 2008 at 7:50 PM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

I did run into a problem with this (yeah! I love it when I get to find a problem on here… lol ) — the auto save feature creates a draft I can’t delete, when I post the article. If I delete it, my articles become duplicates. Check my account – although (as usual) your techs may have solved the problem by the time you get my message. There’s two drafts pending, one is already accepted, the other is for a new article.

Comment provided July 9, 2008 at 12:11 AM




We’ve been making logic changes the last few days in our article “DRAFT” status as I saw a bug myself in testing that was caused by the AUTO-SAVE feature.

I was trying to replicate what happens when an author begins an article edit, the auto-save feature kicks in, and then I abandoned the process… which shoved the article to DRAFT status even though it was previously live…and I think some members think that if they don’t resubmit the article… that it just stays live without the changes made…but in our case, it doesn’t.

AUTO-SAVE has created a series of unintended consequences that we’re continuing to sort out this week. We’ll look into your account and history… and will get back to you later today.

Comment provided July 9, 2008 at 7:28 AM


Jan Verhoeff writes:

That was FAST!!

Good job, we’ll see what happens later today when I’m uploading articles.

I think my autodraft is set for like five minutes, and I got a phone call during the process of submitting articles (yes, even that late at night) which caused a draft I didn’t realize I had.

At any rate, the duplicate drafts are now gone missing, and the process works! Thanks.

Comment provided July 9, 2008 at 8:31 AM


Aakash Shah writes:

Hi Chris,
I am very much happy to see these results.
Believe me i am fed up with the requests from various clients who need mere rewrites of the PLRs as a cheaper alternative for the original Articles.
However there are sometimes creative limitations too for some topics. For Eg. We had Ghost Written around 500 topics on Internet Marketing topics for one client . I suppose my team has covered almost all the topics in Internet Marketing field. We had to take a break for the project for a short time otherwise we would have ended up writing the same content.

However I had a query regarding the article title. Sometimes the titles of the articles are too basic and alternative titles would not Meet the SEO criteria of the Article then what would be the option.

Comment provided July 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM


Alex Makarski writes:

Well, that’s what makes EzineArticles the gold standard of ezine articling.

Comment provided July 9, 2008 at 8:59 PM



Thanks Bill Platt for the mention of this thread:

Comment provided July 23, 2008 at 7:25 AM


Shirley Bass writes:

Chris, I too thank Bill Platt and SiteProNews for being able to participate in this blog.

Whew! I was with you one minute and not the next, then back again. At one point I had to agree with Lance Winslow when he said, ‚¬“Wow, this is approaching Artificial Intelligence indeed‚¬. Lol

I am a newbie and at times am concerned about using too many keywords in my articles. They just seem to flow when I am writing. Without them the article would not make sense. This Evil keyword stuffing thing bothers me somewhat.

How I love to participate in Ezine’s blogs! The participant’s remarks are as much fun and interesting as the topics Chris writes about.

Shirley Bass

Comment provided July 23, 2008 at 7:50 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.