• Zach Griffith

    Love it! So where does Google get their content again? :-)

  • Sebastien Monnier

    Indeed, Google Serp are, by definition, scraped content organized in a certain way. This is spam…. if it makes it to the index. However, Google blocks his own search results from being crawler by other robots such as Microsoft’s …

  • http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com/ mvandemar

    So the fact that you quoted Matt in this article makes you a spammer…? I call bs on this, there is so much regurgitated crap in the top 10 for news sites that he must have forgotten to include the “if you are a smaller website” bit to the equation.

  • Travis Prebble

    Quoting somebody in a larger article and just wholesale copying a portion of somebody else’s work as the only content on a page are a bit different.

  • J_Boch

    So all the algorithmic scraping the knowledge graph and carousel do, without providing unique content or insight, combined with the recent lack of sourcing except to more Google properties is probably a bad example. Right Matt?

  • Durant Imboden

    Yes, it’s a bad example, because Google doesn’t rank its search results on its SERPs.

    Another difference is that the stitchers don’t honor robots.txt.

  • Yves Brunner

    Is there any Information if posting videos has the same effect?

  • Zach Griffith

    I don’t think they are blocking crawlers based solely on spam prevention. They are blocking them to keep them from leveraging the data that Google takes from us.

    How about Google News? It’s nothing but content from other sources that makes the index.

  • Sebastien Monnier

    Same for Google News. Nothing is indexed but the home page and original content… https://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.google.com

  • http://www.roytheking.jigsy.com/ Rohit

    Thanks for this great video, I am trying my best to write article accounting to Google webmaster guidelines.

  • Sean Van Guilder

    Guess this doesn’t apply to news sites? And on a completely left-field note, his shirt in the video is ironic. Really? We (heart) Webmasters. Prove it through actions not words ;)

  • Zach Griffith
  • Dan Patrick

    Good lord. I feel like everything out of his mouth these days should be renamed “Common Sense with Matt Cutts”

  • Salman Merchant

    Preach Zach!

  • Marketing MadEZ

    Does Stitching mean copyright infrigement? Because that will be a more serious problem than being considered as spam

  • J_Boch

    How is it a bad example? When Yahoo! starts to see large chunks of its Data used in Google to power Google properties without sourcing or credit, what do you think they will call it?

    How is it not spam if Google does it, but it is spam according to Matt if someone else does it? Spam is spam. If your case is that since Google makes its own rules, its free to break them without consequence, fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still hypocritical and setting a poor ‘example’ of what to do.

    Lastly, if I have to ban Google from my site with Robots.txt to prevent them from using the data without sourcing, how is that a “Good” example? Certainly Google has more honor then the worst of thieves but that’s hardly setting a good example.

  • Durant Imboden

    The “Knowledge Graph” information that I see has attribution, but that’s really beside the point, since facts aren’t subject to copyright.

    Do you really fail to see the difference between a search engine and a “content stitcher”? As for robots.txt, it’s been around for nearly 20 years, so any site owner who hasn’t heard of it–and who doesn’t know how to use it–has only his or her ignorance to blame.

  • daveintheuk

    Is he completely blind to what Google do? I know he views the company that made him a multi-millionaire through some rather strong rose-tinted spectacles – but even he must recognise how “their” “content” in Knowledge Graph and alike gets there (and is spared the likes of Panda).

    Which is it Matt – are you naive or a hypocrite?

  • http://www.nomorepencils.com/ David Bennett

    It all makes sense, and pretty obviously so. I am not sure that Matt helped himself by choosing Wikipedia as a good example of good practice and ‘synthesising’, though… and from the look on his face, I think he had doubts about the wisdom of using that particular site to illustrate his point.

  • http://creativerty.com/ Rob jH

    Another example of do what we say not as we do…

  • http://www.clickfire.com/ Emory Rowland

    Then stop letting stitchers and scrapers show up in SERPs instead of the original content owners!

  • http://www.internalsoul.com/ Souvik Mallick

    Why do i always have the feeling that he always pick the most easy to answer questions and the answer is known to all webmasters except newbies. check his last few videos..”blog comments”, “difference between strong and b tags” “limit of links a site have” etc etc. Seriously matt, you guys should improve your search results.

  • http://www.swordandthescript.com/ Frank Strong

    I wonder if Matt realizes how much hard work goes into a solid round up post. One post with great links is invaluable. And they are not easy to write. The good ones anyway.

  • http://www.legalmorning.com/ Michael Wood

    Matt actually said that Yahoo “hated this technique” and considered that “spam.”

    Really? Why would he even mention Yahoo?

  • http://www.successstories.co.in/ Mousumi Saha Kumar

    Content scrapers have already been punished hard! So next I can’t even go ahead and quote some great people, texts, excerpts and dialogues. Great job indeed!

  • http://devurls.co/ devurls

    I think all he’s saying is, don’t let quotes from other sites be the bulk of your content…

  • http://devurls.co/ devurls

    I think he’s obligated to pretend to be naive at times, it only makes sense for there to be some mystery behind SEO.

  • http://devurls.co/ devurls

    I think Matt needs to go to acting school now…

  • http://devurls.co/ devurls

    I’m sure you can, just don’t let it be the majority of your post / article.

  • Dave

    What NBC News is doing is also known as content stitching as per Matt Cutts Video:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/while-amazon-eyes-drones-google-puts-money-robots-2D11692108

    It has just linked the original news publisher http://www.nytimes.com as a reference.

    Is Google going to penalize NBC News? One could like Durant Imboden would argue this as a single post. But NBC site is not a collection of few hundred pages. If they copy one news a day from other source, then they would have several hundred or thousands pages that are stitching content.

  • Ria Parish

    So… for example, would this article about stitching content be considered as “stitching content”? Or am I mistaken?

  • Russ

    Why is this news? Hasn’t this been obvious for, oh, I don’t know, 5 years or so?

  • Michael Davis

    This is silly. If you scrape content you’re not providing value and you shouldn’t rank well for it. How is that difficult to understand? For God’s sake, there are people that will write articles for $20. Just pay someone and have them write good content. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be all that good to rank well.

    This seems like such a no brainer.

  • http://livebusinessworld.wordpress.com/ Mark Hauri

    Travis Prebble has correctly pins the point that Matt Cutts want to say. As Matt Cutts already have mentioned the example of Wikipedia’s citation. If you do copy paste the paras from various other website and haven’t added your own creation that will not make a sense. When you are writing about a topic and when ever you require to quote any one this will ok.

  • http://scottpdailey.com/ Scott P Dailey

    Wow SEL, I can’t stop tweeting your articles this morning. I’m getting self-conscious, like I’m gushing or something. But really, wow! Cars in the Knowledge Graph, SERPs include Android apps and the validation that stitching content doesn’t add value — all great morning reads. This post doesn’t add value according to the commenting gods, but it’ll have to do. So Kudos. Terrific reporting this morning.

  • http://www.kasyallen.com/ Kasy Allen

    There are soooo many large companies that do this – ehum Apple Hot News.

  • J_Boch

    I think you’re stepping away from the subject of the debate. It is not whither it is legal, its whither the ideology of Matt’s words conflict with the practices of Google. I already agreed with you that Google is perfectly in their right to set up a double standard, legal or otherwise, I just believe it’s terribly hypocritical.

    And yes I know the difference between a search engine and a content stitcher, however I think you fail to see the differences were never that far apart and now Google is blurring that line further as the bots become better adept at distilling content. Anyone have any guesses on how long till the Googlebots learn to re-spin quoted text and pass it off as ‘unique content’?

    Lastly, I am amused by your all or nothing defense of Google, because at some point I do think people really will grab that Robots.txt, take their ball and their data, and go home.

    This maybe a bit off topic, but I do believe that as the number and vagueness of algorithmic penalties increase, combined with Google’s transition from partner to competition who uses your own data against you, the worm could begin to turn for Google.

  • Durant Imboden

    OK, let’s accept your premise that Google is “blurring the lines” between “search engine and “content stitcher.” Using that argument, there’s even more justification for Google to downrank other “content stitcher” sites, because there’s little value to the searchers in being sent from one “content stitcher” site to another. In terms of the user experience, it makes far more sense for a “content stitcher” site to send searchers to original sources.

    But why waste any more time on academic arguments? We all know what Matt Cutts was discussing, and most of us understand that–from a searcher’s perspective–there’s a huge difference between Google’s “Knowledge Graph” or “Carousel” and the “content stitcher” sites that Matt Cutts described in his video. Is there a groundswell of demand from *searchers* for Google to dump the Knowledge Graph or Carousel? Given the fact that Google is a data-driven company that relies heavily on tracking and testing, I’m inclined to doubt it.

    (BTW, I’m not engaging in an “all or nothing defense of Google,” I’m merely using common sense. And I’ll add that I don’t especially like the Knowledge Graph and Carousel myself, any more than I like the many other features that make Google’s SERPs look like a dog’s dinner these days.)

  • Dan Thies

    I think I’m going to enjoy the irony of this for a very long time. If
    “taking snippets of content from other websites and pasting them on
    your own site, with citations” is bad, I assume that “sticking a bunch
    of ads on your scraped content” would make it extra bad. Unless you’re
    Google. Then it’s 2/3 of your business model.

  • Dan Thies

    Google’s Bible: We Love Webmasters. Sounds nice until you realize the horrible truth: “it’s a cookbook!”

  • Saroj Naagar

    Ya……..this is right, I am also agreed with this post.

  • http://www.successstories.co.in/ Mousumi Saha Kumar

    Thanks!
    Well, I run a blog on motivation and self-improvement and often have to quote people. I have never been penalized by Google as of now and hope it never happens in future. Great to know that one or two quotes in a post do not cause much harm :-)

  • J_Boch

    But they AREN’T sending people to the original source, except in circumstances where they use a direct quote, and that’s my problem. All the information links simply move you to another Knowledge Graph where more information is culled from someone else with Google masquerading as the source.

    You think Ford, or Chevy, or Yahoo! Cars or Cars.com would like some of the credit for finding, organizing, or even out and out creating this content? When the carousel is up, they won’t even make it above the fold even at rank 1.

    Now as for Matt, I do think there is confusion on what he said, because what he said can be interpreted very broadly. I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong in select circumstances, but I think this will be one where he might have wished to be a bit more specific.

  • Usman Raza

    Thanks! Matt your video would remove the doubt in mind of many SEO and webmasters,

  • Sweta Srivastava

    HI Matt, Most of the website that are coming in top 10 position, are using loads of link building techniques, And the who are not using these practice never get a chance to rank well.. What do we do in this case???????

  • http://davelucasmobile.wordpress.com/ DaveLucasNotes

    Hmmm… so if I want to post a snippet of work, just do a “PrintScreen” and paste into MsPaint, then cut out the text and post as an image?

  • http://www.weboutsourcing-gateway.com/ Web Outsourcing Gateway

    Hi Russ. I guess this is news because finally, Google’s Search Spam Head pointed it out compared to the previous videos which holds the necessity for Content Uniqueness. Content scrapers clearly weren’t afraid to stitch contents from different sources because they thought they could get away with it.

  • http://marijuanagames.org Russ Hudson

    Lol, just because Matt Cutts said it doesn’t make it news. Myself and many other good internet marketers/SEOs were well aware of this obvious, “duh” truth years ago. Anyone who thinks this is news or needed this article to tell them that content scraping is bad needs to have their head – and possibly their motives – examined.

  • http://marijuanagames.org Russ Hudson

    Beautiful point.

  • Alishan Patel

    Yeah! it help me a lot it cleared all the doubt that i had in my mind..