Blogging | Forum « Content Creation vs. Content Curation

Content Creation vs. Content Curation (6 posts)

Topic tags: content marketing

Paul Wylie said
11 months ago:
Content creation vs. content curation has become a controversial subject at where I work. I hope my estimable colleagues can help out here.

Recently, we had a problem with content writers plagiarized content. After, running it through copyscape the aforementioned article where detected. Currently, we have set the bar at 85% content be authenticate.

However, with content curation citing sources is a given however, how much content taken from an original article and pasted into a post even in blockquotes is allowed?
Does, anyone have a good contributor author guideline they want to share?
@ptwylie | # | Top
Kristi Hines said
10 months, 4 weeks ago:
@ptwylie I only take original content from my guest authors – if I search for it and find it has been published elsewhere, I reject it.
As far as content curation, I would take a piece like “Top 20 Posts on ___” where they linked to another post and summarized it with a couple of sentences as to why it’s a great article. If it’s just a paragraph from one article and a link, however, it’s really not that great content.
I only say that because I subscribe to a few blogs that mix in a great, original article with an article that just pulls a paragraph from someone else and link. I’m always frustrated when I hit the latter.
@kristi-hines | # | Top
Paul Wylie said
10 months, 4 weeks ago:
@kristi-hines thank you Kristi for your insight! I tend to agree with you nothing frustrates me more than to see a a couple of copied paragraphs and a link back to an original article. Looks like some machine driven crap.
I think taking someones point of view and adding value to it whether it is a different slant or build value by adding to it thus broadening the perspective is quite another thing and is quite acceptable. I do like the idea of “The Top 20 Posts of xxxxxxx.
@ptwylie | # | Top
Paul Wylie said
10 months, 4 weeks ago:
@kristi-hines thank you Kristi for your insight! I tend to agree with you nothing frustrates me more than to see a a couple of copied paragraphs and a link back to an original article. Looks like some machine driven crap.
I think taking someones point of view and adding value to it whether it is a different slant or build value by adding to it thus broadening the perspective is quite another thing and is quite acceptable. I do like the idea of “The Top 20 Posts of xxxxxxx.
@ptwylie | # | Top
Kristi Hines said
10 months, 4 weeks ago:
@ptwylie Occasionally, it’s definitely not a bad thing, especially if you are extending the original article’s point of view or adding to the ideas in it. There’s one blog that I came across that came up with even craftier titles than the original, but then every article was just a quoted paragraph and link elsewhere. Sadly, it was a business.
@kristi-hines | # | Top
Sam Scholfield said
10 months, 3 weeks ago:
I’m in favour of original content. However taking quotes or arguing against a post is certainly acceptable.
If your post is a direct copy of another post, you will actually damage both your own website and their website in the search rankings – Google will penalise duplicate content. Therefore you should avoid using any more than quotes in your articles.
I think your 85% original content rule should be fine.Sam
@samscholfield | # | Top
Don Sturgill said
10 months, 3 weeks ago:
United States copyright law says, “Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.”
God only knows what Google says.
@roadturn | # | Top