Google Says It's Possible to Benefit From Them

Google Says It's Possible to Benefit From Them
Chris Crum | Staff Writer

Google Says It's Possible to Benefit From Them

If you write for the web, whether that be on a blog or any other content site, there is a good chance your content has been scraped at some point, if not on a continuous basis. The good news is that it's probably not that big of a deal. At least that is what Google's Matt Cutts imples.

Answering user questions as he so often does, Cutts took on the question, "Is there a way to benefit from content scraped from your site?"

The simple answer to this is yes. You actually may be able to slightly benefit from having your content scraped. According to Cutts, if you make sure the pages on your site have links to you in them, the scrapers may leave the links in and end up linking to you. He says these links can "help you along.

"There are some people who really hate scrapers and try to crack down on them and try to get every single one deleted or kicked off their web host," says Cutts. "I tend to be the sort of person who doesn't really worry about it, because the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, it's going to be you that comes up, not the scraper. If the guy is scraping and scrapes the content that has a link to you, he's linking to you, so worst case, it won't hurt, but in some weird cases, it might actually help a little bit."

»»Have you actually benefited from a content scraper?


It's the same principle that Cutts talked about when talking about having links in low-quality directories. He says Google tries not to score the low-quality directories too high, but it doesn't hurt your site at all for being listed there.

He says that most of the time, you don't really need to worry about scrapers, because they don’t have a large effect in terms of the actual impact on users very often. He does add that if you see a scraper ranking higher than you, you can consider doing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act request (DMCA), or if it's a true spammer (gibberish, etc.) you can go ahead and do a spam report on them.

The Web Weighs In On Twitter's $1 Billion Valuation
Doug Caverly | Staff Writer

The good, the bad, and the funny

We first reported that Twitter was raising funds at a $1 billion valuation eight days ago. Since then, the amount of money Twitter's supposed to be raising has doubled, and more details about who's supplying the cash have surfaced. As you might imagine, all of this has generated quite a lot of discussion.

Below, we'll try to provide a roundup of people's reactions. Fair warning: incredulous takes appear to outweigh supportive ones by a significant margin. And also, in case you've missed all of the big headlines, here are the latest facts as reported by the Wall Street Journal: Twitter is raising $100 million from investors including T. Rowe Price.

What do you think about T. Rowe Price investing in Twitter?


As for responses, Jason Fried's Onion-like comeback is perhaps getting the most attention. In a fake press release, he wrote, "37signals is now a $100 billion dollar company, according to a group of investors who have agreed to purchase 0.000000001% of the company in exchange for $1." The piece has received more than 160 comments, most of which amount to pats on the back.



Then there's the observation of Dan Frommer and Kamelia Angelova to consider. In an article titled "Twitter Raises Cash Pile As Traffic Growth Slows," they noted, "During August, the company attracted 55 million unique visitors (worldwide) to Twitter.com, according to comScore. That's up about 3 million, or 6%, over July. That's solid, but nothing like its go-go month of April, when it grew by 13 million uniques (~70% m/m) or June, when it grew by 7 million uniques (~20% m/m)."

Still, there were some neutral and even positive remarks about the investment round. David Carr just went for a sort of comedic approach with the following tweet: Then Larry Dignan raised a very good point about T. Rowe Price's involvement. "This mutual fund firm, which I know well, isn't exactly a run-and-gun investment house," he wrote. "These folks play long term and tout planning for the long run."

So perhaps Twitter's strategy to make money - which at this point, may consist of selling premium accounts and/or data analytics services, along with introducing ads - is further along than most critics thought. Anyway, we'd be interested to hear your opinions concerning the $1 billion valuation in the comments section.