Is Google Really a Glorified Scraper Website?

Do you remember when the Panda algorithm was released by Google? This began the time of penalties designed to eliminate the scraper websites that would steal content from one website in order to use it on their own. This is a discouraged practice mainly due to the fact that these scraper websites would be found ranked higher than the site where the original content was published. Working with search engine optimization services USA is a great way to get a website noticed by this powerful search engine.

Since these penalties were first introduced, it has been made abundantly clear that if you publish duplicate content on your site then you are going to feel the wrath of the all-mighty Google.

Now, the confusing part of the puzzle is introduced. Since Google is so against the scraper websites and telling everyone not to engage in these practices, why is Google, itself, doing this? Which leads to the bigger question of, Is Google a Scraper website?

For example, if you search the term “search engine marketing” the definition displayed by Google (claimed by Google) is actually the exact same information found on Wikipedia. Not only is this copied content, it is also at a higher rank than Wikipedia, which is the original content author. Now the question is – how is this different than what Google has begun penalizing other sites for?

Some could say that Google is providing attribution when it is due, but this is not a very strong argument. Any other website would be penalized for posting duplicate content, even if they provide attribution, but the fact remains, they are still publishing this duplicate content. Google is doing the exact same thing; however, there is just no one that is holding them accountable.

The Argument of User Experience

Content that is taken from other websites is beginning to become more and more prominent as Google is increasing the number of web definitions, knowledge graph answers and direct answers in their search engine results.

In the eyes of Google, this is the best way to provide more relevant results for users. Also, to be fair, this is an argument that offers some validity. There are some searchers who are just seeking a quick answer, and this method of presenting the answers is much more convenient than having to click links and read to find the information that is needed.

While validated (somewhat) this is still a bit hypocritical. This user experience argument is a self-serving and convenient excuse that is allowing Google to basically say it’s completely ok for us, but not any other sites. While this information is beneficial for users, it is still scraped content – and Google is in the business of penalizing scraped content.