How To Build Links With Free Expired Content
Find Content Through Expiring Domain Auctions.
My favorite way to find potential content to re-use is to checkout expiring domain auctions at GoDaddy Auctions. You want to first go to their “advanced” search on the right side of the screen and click on the “keywords” tab. At this point change the first drop down to “contains” and add your sites topic below. What this will do is narrow down the list of expired domains to ones that include your keyword in the URL. Finally you will want to scroll down to the “Type” tab in the advanced form and click on “Expiring Domains”. Then go ahead and click “Search”.
To illustrate this technique I will use the finance niche for my example. Starting with the screen shot to the right you will see that I added “finance” to the keywords tab and clicked on the expired domains. After hitting the “search” button you will see the following results.
Pro-Tip: Sort the list by 100 results and even by traffic/price to help find quality sites.
Search For Quality Sites & Utilize Archive.org.
Here is where you will likely spend most of your time executing this technique. You will want to visually look for domains that are of quality. You may even want to sort the domains by bids, traffic or valuation. At this point you will want to copy the domain URL and open it up in another tab. 99% of the time you will land on a parked / this domain will expire Go Daddy page. What you want to do here is click on the Archive.org button on the SEOBook toolbar or manually add the domain to the search field on the way back machine at archive.org.
Continuing with my finance example I sifted through the list of sites that were displayed and found toptenfinance.com. After plugging this URL into the way back machine at archive.org I saw that this site was first registered in 2001 and that this site has been crawled many times.
Clicking on the December 1st date I was taken back to the record of the website. From here I was able to navigate to the “articles” section of this website and gain access to all the unique articles that this website had published way back in 2008. This is exactly what your looking for.
From the main articles pages I was able to dig through and find some really good content pieces that are no longer live on the web and is fresh for the picking. For instance this post on mortgage loan finance ideas:
Avoiding Duplicate Content & Maximizing Value.
So by now half you reading this post are shaking your head ready to rip me to shreds in the comments. For the rest of you salivating at this opportunity keep on reading. The first concern with re-purposing this content is to make sure that Google doesn’t already have it in their index. Depending on how long the site has been down will increase your chances of it currently being indexed. The best way to check whether or not its been indexed is to copy the first 3 or 4 lines of the article and search for it in Google with quotes. With the example shown above Google currently has the page indexed but it will likely fall out of the index quickly as its already cached with the GoDaddy expiring domain page.
Since Google has already cached the GoDaddy landing page its only a matter of time before they remove the old page from the index. At this point the content is free for you to use. Once the old content is removed from Google and you publish it on your site it will be completely unique to your domain. It’s important that you wait until the old page falls out of the index as you want to make sure your domain is the only one that is publishing and getting credit for the content. If you did a Google search for the first couple sentences and nothing came back in the search results you are free to publish it right now!
Is This Technique “Wrong” / Advanced Link Building
This is a technique that you have to decide whether or not your comfortable with. People can argue copyright and such so you might want to be careful where you lift the content. If you are questioning this technique because you simply don’t want to take the risk of re-hosting this content on your own website I have the perfect solution for you. GUEST BLOG IT OUT! It’s not difficult to find guest blog opportunities. In fact a simple search for Finance+”Write For Us” returned over 1,700,00 results.
Do you think one of these websites would be willing to accept this content as a guest post which would include a link pointing back to your website? Be creative people – don’t let others convince you that you have to work hard to build links. You just have to work smart!
Now here is the part where the people screaming ethics and morals get to respond in the comments below.
Surprised you gave this away.
Yeah – I was hesitant to be honest.
There has been speculation for a few years that Google can, and probably does, devalue links pointing to domains that have expired and then have been re-registered where the content from the original site has changed significantly. I’ve never actually tested this theory, but it would make a good post if someone did;)
Also, that would not dissuade me from registering domains that might send $9.99 worth of targeted traffic per year from links on quality sites:)
James, I agree that re-registering a domain name can risk Google devaluing the original value. That’s why this technique avoids that strategy all together and makes the most value by leveraging its expired content. It’s a win/win.
“At this point the content is free for you to use.”
Actually, it’s not, Nick. It’s theft, plain and simple. Taking something that someone else has created and using it without permission is theft. That’s inarguable. You didn’t write it – you don’t own it. It would be like me saying, “Nick built this awesome doghouse, but now that he’s put it in storage, I can go into his garage and take it.” Pretty sure you’d accuse me of a crime.
But really, the bigger issue for me is this: In the time that it sounds like it takes to go through all of those steps to find someone else’s article on some expired domain that might or might not be available on Archive.org, I can probably write 4-5 original articles that will be better than the one you’re stealing.
Hey Matt, thanks for stopping by. I expect a lot of people to respond in this fashion. Let me ask you a question. If I built a dog house, later purchased a better one and put the old one out to the trash to get taken away would you consider picking it up and bringing it home if you happen to need a dog house? It’s simply utilizing someone elses trash. How is it any different then a website going away forever?
Your other point about time is vary valid. however If you can find a site that has 20 articles you can use then I may argue the value.
Nick, the difference is that you don’t know why the old owner decided not to keep the site up. You can’t just assume the content is ‘trash’. They may have decided they no longer wanted their content online – or they were preparing (badly) to launch a new website on a different domain.
Ultimately, it’s their IP and by using it without their authority your infringing their copyright. Whilst the risks are low, I wouldn’t want to explain to a client why they’re being sued because I stole content from another site.
James, I certainly wouldn’t use this technique on a clients website. There are better ways to spend your time and typically a budget to work with to achieve better results.
This technique isn’t for everyone and certainly is a stretch in the morals department. Just depends what your risk tolerance is.
Sorry Matt, but I don’t see it like that.
It’s more like someone leaving an old doghouse on the curb, waiting for it to be picked up for trash. Sure, if someone took it, they could argue it was theirs, but it’s not exactly a valid argument.
I’m not in favor of this tactic, but it’s not as bad as outright stealing something for someone. If they won’t even pay the $10 a year to have the domain, then they could probably care less what happens to their content. Besides, websites are public, and so is their content, so if you don’t want your content reused (whether done legally or illegally), don’t put it up on the internet.
Hey Jon – Always fun to read your two cents.
I tend to agree with your thoughts as well. Unless the content was linked to by a lot of websites (which then I would convince them all to change their links) I wouldn’t regularly post it on my site.
Worse case scenario content like this can always be used for article directories which can be good for diversifying your link portfolio.
I agree with Matt McGee. It’s a great idea, but it’s not your content. Which is why I don’t do it.
that’s definitely a “safe” decision to make
Nice.
You can also use this content as feeder for posting to blog networks.
That’s absolutely an option. Posting to your website is only valuable if its quality content.
I personally find this tactic a little close to the darker shades of grey for me but if you are concerned with copyright infringement you could argue the content is being used under the terms of fair use especially if
a) the content is used for a non-commercial website
b) it could be stated you had provided information that was of use
c) you had done so in good faith & attempted to notify the copyright holder
Good points Chris! I think you definitely have to be smart where you decide to lift content. Taking old article posts from a college kids blog and a fortune 500 company could result in two different types of penalties. ‘Gotta be smart.
Ignoring the ethical argument here, be VERY careful using this tactic. The content on expiring/expired domains is still the property of the people who wrote it. So you ARE stealing, whether you see it that way or not. That’s the law.
Not dissing the thinking that went into this, Nick – this is really clever, and well thought-out. Just really, really be careful if you use these kinds of techniques.
I suppose if you want to get real dirty you could always spin the article before publishing… Thanks for commenting Ian!
I believe this to be one of my tactics and I hate you for posting it live on here! lol I have a tendency to buy out “trashy low life” blogs or sites that just didnt cut it because they linked out dramatically and just use the content to my advantage.
If I buy the domain, I see it to be way less of a risk because you could just fight the idea of buying “all” of the content that came with an EXPIRING domain. If you stick with certain sites, you will never hurt a fly.
“Grandma’s tricks on creating a Quilt”…. OH MY .. DONT SUE ME!
By the way, I do SEO in Minnesota here too and love your blog, but you need more posts! and don’t give out tricks like these dude. Things like this cut the difference between being a link Jesus Vs a Struggling Blogger.
Glad you enjoyed the post and I knew someone wouldn’t like me giving this info out.
I agree that buying the domain makes this technique look less shady. However, that wouldn’t make this technique FREE then huh?
Obviously, the content is not for you,Nick, to use. If the domain is expired, then it is obvious the contents is already crawled by Google spiders already. Feels like you are opt to use black hat in this method.
Matt McGee and many people in western country thought it was no good to use this tactic. In our Country, we use the content which is not indexed by baidu yet which i think it is no good. =) Don’t come to China, like google…
This is something I’ve been thinking about lately. Are you sure that google won’t penalize you for duplicate content even if that content gets deindexed? I think a better approach is to buy that expiring domain 301 redirect it to your main site and then reuse the content. google will think the site moved to a new domain and you get fresh content.
That is the best idea i been looking for.I am very agree on it.Currently that’s what i did in my client website. We redirect 301 which is legitimate and Google approved.That was because when http://www.tank-prints.com hit by penguin update of Google algorithm. Now we purchased a new domain which is tankprints.com but still in the same content.Now i did the Offpage optimization,and the keywords are in good ranking in Google.
Bytheway… Iam not really agree on getting a content on expired website. I think you can get a content from it but try do a little spun article on it so that it was not really look duplicated.
“At this point the content is free for you to use.”
How you could possibly conclude that is a complete mystery?, but most importantly, for anyone who happens to be reading this, 100% wrong.
I’ll explain:
If Mr. Bill leases the domain name greenpantsDOTcom, and has leased content from 3rd party affiliates (who own the Intellectual Property Rights) to exploit on his website, Mr. Bill does not own the content he is leasing, the domain name does not own the content, the rightful owner(s) that have leased Mr. Bill the material’s remain the rightful owners of all Rights thereon; these rights include the publicity rights, (the Rights required to make “Public Performance(s) of the “Works”.) the limited Rights Mr. Bill legally leased.
Mr. Bill has a legal agreement to make “Uses” of the Works, and to make public performances of the Works, because Go-Daddy leased him the domain name Go-Daddy has no legal Rights to Use the Works, the Internet Archive certainly DOES NOT because they managed to (illegally I might add) crawl, copy, store, and make available to the public the content on the website including the Works, and Nick you have absolutely NO LEGAL rights to Use Copyright Protected Works without express consent of the Rightful owner of the Works.
Contrary to your statement: “At this point the content is free for you to use.”, the reality is, at this point the Works remain Copyright Protected, and anyone making public Uses of the Works, whether for non-commercial and or non-profit, is in violation of someone’s Copyright.
What does an expired domain name have to do with the Intellectual Property Rights on the Works that were displayed on that expired website? Copyrights last for at least 50 years, how did you conclude the Copyrights have expired?, are the domain names you seek out and copy from the 1960′s?
“fair use especially if
a) the content is used for a non-commercial website
b) it could be stated you had provided information that was of use
c) you had done so in good faith & attempted to notify the copyright holder”
First off, “Fair-use” only applies to the American Copyright Act, should a Canadian copyright owner pursue legal actions the Canadian Copyright Act applies and there is no “fair-use” clause to argue.
(And not all content can be argued as “fair-use”.)
A commercial vs non-commercial website helps in determining damages, it does not prevent legal recourse for the Copyright owner.
“you had done so in good faith & attempted to notify the copyright holder”
Ignorance will be of no use with a “good faith” plea, the “good faith” is a reference applied to the individuals base of knowledge, not the individual’s complete lack of it.
If the individual has no idea what they’re doing, how could they possibly be doing it in good faith?
An “attempt” to contact the owner?, if you got no reply that’s the answer, move on to different content, it’s a foolish idea to think a legal board would agree that due to the fact no response was received ownership or user rights can be granted.
Good idea for sure. Seems tough in application though. There are so many domains to search through.
Scraping WayBack,or other Archives for the site, registering its domain, and then “re-launching” it with that original content plus plenty of favorable links is a method that also works nicely. I mean who wouldn’t want their old site hosted for free at the cost of a few outbound links? It’s already being done by all the archivers in the EXACT same fashion(only generating with ads or content instead of, or in addition to links.. disguised as a “service”).
To all of you who are high-horsing about how its not “right” to use this expired content, please don’t tell me you think that WayBack, GArchive and all the others this host old data is for the fun of it… right? Please no… right?
The comments surprised me quite frankly, and I think most people missed the point. The point is NOT to pick up juicy content “free”. The point of the method is to pick up a high quality, high authority, high pagerank LINK, by helping another webmaster out (telling them their link is broken, and giving them the option of linking to your page) — which satisfies their desire to link to a resource for whatever the original link was about).
Come on all you white-hatters out there, can’t you take it one step farther — maybe write some new content about the original subject matter and use that instead of the original? What could be more whitehat than helping someone else fix their broken links and offering them good content to link to while they’re fixing it?
Wow, I can’t believe you would suggest this. Helping yourself to someone else;s written work is absolutely copyright infringement and violation of copyright law.IE – ILLEGAL, BREAKING THE LAW. Its quite interesting that I came across this post, because 6 months ago the attorney for my publisher successfully sued someone who did exactly what you are suggesting with content that I had previously published online – before I was approached by a major publisher to sell them the rights to include the content in several chapters of a book, which they then made me co-author of. Of course, that arrangement required me to take the content and website offline, and since the work was now part of a book, I no longer needed the domain and let it drop. Some wise guy thought he was being real smart, and did exactly what you are proposing – picked up the domain and hunted down the content on wayback, then republished it on the domain. This is STEALING. Just because someone decides to no longer distribute their written work online – or to change the channel of distribution as in my case – they still OWN their work, and the copyright on it does NOT expire. ASK A LAWYER – its plain and simple! Its no different than when a particular book is no longer being sold in book stores because the publisher has decided not to promote it any more. That doesn;t mean the copyright has expired and anyone can then go publish the content and profit by it, just because the book is no longer being made available to the public! Geeez! What are you people thinking?! Please familiarize yourself with what copyright is, how it works – its a legal issue. In my case, my publisher sued the guy who lifted my content for a hefty sum. He pleaded with us to settle out of court, which we agreed to, but he still paid some serious money in damages for his act of theft. He had a network of several sites, and shortly after, they were all dead domains – that one move ultimately wiped him out. This is the problem with the internet enabling anybody and their dog to be “publishers”. Ten years ago you actually had to know something about publishing to be a publisher. Real publishers understood the laws, ethics, proper protocol with regards to other peoples written work, and they certainly understood copyright law. Today, people who really know nothing about publishing, are able to pump out content online and think this makes them publishers. They violate laws, steal, and infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, and never bat an eye – never even realizing what they are doing is wrong and/or illegal because they are so ill informed. Crazy! But ignorance doesn’t make it any less ILLEGAL. And if you are caught stealing content – including spinning it – and someone decides to go after you through the legal channels as my publisher did, you’ll learn some hard lessons very quickly. Very dangerous ground to play on. If you’re going to publish anything online, you really better go and do some reading to understand what copyright really is and how it works. And incidentally, there are many, many reasons why someone may have previously had their material on a website, and then taken it down. They might have plans to relaunch it on another site, turn it into a book, repackage it as a course … the reasons go on and on. Its none of your business that its offline or why – its THEIRS, they own it – you can’t just take it unless you contact them for their express permission, and they will typically charge you a licensing fee for the rights to use it. This argument that if they don’t want their words stolen they should never publish them online in the first place is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard. Is that your attitude towards the content published in books, newspapers, magazines…? Its all available for public consumption just as content on the net is. That doesn’t mean anyone other than the author can use it to profit by without the authors permission.
Hey Jennifer – thanks for dropping by and writing such an extensive response. You definitely bring up a very good point (and example) of the risk associated with this method. I do think there needs to be a certain amount of common sense when participating in this type of technique. There is a difference between good “re-usable” content and researched, well written (and in your case published) content.
This isn’t an attempt to justify the technique any more or less. There is an inherent risk with most online marketing techniques. Each one of us have to decide if the technique is worth the risk. Sounds like the guy your publisher went after paid the price. Though I imagine had he taken proper steps in protecting himself and his “network” as you say it your lawyer would never of been able to prove website ownership.