Open the imported story, note the date it displays and any canonical link to an original source, then open that source and compare the wording. If the same article appears in both places, count it as one documented source with an earlier origin date, not as two independent publications. If the source cannot be opened or the match is unclear, record that limit and make no claim about plagiarism or earlier platform activity.
Find public social profile clues with our TraceSeek app.
What the import actually does
Medium's import tool backdates a post to its original publication date and adds a canonical link to the original source. That means the date shown on an imported story may describe when the work was first published elsewhere, not when it appeared on the platform. The importer also allows edits before publication, so the imported text is not guaranteed to be a byte-for-byte copy of the original. [Medium: imported stories and original dates]
Record the four comparison points
For a useful comparison, write down what you can actually observe: the imported story's displayed date, the named original's own publication date, the exact passages that share wording, and the source link as stated on the story. Keep these as observations, separate from any judgment. Shared sentences alone do not establish that two pages are the same work. Use the stated import relationship and the overall article comparison before grouping the pair.
- Copy the displayed dates and the shared passage into a plain notes file
- Open the named original only if it is publicly reachable without credentials
- Group the pair only when the stated import relationship and article comparison support it
| observation | limit | next step |
|---|---|---|
| Imported story shows an earlier date than its platform appearance | Backdating reflects the original publication date; it does not show when the account first became active | Write the date down as the work's stated origin, not as account history |
| Both pages share the same passage | Matching passages require the documented import relationship and broader context before grouping | Group the pair under one source entry and count one supporting clue |
| A source link is stated on the story | The link may not open, may differ from the visible date, or may point somewhere ambiguous | Open it if public; otherwise record the link as stated and stop |
Grouping the pair instead of double-counting
A later platform appearance and the named original are the same article in two places. Treat them as one documented import with a source, and lower any impression that the story received two separate endorsements or was independently published twice. Where a documented import differs, record the changes; do not assume that every similar page is the same work. [Medium: imported stories and original dates]
What a repeated article does not show
A repeated article alone does not establish plagiarism, intent, authorship disputes or earlier activity on the platform. An imported date is not evidence that the account was active on the platform at that time. The comparison shows that a work appears in two places with a stated origin date; everything beyond that is inference and should stay labeled as such. [Medium: imported stories and original dates]
When the source is missing or ambiguous
If the named original is absent, private, mismatched or unclear, record that precise limit and stop. Do not try to reach the original through private access, and do not substitute guesses about who wrote the article first. A hypothetical example: a story dated three years back states a source link that does not resolve; the correct entry is "imported date stated, original unreachable, match unverified," with no further conclusion.
- State the exact reason the comparison stopped: absent, private, mismatched or ambiguous
- Do not escalate to identity, authorship or intent claims from an incomplete pair
Turning the comparison into a short note
Keep the note to the observable facts and one grouping decision. This keeps the work origin separate from the platform appearance, and it protects later readers of your note from mistaking one article for two agreeing sources.
- Row one: work title and the imported story's displayed date
- Row two: the named original and its stated date, or the reason it could not be checked
- Row three: the shared passage, quoted briefly
- Row four: the stated source link, marked reachable or not checked
- Closing line: one source, one documented import
A couple more questions
Does an early date on an imported story prove the account was active then?
No. The importer backdates a post to its original publication date, which describes the work's origin rather than the account's activity history.
Should a repeated article count as two independent clues?
A documented import and its named original are dependent sources. Confirm that relationship and compare the article as a whole; matching a short passage alone is insufficient.
What if the source link on the story does not open?
Record that the original was unreachable or ambiguous and stop. Do not seek private access or infer who published first.
Can a short comparison show plagiarism?
No. Shared wording may indicate reuse but does not settle the relationship between two works, permission or intent. Record the documented import relationship where available and leave unsupported plagiarism claims out of the note.
Sources & editorial notes
Official references checked on October 24, 2026. Checklists, comparison tables and example wording are DateClues editorial tools, not official tests or validated risk scores.
General information. No guide or tool can certify a person’s identity, intentions or safety. Read our editorial standards.