Article Submissions Are Worthless For SEO in Google?

JackPowers · 12-01-2009, 08:27 AM

I'd like your opinion on this?

My experience with a few sites tells me that article marketing isn't an effective method for ranking better in Google. Actually I think the SEO effect from Web 2.0 is negligent as well. I've found the Web 2.0 to outrank my own sites without any promotion.

Why do I think this?

Because after a few months and around 100 articles across the top 10 article directories, my one site is ranking in the top 3 in both Bing and Yahoo, while ranking 11 in Google.

To add to this, a competing website that is younger than mine (only 4 months old) takes up the 5'th spot with basically only ONE link (a sitewide link from a high pr blog).

It's only after I began doing some high pr forum profile linking that I am seeing results.

My basic conclusion is that article submission for backlinking is near worthless in the long run with Google, as is Web 2.0, low pr blogs etc, while Yahoo and Bing seem to be more about the number of backlinks.

I wonder if Google is still mainly about getting (real) high PR links. From what I have read and from my own experience it would seem that way. And the logical conclusion would be, if maybe it wouldn't be better to just shell out $50 or so for a real high pr link, instead of wasting hours making them yourself. Then do some blog commenting for variety.

What do you think?

Cristian Lungu · 12-01-2009, 08:50 AM

Let's not forget that SEO is all about "tricking" SEs that we simply run websites, with no intention in improving its rankings artificially. From this stand point is logical for Google to dis consider backlinks that are obviously self built.

Web 2.0. are notorious for their low ranking power. Still, along with article submission they are a well respected source of referral traffic.

paulgl · 12-01-2009, 09:24 AM

I may be in the minority, but I think article submitting is so 2008.
Fresh, good, interesting, quality, usable content on your own
domain is the way to go. Google has always evolved. When people
started to spam links, google conned website owners into the nofollow
tag. When people started to just spin useless article after useless
article, (and EZA is full of crap) google probably did something internally
with those as well.

Paul

bigcat1967 · 12-01-2009, 09:25 AM

I hear both of ya and I agree. I've seen it before that an article of mine that I posted on EZA outranks my own site.

I also have found that low profile web 2.0 props really don't give that much juice to my sites. What I've been finding is sig links from high profile forums help.

12-01-2009, 08:27 AM	#1
JackPowers Freeman War Room Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 740 Thanks: 85 Thanked 99 Times in 74 Posts	Article Submissions Are Worthless For SEO in Google? I'd like your opinion on this? My experience with a few sites tells me that article marketing isn't an effective method for ranking better in Google. Actually I think the SEO effect from Web 2.0 is negligent as well. I've found the Web 2.0 to outrank my own sites without any promotion. Why do I think this? Because after a few months and around 100 articles across the top 10 article directories, my one site is ranking in the top 3 in both Bing and Yahoo, while ranking 11 in Google. To add to this, a competing website that is younger than mine (only 4 months old) takes up the 5'th spot with basically only ONE link (a sitewide link from a high pr blog). It's only after I began doing some high pr forum profile linking that I am seeing results. My basic conclusion is that article submission for backlinking is near worthless in the long run with Google, as is Web 2.0, low pr blogs etc, while Yahoo and Bing seem to be more about the number of backlinks. I wonder if Google is still mainly about getting (real) high PR links. From what I have read and from my own experience it would seem that way. And the logical conclusion would be, if maybe it wouldn't be better to just shell out $50 or so for a real high pr link, instead of wasting hours making them yourself. Then do some blog commenting for variety. What do you think?

12-01-2009, 08:50 AM	#2
Cristian Lungu Cristian Lungu Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Romania Posts: 24 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Social Networking	Re: Article Submissions Are Worthless For SEO in Google? Let's not forget that SEO is all about "tricking" SEs that we simply run websites, with no intention in improving its rankings artificially. From this stand point is logical for Google to dis consider backlinks that are obviously self built. Web 2.0. are notorious for their low ranking power. Still, along with article submission they are a well respected source of referral traffic.
	TopNotch Tips for Generating Traffic to Your Online Business - back on my blog

12-01-2009, 09:24 AM	#3
paulgl Plundering the Web War Room Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: , , . Posts: 4,847 Thanks: 803 Thanked 1,199 Times in 886 Posts	Re: Article Submissions Are Worthless For SEO in Google? I may be in the minority, but I think article submitting is so 2008. Fresh, good, interesting, quality, usable content on your own domain is the way to go. Google has always evolved. When people started to spam links, google conned website owners into the nofollow tag. When people started to just spin useless article after useless article, (and EZA is full of crap) google probably did something internally with those as well. Paul
	How to Make Money off Facebook: Login to your account. Deactivate your account. Get your butt to work.

12-01-2009, 09:25 AM	#4
bigcat1967 Senior Warrior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,259 Thanks: 21 Thanked 54 Times in 52 Posts	Re: Article Submissions Are Worthless For SEO in Google? I hear both of ya and I agree. I've seen it before that an article of mine that I posted on EZA outranks my own site. I also have found that low profile web 2.0 props really don't give that much juice to my sites. What I've been finding is sig links from high profile forums help.
	Massage Chair Philadelphia Lake Erie Fishing Charter