Should I drip, or flood articles for SEO.

[Treborrevo]

I've got about 50 articles written and am moving them onto blog. For SEO purposes does it matter if I do one a day - or load 'em as fast as possible over a couple days?

Or should I load them all - and then continue to get an article a day up?

Thanks.

[Jeff Scott]

For our article sites, we prefer the "drip" method as it shows consistent output. If it's a new site, consider "priming the pump" with 10 articles, then do an article every few days (along with RSS submissions). SEO is a long-term game, doing waste all your ammunition in one shot.

Alright, I think I have enough cliches in my reply Any more and that would be the straw that broke the camel's back

[hotftuna]

Agree with Jeff.

Load 10 to start. If you are using WP, you can schedule the remaining 40 to post automatically. I would schedule one each week day- 5 per week. That will give you eight weeks worth of new articles.

[exstatic]

Chuck a few up initially and do the usual rss submissions, sitemaps and social bookmarking, then drip feed your blog every other day with 1-2 articles.

Try and feed backlinks to each of those articles as well.. it all helps

[bgmacaw]

I've run tests with both an immediate upload of up to 100 articles and doing drip feeds. I've seen no difference in the two methods.

[turbohips]

Agreed with bgmacaw. I've done the same and had no noticeable effects either way. Perhaps I ranked faster but not really obvious.

[Fraggler]

Fresh content seems to get an initial boost (as can be seen by people thinking they are in the sandbox when their new page dissappears suddenly) but over the long term I have seen no benefit. You rank pages, not sites, and new content is just another page. Use new links to keep the spiders visiting your site. I believe this will have more positive effect than delaying an article for a day.

[jig]

Why not do drip and just schedule them to publish once a day, or once every 2-3 days? I think that'd prob work out in your best favor, and it gives you more time to create new content to publish as well.

[Fraggler]

The negative for dripping the content is that it takes longer for Google to index the page. There is no point doing it just for the sake of doing it. If it can be proven that slowly adding content will make that page rank higher and faster then go for it (but just typing that sounds stupid).

The reason you would drip feed content to a blog is if you want it to appear to readers that you are writing posts everyday. It makes the site look active.

[sdkWriter]

We have found that by dripping articles on a daily basis consistently over a period of three weeks, google began indexing our new content much quicker. Of course, you need a mechanism to advice google of new content, and if you're using wordpress, many plugins can do that for you.

[Fraggler]

Google will index a site (new page) quicker the older and more established it gets. Is that dripped article being indexed before the time it would have been indexed if it was added to the site at the start? ie, which article gets in the search engine first?

I just made a site with 50 pages in one hit. It took probably 3hours to add them all. They all got indexed within a day of the site being successfully crawled by Google. If I dripped them 1 a day that is nearly 2 months before they are available. I know that my content takes at least 2 months before it really starts to payoff and solidify itself within the top 10.

I think adding fresh content is great but if you already have articles, why hold them back? Write and more content as you need it and get it.