Article marketers vs backlinkers

[MaverickUK]

Is it just me or does there seem to be a very clear divide amongst article marketers and those of us using article directories as a source of backlinks? The differing views are incredible and I think it's becoming slightly misleading to the newer people to SEO out there.

Sure, there are some that have article marketing work for them and for the others using it as a source of backlinks, work for them. But I think it's unfair to mislead people to believe either of the other is ineffective - in reality, if done correctly, both can work as well as each other.

I'd be interested to hear the views from either side. It has been discussed a lot before but I think it's about time we came to the realisation that both methods work, both methods have people earning lots of money and both can be as effective or ineffective as each other.

If the question; "which is best" was asked, what would be your response and why?

Regards,
Nick.

[AnniePot]

It is a fact that people such as myself who use article marketing as one means of syndication, (I use them in different ways as well), obtain far better backlinks when those articles are picked up and published on context relevant websites, than those on the other side of the fence who use articles for SEO article directory marketing. Articles published on article directories provide pr 0, non-context relevant backlinks, and you will need a thousand or more of them to equal just one backlink created by a syndicated article picked up on a context relevant website.

[drmani]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

But I think it's unfair to mislead people to believe either of the other is ineffective - in reality, if done correctly, both can work as well as each other.

Nick.

This says it all.

"Do both" is the most practical advice that sums it up nicely.

imho

All success
Dr.Mani

[drmani]

Originally Posted by AnniePot

It is a fact that people such as myself who use article marketing as one means of syndication, (I use them in different ways as well), obtain far better backlinks when those articles are picked up and published on context relevant websites, than those on the other side of the fence who use articles for SEO article directory marketing. Articles published on article directories provide pr 0, non-context relevant backlinks, and you will need a thousand or more of them to equal just one backlink created by a syndicated article picked up on a context relevant website.

Annie, this is the over-generalization that had led to so much confusion
on discussions about this topic.

You say you "obtain far better backlinks".

Without knowing WHY someone needs those backlinks, you have NO WAY of
calling them 'better' or 'worse'. Some may want backlinks for traffic.
Others for SEO. Still others for branding. Some for sales.

All backlinks ARE NOT equal.

What you do will be driven by WHY you do it - and by that paradigm, all
techniques have value and effectiveness... when done right!

My 2 cents.

All success
Dr.Mani

[Rach72]

So long as the content that you are providing is good quality and relevant to your site and the sites that you are submitting to, then what is the problem with using a combination of methods?

It is probably fair to say that most backlinks that are done purely for SEO purposes are never seen by a human eye, but why put out cr** just because you can?

[owenlee]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

Is it just me or does there seem to be a very clear divide amongst article marketers and those of us using article directories as a source of backlinks? The differing views are incredible and I think it's becoming slightly misleading to the newer people to SEO out there.

Sure, there are some that have article marketing work for them and for the others using it as a source of backlinks, work for them. But I think it's unfair to mislead people to believe either of the other is ineffective - in reality, if done correctly, both can work as well as each other.

I'd be interested to hear the views from either side. It has been discussed a lot before but I think it's about time we came to the realisation that both methods work, both methods have people earning lots of money and both can be as effective or ineffective as each other.

If the question; "which is best" was asked, what would be your response and why?

Regards,
Nick.

if someone ask me, my replied would be "there is not fixed answers"

i would plan according to what is my aim for my website...to rank in high in search engine or to bring in traffic fast...this 2 looks the same and most of the time they work hand in hand..each have their own advantages...

[suigeneris]

It depends on the purpose of the sight... just a squeeze traffic ok... If I am trying for more of an authority site then those backlinks are invaluable. I've found that when you add quality content good things tend to happen either way... It's hard to resist the temptation to "Just Put Something Out"!

[krtinberg]

I run article marketing campaigns on all my sites and separate back linking campaigns. There both very effective if done properly

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by AnniePot

It is a fact that people such as myself who use article marketing as one means of syndication, (I use them in different ways as well), obtain far better backlinks when those articles are picked up and published on context relevant websites, than those on the other side of the fence who use articles for SEO article directory marketing. Articles published on article directories provide pr 0, non-context relevant backlinks, and you will need a thousand or more of them to equal just one backlink created by a syndicated article picked up on a context relevant website.

Actually, there's no such thing as an absolute "0" web page. 0 is just the closest number the little toolbar displays...

Also, "context" isn't black and white and is many shades of gray. Many folks on this site make it seem as if it's "all or nothing", which couldn't be more inaccurate. There are degrees of contextual relevancy.

The most important "context" is in the anchor text, followed by the words immediately nearest the link, whether the link is clustered or contextual, all of the words and code on a page, pages linked to and from the page, as well as the over-all site. Everyone of these factors plays a part in relevancy and relevancy is NOT only a factor of the entire site.

To claim a link from this Wikipedia page about dog training wouldn't be "contextual relevant" to another page about "dog training just because Wikipedia isn't a niche site is erroneous, to say the least:
Dog training - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition, linking patterns should follow a natural pattern. According to the popular SEO text book "SEO for Dummies" (and me), you want to have more lower value links than high value links for maximum effectiveness.

For example, you should have links from more PR0 pages than PR1 pages, and more links from PR1 than PR2, and so on...

Also, when syndicating articles you have no choice over who picks them up, so claiming all the sites that do republish the articles are "authority/context relevant" sites isn't a valid claim.

And yes, both types of marketing work. I'm still trying to figure out why syndicators are so against submitting their articles to as many directories and Web 2.0 sites as possible? If you truly have good content, why not put it everywhere since the automation tools that exist today can make is very easy?

One will still get any "value" links they would get otherwise, plus a plethora of lower value links to add diversity to the linking profile.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

If the question; "which is best" was asked, what would be your response and why?

Regards,
Nick.

It depends on the person...Some people are simply not good writers. Others hate writing. And others are good writers that love to write.

However, "best" in IM is almost always "both" and not either/or.