Reposting article at different places

by dcwg
20 replies
I plan on writing a detailed tutorial and posting it on various forums to drive traffic to my website. However, I also want that tutorial to be on my website.

If I do that, will that affect my seo ranking for my website? In terms of seo, can you take the articles you write and post them on different forums to drive traffic to your website and also have it on your website for your own subscribers?
#article #places #reposting #seo
  • Profile picture of the author Edson Buchanan
    My understanding about duplicate content is the same content within your own website. For instance copying a blog post twice as a way to have it crawled twice. I don't think any content outside of your own website would be considered duplicate content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9837362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Monkmoney
    Actually duplicate content on the website and in other places affects seo

    Your forums posts wont be duplicate content against your website unless you have the same tutorial on your website as well and since you do have them on yoursite it can effect the seo I think



    However..what you propose to do is spammy..if you putbit on the forum and its on your website as well, people will not like that and if they see the same content on multiple forums it looks bad on you

    Also its spammy if people feel you are sales pitching them
    Also its spammy if all you put is an article

    The best way for forum marketing is add value and become part of the community with normal conversation, then add your website in your signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9837388].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by dcwg View Post

    I plan on writing a detailed tutorial and posting it on various forums to drive traffic to my website. However, I also want that tutorial to be on my website.

    If I do that, will that affect my seo ranking for my website?
    Yes, it can. In a good way.

    As long as it starts on your website and gets indexed there before being published anywhere else, of course, in accordance with all the principles of content marketing. You need to accumulate the initial indexations for your own site.

    When that happens, Google accredits your website (being the original source) as being the "site from which" content has been syndicated. Naturally enough, that adds authority to your site - both in reality and in their algorithm's view, as well.

    Don't imagine for a moment that "content duplicated across the web" (on different sites) has anything to do with "duplicate content" at all, in this context: that's one of the biggest myths in internet marketing. Google (among other people) go to great lengths to try to clarify this, in every medium available for them to do so, but still many people misunderstand it.

    "Duplicate content" and "syndicated content" are two different things. This post explains it very clearly.

    Originally Posted by dcwg View Post

    In terms of seo, can you take the articles you write and post them on different forums to drive traffic to your website and also have it on your website for your own subscribers?
    Yes, very much so.

    That's closely related to what content marketers/article marketers do, and it can bring us floods of SEO traffic. (Whether the search-engine traffic you get actually has any value to you, or not, is another matter altogether! This isn't the purpose of content syndication at all, of course - it's just a small side-"benefit").

    Here's a one-post overview of "how it works", if it helps you. (I'm talking there about websites in general, rather than about forums specifically, but the principle's exactly the same. Some forums are better for SEO, though, and are indexed much more frequently just because they're such active sites, if that's relevant to you. It isn't, to me.)

    In forums, if you just "post your stuff"/"start threads" rather than helpfully interacting and adding value, it's very easy effectively to be saying to the forum-owner and members: "I'm here primarily to promote myself and my links". Exactly what you might want to avoid, perhaps?

    You can see for yourself, perhaps, even in this limited context, the way that when people do that here, the moderators often (understandably) delete their threads, either because they're related to people's signature-files (i.e. "clearly posted with promotional intent") or because they're "articles"? Forums are not article directories.

    Forum marketing, I think it's fair to say, isn't what it was. The number of people trying to do it is expanding exponentially, and that makes it increasingly difficult. It also makes forum owners increasingly sensitive to "promotionally intended uses of their facilities", and makes them more likely to regard it as a form of "trespass", really.

    The forum marketing I've done, in various niches, over the last 6 years, certainly hasn't become any easier to do. Some niches are better than others, for it. I think anything connected with "IM" itself, or "making money online" must be about the most difficult and least productive, overall, because those seem to be the areas in which the largest numbers of people are trying to do it (and trying in the worst possible ways, typically - which makes forums instinctively hostile to and resentful about it, exactly as you might imagine).

    I don't doubt that adding value is a good approach (it always is, online, in all contexts, really), but there are different ways of doing that.

    Starting conversations yourself, and "bumping your own threads", are good ways to "look suspicious", for the most part, I'd say. I think you're likely to be much more successful by adding value to other people's threads than by starting your own, in general ... and I'd certainly be careful to avoid "obviously bumping" threads you've started "to keep them on the front page": that's not usually going to go down well, in a forum (you certainly wouldn't last long in my forum, if we thought that was your game!).

    (And I wouldn't dream of outsourcing this activity, needless to say.)


    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9837533].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Monkmoney
    Ahh thanks, guess I was wrong!

    But..I still think its spammy unless you first have a relationship in that forum. So just randonly posting your article is going to backfire somewhere
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9838250].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Monkmoney View Post

      I still think its spammy unless you first have a relationship in that forum. So just randonly posting your article is going to backfire somewhere
      Absolutely right.

      You need to interact and discuss, not just "post your stuff".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9838301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Monkmoney
    I wonder if google has an alogorythm to know if its tge same ip posting articles so in a sense it spots self syndacation
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9838260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mazzuca
    I think First you have to be a reputed members on those forums and yes may be you can post your article if you just spin it each time. (Just my opinion)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9838331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by mazzuca View Post

      I think First you have to be a reputed members on those forums
      Yes, that definitely helps.

      Originally Posted by mazzuca View Post

      yes may be you can post your article if you just spin it each time.
      That helps them, perhaps. You have nothing at all to gain, yourself, from "spinning" it, and in principle it would be better for you not to. No point in giving away unique content when you can benefit by giving away syndicated content (if forums accept that - some do; some don't).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9838341].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author quinng123
    Pretty much everything Alexa has said, but yeah you definetly won't get a penalty anyway from doing that.

    However I wouldn't advise you to post a straight article from your website on to forums. You can post very similar information that the article mentions, but it has to be in a more participatory and conversational in tone so that people would want to actually comment on it
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9839290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Slade556
    It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to do so, but it goes without saying that unique everywhere is better than unique somewhere. One thing that can be done is have your tutorial re-written by outsourcing. If you have say, a 500 word post, a simple $5 on Fiverr could have a professional writer re-word it for you so that it is unique. It isn't just effective for that however, sometimes the rewrite by the outsourcer is more effective than your own writing because everyone words things differently. I have had great success with this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9839447].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Slade556 View Post

      it goes without saying that unique everywhere is better than unique somewhere.
      That may go without saying to you, but it doesn't to others here, and it certainly doesn't to anyone doing article marketing for a living, and it isn't true: it's based only on a rather widespread misunderstanding.

      Unique somewhere (on your site, at time of publication, for the initial indexation) is better than unique everywhere.

      You surely wouldn't want to be giving away unique content unnecessarily to others' sites, rather than syndicated content? Well, it sounds as if you would. But if that's so, I strongly recommend that you follow all the links at the end of this post, which will collectively help you to appreciate that you're somewhat mistaken about this subject, to put it mildly.


      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840038].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author QueenMelanie
    would be better to have to full tutorial on your site, and then breakdowns of the tutorials on forums with a link to the full tut at the end!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840129].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Russell
    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

    Yes, it can. In a good way.

    As long as it starts on your website and gets indexed there before being published anywhere else, of course, in accordance with all the principles of content marketing. You need to accumulate the initial indexations for your own site.

    When that happens, Google accredits your website (being the original source) as being the "site from which" content has been syndicated. Naturally enough, that adds authority to your site - both in reality and in their algorithm's view, as well.

    Not only can it be considered duplicate content but unless you are varying your link its duplicate anchor text as well.

    Want to tank your rankings or not have a chance of getting decent rank in todays serps? Syndicate your content without varying the types of anchor text link you use. i.e. branded, partial match, raw.


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840638].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      <sigh>

      This Cutts video has only been posted in this forum about 25 times, and misunderstood about 24 times.

      Nobody (who knows what they're doing) recommends that type of "article marketing" as an SEO strategy.

      The problem is that so many people think of "article marketing" as being what's described there, and obviously it just isn't.

      Article marketing has nothing to do with SEO.

      Content syndication doesn't seem to bother so many of the world's leading news and sports websites, who re-publish their content daily from places like Reuters and Associated Press, does it?

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

      If you want a whole lot more opinions, including some from Google, on this topic, these might also interest you (some are a few years old, now, but the realities of what "duplicate content" is haven't changed!) ...

      The Duplicate Content Penalty Myth

      Most Common SEO Myths

      Destroying The Duplicate Content Penalty Myth

      Duplicate content: Separating the penalty from the filter | Searchlight - CNET News
      (Google staff perspective)

      Duplicate Content Not An Everyday Problem | WebProNews
      (Matt Cutts explanation)

      Article Marketing and the Duplicate Content Penalty Myth | Article Marketing Blog

      Help: How to find partners who can syndicate my content from my blog?
      (Report from Google conference)

      The Greatest Internet Marketing Myths?

      Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing Blog

      Oh ... and one more site for the few people who still believe that "syndicated content" is "duplicate content".


      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840672].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Russell
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        <sigh>

        This Cutts video has only been posted in this forum about 25 times, and misunderstood about 24 times.

        Nobody (who knows what they're doing) recommends that type of "article marketing" as an SEO strategy.

        The problem is that so many people think of "article marketing" as being what's described there, and obviously it just isn't.

        Article marketing has nothing to do with SEO.

        Content syndication doesn't seem to bother so many of the world's leading news and sports websites, who re-publish their content daily from places like Reuters and Associated Press, does it?

        http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

        If you want a whole lot more opinions, including some from Google, on this topic, these might also interest you (some are a few years old, now, but the realities of what "duplicate content" is haven't changed!) ...

        The Duplicate Content Penalty Myth

        Most Common SEO Myths

        Destroying The Duplicate Content Penalty Myth

        Duplicate content: Separating the penalty from the filter | Searchlight - CNET News
        (Google staff perspective)

        Duplicate Content Not An Everyday Problem | WebProNews
        (Matt Cutts explanation)

        Article Marketing and the Duplicate Content Penalty Myth | Article Marketing Blog

        Help: How to find partners who can syndicate my content from my blog?
        (Report from Google conference)

        The Greatest Internet Marketing Myths?

        Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing Blog

        Oh ... and one more site for the few people who still believe that "syndicated content" is "duplicate content".


        .
        Alexa, the OP asked if article syndication/article marketing would affect his rankings, you replied that it would AND in a good way. This is definitley not the case.

        You bring up large news sites or organizations to support your claims about duplicate content not affecting their rankings. I think Google is pretty good at determining when a high authority website like the ones you mentioned are trying to inform and not simply trying to build backlinks. This is unlike the average article marketers website who is sydicating purely for backlinks to a site that may have little to no authority.

        I dont go by popular opinion of what works and what doesn't, I test everything I do and no matter how you slice it, Google still considers it duplicate content. On top of that, if your not varying the anchor text your also creating duplicate anchors and this WILL affect rankings in a negative way which was the OP's concern.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840857].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Joe Russell View Post

          the OP asked if article syndication/article marketing would affect his rankings, you replied that it would AND in a good way. This is definitley not the case.
          It is the case.

          You're mistaken, Joe.

          Google naturally accredits sites from which content is widely syndicated to other relevant websites with some authority, and says so openly. This is, obviously enough, the underlying reason behind always publishing your content on your own site first, before syndicating it. One wants to accumulate the initial indexations of subsequently syndicated content for one's own sites.

          Originally Posted by Joe Russell View Post

          no matter how you slice it, Google still considers it duplicate content.
          The irony of this grotesquely misguided assertion is the overwhelming lengths to which Google has been going, ever since I've been online, to explain to people at length, in detail and across a huge range of media, formally and informally, officially and unofficially, as a company and as individual corporate staff, on blogs and on websites, in interviews and in videos, at conferences, etc. etc. etc., that that's not the case.

          To me, it seems bizarre that you can seriously dispute this. It "takes me back" to 2008 when some of your perceptions were quite popular here among people who imagined that article marketing was "a branch of SEO", and before so many experts on the subject clarified all these issues in so many long-running threads like this one from 2009.

          Well, there you have it. I've stated the position as unambiguously as I can, and pasted in my customary selection of links to illustrate it further.

          This forum's absolutely packed with threads accumulated over many years which explain in detail, with endless evidence and references, that your perspective of this issue is misguided and mistaken, but for myself, I have no more time to spend on these argumentative discussions about it.

          At this stage, we'll have to "agree to disagree" about it. It's something that you (clearly!) don't do, and something from which (like many others here) I've been making my living and building my business for many years. Warriors wanting to know about it will decide for themselves by whom they wish to be guided.

          Have the last word about it, by all means, if you wish ... I've said quite enough, so "it's good night from her".

          Knock yourself out.


          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840894].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joe Russell
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            It is the case.

            You're mistaken, Joe.

            Google naturally accredits sites from which content is widely syndicated to other relevant websites with some authority, and says so openly. This is, obviously enough, the underlying reason behind always publishing your content on your own site first, before syndicating it. One wants to accumulate the initial indexations of subsequently syndicated content for one's own sites.



            The irony of this grotesquely misguided assertion is the overwhelming lengths to which Google has been going, ever since I've been online, to explain to people at length, in detail and across a huge range of media, formally and informally, officially and unofficially, as a company and as individual corporate staff, on blogs and on websites, in interviews and in videos, at conferences, etc. etc. etc., that that's not the case.

            It's just bizarre that you can dispute this.

            Well, there you have it. I've stated the position as unambiguously as I can, and pasted in my customary selection of links to illustrate it further.

            This forum's absolutely packed with threads accumulated over many years which explain in detail, with endless evidence and references, that your perspective of this issue is misguided and mistaken, but for myself, I have no more time to spend on these argumentative discussions about it.

            At this stage, we'll have to "agree to disagree" about it.

            Have the last word about it, by all means, if you wish ... I've said quite enough ...

            ... knock yourself out.


            .
            Thanks Alexa for allowing me the option of having the last word.

            I feel I must, as I don't want your misguided advice to potentially destroy the rankings of any website that someone may have worked so hard to achieve.

            I have been in this business for a long time, going on 16 years, my company developed one of the most popular SEO tools ever based around many of my SEO strategies. I like to think I know a thing or two about SEO.

            As mentioned, I don't take anyones opinion on anything, especially when it comes to SEO. I test, tweak and also develop my own working strategies.

            It's not so much a concern about the content that the article is about as even a page with poor, little or no content can be ranked.

            The concern is the anchor text links that might be within the article itself or included in a resource box which is still considered part of the content when it gets syndicated.

            If one part i.e. the resource box, is the exact same, including the anchor text link, in every article you syndicate then you have duplicate anchor text links (content) pointing to your website.

            Why is this not good?

            Google wants link building to happen naturally. Do you think it looks natural for all of your inbound external links to have the same anchor text? Its doesn't and its not hard for Google to see this by examining your link profile. Trust me, this will have a a negative affect on any rank you may hold or hope to achieve.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9840993].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Slightly surprised to see you asking me a direct question, after I'd said I wasn't intending to post again, but I suppose politeness compels me to reply, since you do ...

              Originally Posted by Joe Russell View Post

              Do you think it looks natural for all of your inbound external links to have the same anchor text?
              No; of course not: at no point in this (or in any other) thread have I argued with that perspective about anchor-text. Indeed, it's a point I've made here myself, many times over the last 5 years, in threads that - unlike this one - are about that subject. But I'm happy to confirm that there are some issues "in here" about which we agree, as well as (so clearly) other, rather more substantive, issues about which your perspective and Google's are so diametrically opposed.


              .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9841352].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joe Russell
                Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                Slightly surprised to see you asking me a direct question, after I'd said I wasn't intending to post again, but I suppose politeness compels me to reply, since you do ...



                No; of course not: at no point in this (or in any other) thread have I argued with that perspective about anchor-text. Indeed, it's a point I've made here myself, many times over the last 5 years, in threads that - unlike this one - are about that subject. But I'm happy to confirm that there are some issues "in here" about which we agree, as well as (so clearly) other, rather more substantive, issues about which your perspective and Google's are so diametrically opposed.


                .
                It was actually a rhetorical question which is why I answered it myself..I thought as a writer, you would have picked up on that.

                I'll ask the OP to correct me if I am wrong but I don't think he started this thread to get answers on how effective article marketing is.

                His question was, will syndicating his content hurt his rank. This obviously makes it an SEO question and also a valid concern.

                You keep dodging the fact that you gave the OP some bad advice in telling him that by posting his content on various web properties it would in fact be beneficial to his SEO, without any mention of anchor text.

                If you were aware that varying anchor text would help him avoid penalty, you didn't mention it. From what I have read of your posts you are usually quite thorough, Its not like you to leave out such important details.

                To the OP, if you are going to post the same exact content on multiple web properties at least vary the anchor text for each and every place you post your content to.

                Look at it this way, If you take Alexa's advice and it turns out she was wrong, your rankings will suffer.

                If my advice isn't correct then you have nothing to worry about. Varying the anchor text won't be hurting you either way as it is still anchor text.

                Just my two cents, ultimately its your choice.

                Joe
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9841494].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Joe Russell View Post

                  I thought as a writer, you would have picked up on that.
                  Well, call me naive, but it really didn't occur to me that you'd resort to barbed personal comments, but there it is.

                  Originally Posted by Joe Russell View Post

                  His question was, will syndicating his content hurt his rank.
                  It was, near enough, and the answer was no: it can help it. And that's still the answer now - as indeed anyone who does article marketing for a living will tell you. And as Google will, too, and has done repeatedly (hence all the hundreds of threads in this forum in which so many article marketers explain that, and hence all the links in this thread). Disagree as much as you like. I think people reading the thread will have no difficulty at all understanding what happened, here: apparently the words "Sorry, I may have made a mistake" aren't in your vocabulary at all, and I'm both sorry and surprised to see that you'd rather even actively mislead someone than admit it. Anyway, the discussion has outlived its useful function: you're only really "trolling", now, and I don't have time for that, myself.


                  .
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9841541].message }}

Trending Topics