Article Marketing Experts, Two Questions For You (About Resource Box & Syndication)

[Paul Hancox]

First off, I know a lot of people here suggest using the "resource box" as a kind of extension to the article, because you don't want to break the flow by suddenly changing to,

"Paul Hancox is a pure genius, and an expert on sock puppet mastery, with over 28 years of sticking his hand up puppets for fun and profits..."

On the other hand, I've noticed that traditional "resource box" articles tend to get more syndication, although so far that's only based on casual observation. I'm still researching this.

So I have two questions.

Question #1. Is it better to stick with a traditional "John Smith is a..." resource box, if your aim is to have your article distributed as far as possible (say, for backlink purposes)? Have you any experience with getting your articles syndicated far and wide by others? Apart from submitting them to directories yourself, is there anything you do to encourage others to re-distribute your content?

Question #2. I'm trying to research this aspect. Is there an EASY way to find out how many times an article on, say, EzineArticles has been distributed elsewhere, without having to do a Google search?

For example, if I wanted to look at the top authors in a category, and see how many times a selection of their articles has been syndicated, is there an easier way of doing it than having to individually copy n' paste every single title into Google, and stick quotes around each one?

OK, I guess that's several questions

[Zeus66]

I don't think there's anything EZA will tell you about number of times published beyond what's at the bottom of every article page. There's a list of the 15 Most Published articles in that category. You could go through a bunch of categories, click on those Top 15 at the bottom, and you'll get a pretty good idea of the pattern in terms of what kind of resource box they used.

I'm just not sure you can extrapolate from that there there is a direct causal relationship, though. Could be a correlation pretending to be causation. In other words, another variable you're not considering might be more important in determining why one article gets republished more than another.

And you have to factor in age. An article published in 2005 probably will have amassed more repubs than one published last week, regardless of the resource box.

John

[Ruddy]

Originally Posted by Paul Hancox

First off, I know a lot of people here suggest using the "resource box" as a kind of extension to the article, because you don't want to break the flow by suddenly changing to,

"Paul Hancox is a pure genius, and an expert on sock puppet mastery, with over 28 years of sticking his hand up puppets for fun and profits..."

On the other hand, I've noticed that traditional "resource box" articles tend to get more syndication, although so far that's only based on casual observation. I'm still researching this.

So I have two questions.

Question #1. Is it better to stick with a traditional "John Smith is a..." resource box, if your aim is to have your article distributed as far as possible (say, for backlink purposes)? Have you any experience with getting your articles syndicated far and wide by others? Apart from submitting them to directories yourself, is there anything you do to encourage others to re-distribute your content?

Question #2. I'm trying to research this aspect. Is there an EASY way to find out how many times an article on, say, EzineArticles has been distributed elsewhere, without having to do a Google search?

For example, if I wanted to look at the top authors in a category, and see how many times a selection of their articles has been syndicated, is there an easier way of doing it than having to individually copy n' paste every single title into Google, and stick quotes around each one?

OK, I guess that's several questions

Better to be innovative rather than John Doe is a bla bla bla, people get bored easily on internet and might already consider that kind of link as blind spot.

About how many times article has been distributed, I don't know about that either. Why do you care about other articles?

[Paul Hancox]

@John, thanks for reminding me of the "age" factor. And that there might be many variables that aren't immediately obvious, or even correlated.

@Ruddy, for research purposes. I want to know specifically whether a "John Doe is a blah blah" resource box actually gets an article more redistributed or not.

I agree they are boring, but I'm not talking about it purely from a reader's point of view.

Here's my suspicion...

A resource box that flows naturally from the article will be great for hooking in the reader, but won't be syndicated as much, because it doesn't seem to give any "official" credit to an author.

On the other hand, a traditional "John Doe is..." resource box is boring, but the article may be redistributed more often precisely because it looks like a traditional article which can be reprinted.

However, I'm not absolutely certain of this, which is why I'm researching it, and asking whether anyone has any opinions on this, in terms of getting an article distributed as widely as possible.

[BigRedNotebook]

I'll go in reverse order.

It's basically impossible to tell how many times an article has been picked up from EZA and syndicated. They'll tell you how many people clicked on the link that provides republishers with the articles HTML, but that number is virtually meaningless.

Even if you do Google to discover how many times an article has been reprinted, it's almost impossible to discern if that's a byproduct of others having a desire to pick up the content or if it's due to the author's distribution methodology.

With respect to the resource box... If you're supplying truly good content, the article itself should be enough of a credibility builder to de-justify "John Smith is the world's greatest ________. He is well known for ______" stuff.

Besides, people are far more interested in themselves and what they want than they are in reading an author's CV.

If you feel the need to provide credentials or to drop something that will boost your credibility and authority enough that it's like to increase click-throughs, I'd recommend doing so within a resource box that follows more of the "article extension" to which you refer.

For instance...
(No, this is not a "good" box... But it's illustrative)

There's nothing more rewarding than sock puppetry. John Smith, a Harvard-educated puppeteer and master of the sock monkey dance, believes that sock puppets are "a shortcut to a calm soul and infinite wisdom."

Are you ready to change your life with these amazing puppets? Visit John Smith's SOCKMASTER website. He's been showing people just like you how to find happiness, bliss and massive wealth with sock puppets for over twenty years and is currently providing a free report detailing his secret process that can turn anyone into an enlightened puppeteer.

Carson

[marciayudkin]

A resource box that flows naturally from the article will be great for hooking in the reader, but won't be syndicated as much, because it doesn't seem to give any "official" credit to an author.

On the other hand, a traditional "John Doe is..." resource box is boring, but the article may be redistributed more often precisely because it looks like a traditional article which can be reprinted.

I am one of the people who goes to article distribution web sites looking for good articles (and experts to interview) on specific topics to reprint in one of my web sites. Any article that does not include a traditional bio of the author in the resource box automatically gets knocked out the running and the author in the byline gets chalked up as an idiot in my mind.

Most webmasters who want high quality content so as to benefit their readers probably feel the same way, especially those who are tuned into traditional publishing.

Therefore, if your purpose in pursuing article marketing is to build your reputation as an expert, you had better have an expert bio in the resource box. If you are just looking for SEO and links to your web site, this factor doesn't matter as much.

Marcia Yudkin

[Danohis]

Originally Posted by marciayudkin

I am one of the people who goes to article distribution web sites looking for good articles (and experts to interview) on specific topics to reprint in one of my web sites. Any article that does not include a traditional bio of the author in the resource box automatically gets knocked out the running and the author in the byline gets chalked up as an idiot in my mind.

Most webmasters who want high quality content so as to benefit their readers probably feel the same way, especially those who are tuned into traditional publishing.

Therefore, if your purpose in pursuing article marketing is to build your reputation as an expert, you had better have an expert bio in the resource box. If you are just looking for SEO and links to your web site, this factor doesn't matter as much.

Marcia Yudkin

@marcia
This post makes alot of sense and throws light on the expert resource box. my advice is to use both, depending on the purpose of your article.

dan ohis.