Using Article Directories. Is This Acceptable?

[LilBlackDress]

So long as the articles and bio box stay in tact, do article directories allow publishers to:

~correct author spelling errors
~make paragraphs out of run on text
~correct html coding in bio box that is not correct ie you can see the html coding instead of the keyword link the author wants you to click on

Thanks!

[JohnMcCabe]

LBD, I just do it. It makes both your site and the author more credible. You aren't materially changing the content, and in the case of correcting the html code, you're making the article more effective.

The only exception I can see would be if the author were deliberately targeting a misspelling. Still not a problem for me, as I wouldn't choose that article to publish. Just personal preference...

[LilBlackDress]

Thanks I think I will just do it then

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by amki

LBD, there is a reason for that "html coding instead of the keyword link the author wants you to click on." Publishers often don't bother to see that your keyword links remain intact, in which case readers can't get to where you want them to go.

Jo, there's a difference between putting a naked url (a plain http:// type address) and something that is obviously meant to be clickable anchor text, only the author messes up the html. I was addressing the second case - if the author posted an proper url, I'd just leave it as is.

[Glenn Leader]

I post a couple dozen or so other peoples articles across my blog
empire. I always fix broken links. If there are spelling errors, I
tend not to use the article. I expect a writer to know how to
spell or at least know how to use a spell checker.

HTH

Glenn

[SeanSupplee]

I would not mind it if someone using my articles did that. It would be helpful and as above make my articles look more credible.

Most of what people are going to care about posting these articles is that their resource link remains intact and the url is clickable.

[LilBlackDress]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Jo, there's a difference between putting a naked url (a plain http:// type address) and something that is obviously meant to be clickable anchor text, only the author messes up the html. I was addressing the second case - if the author posted an proper url, I'd just leave it as is.

Yes in the article I am referring to it was obviously meant to be clickable anchor text but instead is a mess of html coding. The article is nice but the messy anchor makes for a sloppy addition to my site.

[LilBlackDress]

A plain URL text looks like this and is often a good idea to use as links get stripped out.

hffp://www.MySite.com (with t's instead of f's)

What John and I are referring to is sloppy code where the person has something like the code below where it was supposed to be an anchor text but they messed up the html coding so it looks like something below instead of just a clickable text.


Click to learn about the <a href="hffp://xxxxx product./" target="_top"><img src="Amazing Weight Loss Diet ">

instead of simply

Click to learn about the Amazing Weight Loss Diet (where Amazing Weight Loss Diet is clickable)

[Kirpo]

Hi John,

You seem very knowledgable on back linking, I wonder if you can help me out.


I'm a member of TheKeywordAcademy.com which is a coaching site.

These guys recommend Unique Article Wizard for article marketing and in regards to the resource box, they suggest 2 links, one to the home page and one to various other pages on the same site.

Given that I'll be sending multiple spun articles, they suggest to vary the link text.

The link text for the 'other page' will vary simply because the target URL is different whereas the home page URL is static.

My question is this, should I vary the link text for the home page, if I don't, will Google view that as Google bombing?

Cheers,
Peter

[JohnMcCabe]

Peter, I can't claim to be any kind of backlinking expert. However, I can offer a thought on your question...

One of the things Google always talks about is keeping it natural. Hundreds of links, all with the same anchor text, isn't natural.

I've never used UAW as a writer, so I can't give specifics of how they work. What I like to do is pick a handful of key phrases and rotate them randomly. For example, given your sig, I might use:

FREE small business ideas
small business ideas
free ideas for small business
small business marketing ideas
etc.

They might not all be the kind of keyword you want to target, i.e. they might have low search counts or tough competition. But having some of your anchor text links semantically similar even though they may not be optimum enhances the natural appearance.

At least, that's how I see it...