Creating new articles

[Bev Clement]

Having read a lot of posts and some books which tell a person the way to write an article is to use 3 articles taken from EZA or other directories, and then basically rewrite one paragraph or portion from each article.

Why is that acceptable to most people?

Is there any difference between doing that from 1 article to using 3 articles?

There is the obivous difference in that you might not get caught with using 3 articles.

What is so hard to go and research a topic and then write on it? And by research I don't mean reading a couple of articles and then consider yourself an expert.

Rob has just done some research for some articles he is writing for a client. He has spent 2 days collecting and reading about the subject, before he wrote a single word. This was a subject neither of us knew anything about.

Any comments?

[WritingMadwoman]

Thank you for posting this, I've been trying hard to bite my tongue every time I see someone suggest this. While it may not be illegal to do that, it sure isn't high on the integrity scale and I can't help cringing when I see it being recommended.

Of course, Bev, the process you describe takes a lot more effort, which some people sadly are allergic to! ;-)

Wendy

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by Bev Clement

Having read a lot of posts and some books which tell a person the way to write an article is to use 3 articles taken from EZA or other directories, and then basically rewrite one paragraph or portion from each article.

Why is that acceptable to most people?

I have no idea why people find that acceptable. But it certainly accounts for some of the crap standard of articles you see around online!

[Mac Wheeler]

It's a combination of three factors.

1. Writers who are in it for the cash and work on volume, who want to write as much content as possible in the shortest period of time with the least effort.

2. People who only want to pay for the people outlined above. They would rather have 20 re-hashed articles that pass copyscape than 5 articles that are actually informative and interesting to read.

3. People who are in need of keyword stuffed articles for SEO purposes don't really care how the articles read, only that the key phrases are in the right place at the right density.

[JayXtreme]

Bev....

You Rock...

It has to be mandatory in each of our own businesses to do adequate research across various sources, with various opinions and thoughts.. and then use that to form our own views and opinions based on the acquired information...

Kudos to you for raising this issue... I think MANY people need to have this drilled home..

Rock on Bev...

Peace

Jay

p.s. Bev....Can you see my twitter thing in my sig?.... you need to follow me please... pretty please with cherries

[Allen Graves]

People are going to rationalize this by saying that there's no difference in researching for two days and researching by looking at three articles. What's the difference, right?

I'll tell you what the difference is, the person that studied for three days will be able to write several quality articles which will be able to connect with the readers in a way that uneducated people simply will not be able to do. The researcher will get targeted click-throughs and SALES...the "article crasher" will get a few random click-throughs and an empty ClickBank account.

AL

[Bev Clement]

Jay, just noticed your twitter in your signature, you owe me 2lb cherries in kirsh

How long have you been following me? I do an update when I remember to follow people, but can't remember when the last time the update was done

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

and an empty ClickBank account.

Or any other account that is supposed to be paying their aff commissh...

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Bev Clement

Jay, just noticed your twitter in your signature, you owe me 2lb cherries in kirsh

How long have you been following me? I do an update when I remember to follow people, but can't remember when the last time the update was done

LONG time... you were one of my first... and I tweeted a few times in the hope you would see it appear on someone else's page.. but no follow materialised...

That is no more...

Not that I was obsessing.. but there are some warriors who are just plain cool to connect with..and you're on of em

Peace

Jay

[Bev Clement]

Allen, my question isn't so much about the amount of research a person does, but why do people object to someone rewriting 1 article, but not to rewriting 3 different parts of 3 articles.

My brain says that if it is plagiarism for using 1 article, then it is still plagiarism using 3 articles, just smaller amounts of content from each one.

[Allen Graves]

I agree, it is...by the very definition of the word! LOL

Who is promoting this? PM me if you don't want to post it here.

Thanks, Bev.

AL

p.s. You guys just got me to sign up for a Twitter account...

http://twitter.com/allengraves

[Vince Runza Online]

I think the whole idea of just scraping content from EZA is just silly. After all, you can usually scrape much better content from Wikipedia! LOL

Seriously, investing a bit of time and effort into understanding a subject before you write about it gives you two benefits:

• You're better able to write quality content this time
• You're better prepared to write about it again

Of course, there will always be those niches where you just can't muster the joy and creativity to produce 100's of outstanding articles on the same subject. Take "The Heartbreak of Psoriasis", for example...

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

p.s. You guys just got me to sign up for a Twitter account...

Twitter / allengraves

I am gonna stalk you now Allen... err... I mean... follow you in the usual twitter fashion...

Peace

Jay

[Bev Clement]

Originally Posted by Vince Runza Online

I think the whole idea of just scraping content from EZA is just silly. After all, you can usually scrape much better content from Wikipedia! LOL

Seriously, investing a bit of time and effort into understanding a subject before you write about it gives you two benefits:

• You're better able to write quality content this time
• You're better prepared to write about it again

Of course, there will always be those niches where you just can't muster the joy and creativity to produce 100's of outstanding articles on the same subject. Take "The Heartbreak of Psoriasis", for example...

Vince you promised not to tell about the hot niche we are writing on. Now we'll have to find a new niche.

[rapidscc]

Hi bev

Here's my case. I use PLR articles in my blog. I don't rewrite any of the articles I just copy and paste it.

I can write, anybody can. I wrote 30 articles about spirituality in about 6 hours all original coz I love the topic so much.

Yet as a newbie who's initially in it for the cash, yes I do copy and paste articles.

I'm not proud of it. In fact I feel guilty doing it but I still do. For immediate satisfaction. To easily build and start my online presence.

One thing is sure though, when I'm already in a stable operation I will publish original content. The things I wrote with real feelings coz I know only then will real satisfaction come.

We all seek to be happy and confident. Authenticity in our work is a major component for that, but you know what they say, "The easiest way to start doing a thing is to copy"

my .02

~RapidScc

[Allen Graves]

rapidscc,

If you choose to do this with PLR articles, then that is different because that is what PLR articles are for...although I would change them before posting them on my site(s).

It is the folks who steal non-PLR articles and use THOSE who are the scumbags in this situation.

JMO,
AL

[Vince Runza Online]

Originally Posted by Bev Clement

Vince you promised not to tell about the hot niche we are writing on. Now we'll have to find a new niche.

I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm better, now!

[rapidscc]

Thanks allen

Now I can have some peace of mind about the PLR's

[Daniel Molano]

I believe the reference made by most, is 3 sources, not 3 articles. (Steven Wagenheim made a reference like this and his articles are great).

A source can be anything from an entire book, an essay or an article to name a few.

I do it this way as well, look up 3-5 sources read them carefully and start writing away, this is what I do PER article, sometimes for two or so if the keywords are related.

Point is, looking at three to five sources per article is in fact a more in depth research after you have pumped 100 in the same niche (300-500 Sources (Not Articles)) than a 3 day research.

It's just a matter of time management, both methods work. Personally, I prefer the sources approach as I have the information 'fresh' in my head, as opposed to the 3 day research were I might forget a few things from the research conducted the previous days.

[Dana_W]

Getting information from ezinearticles is dicey at best, anyway. I do go to ezinearticles to see what the most popular article TOPICS are, but I would never assume that information on ezinearticles is correct.

I still have the habit, from years in the journalism business, of going to authoritative sources for information. If I am writing about jobs or salaries, I go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If I am writing about health, I will quote a government website or a hospital or university study.

Unless someone on ezinearticles is truly an authoritative source on their own - a doctor or lawyer or whatever writing about their own field - you can't assume their facts are correct.

[rapidscc]

Nice tip Dana.

It's a good point to get our sources from real authorities...
If it's from the government most probably its been validated and really made by pros since it's funded by taxpayers money. Also if it's on the public domain there's no fault scraping it right? Then maybe just add in our own two cents to make it a little original.

~RapidScc

P.S. you're pic looks nice is that a new one? or maybe I just didn't notice?

[TiffanyDow]

Bev I think if we all learned the legalities and ethics of Journalism, it'd make for a better marketplace. lol I know most people don't think it's copying if you rewrite from someone - they don't understand that part. But it is, just have to hammer in the education - or enroll them in Journalism at their local college - a professor would scare it out of them.

[Dana_W]

I did change pictures! I was at BlogOrlando and a nice gentleman from a company called Brains On Fire took that picture for me, and I liked it better than my old picture. Thank you for noticing!

I'm so old skool about research that I'm nervous about getting info from Wikipedia. Although I am taking their word for it that this is how skool is spelled. Wikipedia would never lie, right?

Seriously, any resource where people can enter information without any repercussions if they are wrong or are lying...is not a resource I can trust.

That's why I like relying on official sources - and I think it really gives your articles the ring of authority to be able to cite those sources rather than just saying something like "more Americans are behind on their credit card payments than ever before". That's a meaningless statement without attribution.

As for anyone who is just mashing up a bunch of ezinearticles - aside from the fact that you will probably get your facts wrong, you really want to be careful that you don't end up "accidentally" plagiarizing.

Originally Posted by rapidscc

Nice tip Dana.

It's a good point to get our sources from real authorities...
If it's from the government most probably its been validated and really made by pros since it's funded by taxpayers money. Also if it's on the public domain there's no fault scraping it right? Then maybe just add in our own two cents to make it a little original.

~RapidScc

P.S. you're pic looks nice is that a new one? or maybe I just didn't notice?

[rapidscc]

A positive idea just hit me!

If we are going to copy an article from the article directories why not just copy the entire thing with the authors sig.

Positively thinking, if we put it on our blog or site (the complete thing) it will be a win-win situation.

1. Assuming we post related/focused article in our site it can be thought of as an authority site. Imagine all the different authors contributing to it. This could give the impression that the site is a pro with all the different authors.

2. We can go to the author's site and request for a link to our site since we are actually promoting his article.

3. We don't get to be branded as scum coz we are letting things happen as it should be, we are playing by the rules.

As for creating a new article. Maybe its our responsibility as writers to write only articles wherein we really are experts. This way there will be no need to plagiarize other peoples stuff, some sort of reference will still be needed though, but minimally.

As I see it the real cause of the problem here is not about lack of ethics or knowledge of journalism. The real problem here is greed. The desire to make money easily on other peoples niche.

Maybe then the proper advice when creating new articles is not get 3 sources and rewrite, also nothing to do about journalism ethics being drilled down to ordinary joes. Though some ethics is needed.

Maybe the proper advice when writing new articles is to write about something that you have real interest, knowledge and experience.

Then look for products you can sell that's related with it. Not the other way around.

again, just my .02, it's a bit long so maybe a dollar?

[Bev Clement]

Rapidscc as Allen said using PLR isn't the issue here, but it could be if you were writing as a ghostwriter and the person was expecting unique. Using articles from directories with the bio in place is exactly what should be done, so you'll have no problems there either.

Daniel, I disagree with you, and this is why. When we research, we create a folder of all our research information. We can then use that research for writing many articles, so 3 days of research can give us more than a couple of articles, and bring in a lot more money. Also, I have checked some articles on EZA and the information is so bad, that you might read 3 different ones all saying the same thing, and assume it is good and correct, but they got their information from a the same source, and so it continues. An example, we got a PLR book as a bonus from a well known person. It was in the field that my husband spent 20+ years working, so he knew the subject. I passed it to him thinking he might like to use it as a foundation for another book. He read it and said it was well written but the information was relevant 10 years ago, and was completely out of date.

Your way obviously works for you, but some of the topics I write on the basic information never changes or rarely changes. I have folders of information on lots of subjects, and I can use them to write now without doing much research, as I have already done it.

But, there have been some who say use 3 articles and take a paragraph from each, then you will be able to use them. When you get people saying their research was 10 mins and from that they wrote 10 articles in less than 10 mins an article, I think that tells you what the problem is.

[petebolduc]

For the past few months I have been developing an Affiliate Niche Site Development Software where one of the primary features is a "Article Dump" feature that provides the ability to create an unlimited number of article pages in a few clicks.

At the same time, however, in the training videos I clearly state the necessity of creating fresh content for your site. It is good to use plr articles as a guide, but how do you know if the plr article author has accurate info.

The bottom line is seo likes fresh content and people stay on, recommend, and revisit sites with good, well researched content. Those who take the easy way out find that their sites earn a minimum amount of income (50 cents a day or so).

Content is king on the internet and if you want your sites to crawl out of the sand box and be recommended by your visitors put up well researched, quality content.


pete

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

I believe the reference made by most, is 3 sources, not 3 articles. (Steven Wagenheim made a reference like this and his articles are great).

A source can be anything from an entire book, an essay or an article to name a few.

I do it this way as well, look up 3-5 sources read them carefully and start writing away, this is what I do PER article, sometimes for two or so if the keywords are related.

Point is, looking at three to five sources per article is in fact a more in depth research after you have pumped 100 in the same niche (300-500 Sources (Not Articles)) than a 3 day research.

It's just a matter of time management, both methods work. Personally, I prefer the sources approach as I have the information 'fresh' in my head, as opposed to the 3 day research were I might forget a few things from the research conducted the previous days.

Daniel.. whilst Steven's writing might be great... if he has only cross referenced 3 articles for his research then the writing may be good, but that doesn't mean the content is good... and it doesn't mean it is OK ethically to do it..

Peace

Jay

[donlester]

I hear you. Although EZA articles may be a good part of your research they certainly shouldn't be the extent of your information. I think that articles created that way may get some traffic but if you figure the target audience will have read the other articles they really won't find anything useful in a recycled one. If your aim is to get traffic new content seems to travel farther from my limited experience.

[Daniel Molano]

Originally Posted by Bev Clement

Rapidscc as Allen said using PLR isn't the issue here, but it could be if you were writing as a ghostwriter and the person was expecting unique. Using articles from directories with the bio in place is exactly what should be done, so you'll have no problems there either.

Daniel, I disagree with you, and this is why. When we research, we create a folder of all our research information. We can then use that research for writing many articles, so 3 days of research can give us more than a couple of articles, and bring in a lot more money. Also, I have checked some articles on EZA and the information is so bad, that you might read 3 different ones all saying the same thing, and assume it is good and correct, but they got their information from a the same source, and so it continues. An example, we got a PLR book as a bonus from a well known person. It was in the field that my husband spent 20+ years working, so he knew the subject. I passed it to him thinking he might like to use it as a foundation for another book. He read it and said it was well written but the information was relevant 10 years ago, and was completely out of date.

Your way obviously works for you, but some of the topics I write on the basic information never changes or rarely changes. I have folders of information on lots of subjects, and I can use them to write now without doing much research, as I have already done it.

But, there have been some who say use 3 articles and take a paragraph from each, then you will be able to use them. When you get people saying their research was 10 mins and from that they wrote 10 articles in less than 10 mins an article, I think that tells you what the problem is.

So you do an in depth research and store it in a file for references? Very interesting, I might give that a try.

And I do agree that grabbing three articles (which most are not very accurate) and rewriting the paragraphs is unethical and I don't find it acceptable.

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

Daniel.. whilst Steven's writing might be great... if he has only cross referenced 3 articles for his research then the writing may be good, but that doesn't mean the content is good... and it doesn't mean it is OK ethically to do it..

Peace

Jay

I said 3 sources, not 3 articles. A source can be an entire book, and if it's up to date, it would make the content of the articles fantastic.

[Bev Clement]

Daniel, yes we keep a folder of all our research material. My husband is the king of research, in that he loves to research and research in depth.

I have research on topics which the client only wanted 10 articles for. I have enough material that I could get a 4000 - 6000 page report in less than 4 hours, as the typing part is the quickest part. I would spend an hour max checking for any new information, but basically that research has been done, and it seems pointless to me to keep doing the same and not keeping a reference of it.

[Cali16]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

Who is promoting this? PM me if you don't want to post it here.

Allen, I can think of at least 3 pretty well known and, it seems, highly respected warriors who have promoted this in a few different WSO's that they have sold....that's just off the top of my head...I'm sure there are many others.

As for EZA, I have never used articles from there as a source for my research. Besides the fact that so many of the articles are not very good in terms of content, nor well written for that matter, IMO, I never assume the writer is any kind of authority, as so many of the writers do just what Bev mentioned. So I am always surprised that people actually use those for "research". The same goes for other sites like Associated Content (which has some really bad articles). I never do my research using articles from article directories of any kind, because I simply don't trust the information to be accurate. That doesn't mean there aren't some very good articles out there, I just prefer to go to sources that I know are reliable.

Like Dana mentioned, I primarily use authority sites, as well as my own books and other offline resources at times, depending on the topic.

[Allen Graves]

Originally Posted by petebolduc

For the past few months I have been developing an Affiliate Niche Site Development Software where one of the primary features is a "Article Dump" feature that provides the ability to create an unlimited number of article pages in a few clicks.

...

Those who take the easy way out find that their sites earn a minimum amount of income (50 cents a day or so).

pete

Isn't this a contradiction?

AL

[Bev Clement]

Thank you Allen, I thought my brain had lost it completely with that.

As far as PLR goes, it depends on where I get it from as to the amount of work I do. We sell some PLR that we research and write ourselves, and we have a number of people who have used the articles as is, which is fine. They didn't break the licence for them.

[Sjcorp]

Well, to be honest, not many people are capable of writing good articles and there are many people who are just not good with grammar and such.

So I guess that those are the ones who takes advantage of other peoples work and no, I don't believe it to be acceptable but I guess when it comes down to attracting other peoples attention, they do just about anything.

[quantikev]

I'm curious as to what will happen with the entire content based Internet business model when programs from the likes of MIT successfully write similarly to humans.

Obviously at that point there would be little to distinguish a uniquely researched article from its rewritten version.. for both humans and search engines.

It's not that far off...

[petebolduc]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

Isn't this a contradiction?

AL

Al,

No this is not a contradiction at all. Having the ability to perform a mass article dump does not mean that the individual has to dump old re-hashed content.

Affiliate Niche Site Pro Deluxe has numerous features in it with the primary one being the ability for complete ad control over each page individually. Although Google Adsense and other like programs pay far less than advertising other affiliate programs and one's own personal products. ANSPD allows for complete ad control on each page and offers edit capabilities.

The mass dump feature with the ability to turn on Google and the like was included for those individuals who would rather have numerous low income producing sites rather than a few high paying sites.

In the training videos provided with the program both avenues are explained and it is highly recommended that the individual provide quality fresh content.

The video on the sales page (still under construction) explains:

Virtual Real Estate Software | Niche Site Development | Affiliate Niche Site Pro Deluxe


pete

[Allen Graves]

<edited>

nevermind

[talfighel]

Copying someone elses articles and then re-writing it is one of the ways to go.

You can read someone elses article and then get some ideas on writing an article with that same topic. As long as it is different then it is OK.

That is what so many people do. That is why you see so much competition on EZA website.

Tal

[Matt Hoey]

I've never done this, it seems quicker to write a full article.

[Elmer Hurlstone]

Originally Posted by Bev Clement

Allen, my question isn't so much about the amount of research a person does, but why do people object to someone rewriting 1 article, but not to rewriting 3 different parts of 3 articles.

My brain says that if it is plagiarism for using 1 article, then it is still plagiarism using 3 articles, just smaller amounts of content from each one.

It's a rationalization. "Rewriting" one article borders on plagiarism. Even the uninformed know that's a bad thing.

"Rewriting" one part each from three different articles is, almost, the outside edge of research. It's fast, not too difficult and there's less chance of getting caught.

That the end product is still, often, disjointed, non-flowing crap is irrelevant to these "neo-writers."

In their eyes, the end does justify the means.

Elmer Hurlstone

[Dmitry]

So what is THE issue in the end? The quality of the articles - yes I agree that rewriting 1 or 3 or 10 articles will result in bad quality. The ethics - well that's a pretty fine line. Whether you read 3 articles and then rewrite them or read 300 articles in 3 days and then rewrite those - it's pretty much the same at the core of it. Well, probably no one would be able to spot the rewriting in the second scenario - but you are still rewriting someone else's ideas, because you are in fact no expert even if you've done your "research" for 3 days.

In the end when you hire a writer there simply is good writing and bad writing. A writer is not an expert. If anyone can become an expert in 3 days - let me know - and I'll stay away from them.