I have a few quality articles written, can i post them on my blog AND article directories?

Because many people are misinformed, or are silly and delusional, believing that they'll incur some kind of penalty for doing this or that their backlinks will somehow be weaker unless they spin/rewrite their articles.

Simply do not listen to them. They're talking garbage.

Hi - You're on the right track.

If they're your creation, they're your creation - and property.

There's a lot of garbage written by spinning software creators to sell their products, but in simple terms, they are a waste of money.

They produce usually nonsense text, which will not do your business any good. Many of my online buddies, myself included, ensure we never revisit a site with overtly spun articles. Sorry, but you simply cannot write 200 versions of a 4 paragraph, 300 word article, which make sense.

I think that they're attractive to people who can't be bothered to work. They grab a good post/article elsewhere, spin it, and post.

"Hey, look at me, sucker."

But Big G knows! When the search engines find rehashed or gibberish posts, they push the site/blog waaay down the listings.

When you have quality original material:
1. Post it to your own propert (site/blog);
2. Wait for it to be indexed - can be within a few hours;
3. It's now officially yours. Do what you want with it.

One thing I don't know though.
What happens if you decide to 'tweak/improve' the mark 1 version? :confused:

(I'll bet Alexa knows the answer)

What you've done is fine.

Jeremy's right. You want to be published widely to build your audience, and you also want to get backlinks, even if they're not the best quality links.

You should see your original content- your blog entry- ranked first and best, and several of the directory submissions will also be ranked, though probably lower than the original. What's bad about any of that?

Learn the hard way- try it, test it, review the results, revise if necessary, and test again.

Nope. Absolutely not. How would they even have the authority to enforce such a rule? You create your content, so you should really publish it on your own property first to ensure you reap most long-term benefit.

I don't use Article Cube, so I can't really comment on that. I can say that the only "major" article directory I know of that requires 100% unique (previously unpublished) content is Buzzle. And I don't use them, and neither do a lot of people who aren't in the habit of working for free for others' benefit.

Article directories exist primarily as repositories of content freely available for republication, anyway, so how hypocritical would they need be to demand that any content submitted to them not already be used anywhere else? It wouldn't be saying much for the value of content syndication if they refused to "lead by example", would it.

"Do as I say, not as I do!" No thank you, Mr. Art Directory. Thankfully, however, most of them don't say this.

Only people who don't know what they're talking about but are repeating factual misinformation they've seen elsewhere.

It makes very little sense to do this. As you can see in this very helpful thread, experienced, successful article marketers do the exact opposite, and explain in detail all their (shared) reasons for doing so.

The idea that it's somehow "better" to submit to EZA first has grown up around the "theory" that EZA doesn't accept content previously published elsewhere. This has never been true, but has still become one of the classic "urban myths of internet marketing".

It's important, for your own site's long-term SEO, not to do this (as explained in detail in the thread linked to just above).

It's utter nonsense. I have nearly 1,300 articles on EZA, all of which were originally published and indexed on my own blogs in identical form before submission to EZA. And in this respect, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other professional article marketers in exactly the same position as me.

Many people believe this. There's never been any truth in it at all, though.

No article directory likes copies of its own articles being duplicated on its own site.

Article Cube has no problem at all with articles previously published elsewhere. (They'd look pretty silly trying to run an article directory which did!).

"Duplicate content" isn't the same as "syndicated content".

The only article directory which won't accept an article previously published elsewhere is "Buzzle" (which also doesn't accept any external links, now, and therefore has no value to article marketers anyway).

When submitting previously published work to any article directory, it's important to submit it in the same name/pen-name as that under which it's previously been published anywhere else: that's all. Otherwise the directory (especially if it's EZA) will not unreasonably wonder whether it might be stolen content, and possibly decline it. Such rejections are because of "authorial name mismatches", not because the work has previously been published.

This ... exactly.

Article syndication is the reason article directories exist. They're there for people to re-publish their content (subject, of course, to their terms of service). That's the purpose they serve. The idea that they require "unique, unpublished content" is - by definition - ludicrous.