If article marketing REALLY worked...

[Techie Turtle]

No doubt the people at Google are some of the most intelligent and talented bunch. If you put yourself in Google's shoes, you want to give your customers the BEST possible service quickly and efficiently. So let's say you just found out your best friend of 30 years has been diagnosed with lung cancer and you make it a point to stop smoking. If every internet marketer had it their way the search results would be nothing but pages and pages of summary articles about how to stop smoking and links to buy some kind of info product.

Have you ever wondered how you can search term after term and see pictures, articles, and videos and never run into a porn site? Sure, there might be 1 or 2 that get in there but the odds are really good that you won't see porn when doing your common, everyday search for "how to cook a turkey" or "dining guide."

My point is that any legitimate search should yield legitimate results. When results start turning into nothing more affiliate websites and/or squeeze pages, then the search engine is finished. Nobody would trust the results. This may be an epiphany for me but I think Google has been on this for a long time.

[Mad Dawg]

You're right that if a search engine turned up nothing but garbage affiliate sites that SE would be finished, but the good article marketers aren't offering garbage.

The point of good article marketing is to provide unique and helpful content that will compel someone to digg further into what you have to offer them, so a search engine is not hurting its users experience by pointing to the well written articles.

[Jenniferlinn]

Yes I completely agree with you search results are not indexed by the relavant contents of site, the actual picture represents some different
results

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by travor

No doubt the people at Google are some of the most intelligent and talented bunch. If you put yourself in Google's shoes, you want to give your customers the BEST possible service quickly and efficiently. So let's say you just found out your best friend of 30 years has been diagnosed with lung cancer and you make it a point to stop smoking. If every internet marketer had it their way the search results would be nothing but pages and pages of summary articles about how to stop smoking and links to buy some kind of info product.

Have you ever wondered how you can search term after term and see pictures, articles, and videos and never run into a porn site? Sure, there might be 1 or 2 that get in there but the odds are really good that you won't see porn when doing your common, everyday search for "how to cook a turkey" or "dining guide."

My point is that any legitimate search should yield legitimate results. When results start turning into nothing more affiliate websites and/or squeeze pages, then the search engine is finished. Nobody would trust the results. This may be an epiphany for me but I think Google has been on this for a long time.

That's a lot of what you get in the "sponsored results" section; the PPC ads. Some of those don't even have a thing to do with the keyword being searched. If this sort of thing would finish a search engine, you'd think PPC would be dead as well.

[Arine Mark]

Google are working on this. They will make a search result based on preference and search history. Search result can be different for each person.
Or maybe a new kind of search engine come out and overthrown google. Just like when google kick other SE, because only google can shows the best relevant result using PR algo.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Arine Mark

Google are working on this. They will make a search result based on preference and search history. Search result can be different for each person.
Or maybe a new kind of search engine come out and overthrown google. Just like when google kick other SE, because only google can shows the best relevant result using PR algo.

They can't do a complete turnaround and base all results on this. That's because people still use shared computers and shared networks. Think of all the schools and colleges that have computers. Think of all the families that share one computer. In less fortunate countries, many people share the same computer.

Not all the users will search the same way for information. Google will have to continue its current algorithm to some degree. It can't base all its information on search history and preferences, because that will be skewed.

[Eric Lorence]

Originally Posted by travor

No doubt the people at Google are some of the most intelligent and talented bunch. If you put yourself in Google's shoes, you want to give your customers the BEST possible service quickly and efficiently. So let's say you just found out your best friend of 30 years has been diagnosed with lung cancer and you make it a point to stop smoking. If every internet marketer had it their way the search results would be nothing but pages and pages of summary articles about how to stop smoking and links to buy some kind of info product.

Have you ever wondered how you can search term after term and see pictures, articles, and videos and never run into a porn site? Sure, there might be 1 or 2 that get in there but the odds are really good that you won't see porn when doing your common, everyday search for "how to cook a turkey" or "dining guide."

My point is that any legitimate search should yield legitimate results. When results start turning into nothing more affiliate websites and/or squeeze pages, then the search engine is finished. Nobody would trust the results. This may be an epiphany for me but I think Google has been on this for a long time.

Who is to say what is "legitimate" ?

The majority of searches are for quick information to solve some sort of problem.

Considering the billions exchanged in internet commerce- someone IS providing those answers.

Google is still the number one method of locating information, so they're doing OK.

P.S. #1 result for how to cook a turkey:

HOW TO COOK A TURKEY | HOW TO COOK A THANKSGIVING TURKEY

[Techie Turtle]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That's a lot of what you get in the "sponsored results" section; the PPC ads. Some of those don't even have a thing to do with the keyword being searched. If this sort of thing would finish a search engine, you'd think PPC would be dead as well.

You're not comparing organic search results to sponsored ads, are you? Correct me if I'm wrong but Google Adwords customers have a strong commercial interest with their ads.

Have you ever told a friend or colleague to "Google it" and recommend they look at the sponsored ads? Heck, have YOU ever Googled a legitimate search term and use the ads as your information source/search results?

Yet, a lot of people here would believe that they can "dominate" Google's front page! Imagine for a minute if that were TRUE! WebMD is a pretty popular high-end site so why is it that they don't dominate Google whenever someone searches for a disease, procedure, or the side effects of medicine? The moment that happened, people would start to complain that WebMD paid Google big $$$ to be all over the front page! Then people would start clicking on page 2, 3, 4, etc to find other points of view because (as everyone knows) it's never good to trust 1 source.

To make things simple, who can you point out that is dominating Google with article marketing (or video, etc)?

[Eric Lorence]

WebMD is number 1 for the search term "medical" with 554 million results.

WebMD is number 1 for the term "medical advice"...

[Techie Turtle]

Originally Posted by Eric Lorence

Who is to say what is "legitimate" ?

The majority of searches are for quick information to solve some sort of problem.

Considering the billions exchanged in internet commerce- someone IS providing those answers.

Google is still the number one method of locating information, so they're doing OK.

P.S. #1 result for how to cook a turkey:

HOW TO COOK A TURKEY | HOW TO COOK A THANKSGIVING TURKEY

Hey, thanks for the link! I also see results from YouTube, a couple of .edu, a usda.gov site, etc.

You're right, "legitimate" is open to interpretation. I guess I'm thinking about searching for movie times, looking for a new doctor, reading the news, getting directions, learning how to "do" something like fix a faucet, shopping, etc. I'm not implying that Google is hurting when it comes to quality search results but what I am saying is article marketing isn't what people think it is.

In our turkey example, we see a diverse set of results (thankfully). I know that when I Google that term I will be presented with various websites, some professional and some that look basic.

I know there are people writing ebooks and making $$$ on this kind of stuff so it may ruffle feathers. I know that PLR sites count on people to buy their articles, so it's kinda a snowball effect.

[Techie Turtle]

Originally Posted by Eric Lorence

WebMD is number 1 for the search term "medical" with 554 million results.

WebMD is number 1 for the term "medical advice"...

With their budget, the amount of fresh content many gurus selling ebooks keep talking about, all those keywords in all those medical articles sprinkled throughout their articles (again, like the gurus suggest), the constant updating, the amount of backlinks, and on and on you would think WebMD would come up for anything medical-related.

For the average person (without a staff), it isn't as simple as the ebook authors want you to believe. Heck, people start whining when they find out they have to write 10 original articles! And that's just the beginning! Then they have to make YouTube videos, Web 2.0 properties, get backlinks, JV, spam forums, and continue to come up with more original content to even have a chance.

On a side note, gurus like Frank Kern, Eben Pagan, Brad Fallon are the "face" we see. They have done an excellent job of creating the illusion that they're just simple guys like you and me and if they're doing it so can we. I've been working in television for the past 10 years and most people don't have a clue as to how many people it takes to get your favorite anchor on the air to present the evening news.

[Allen Graves]

Originally Posted by travor

I'm not implying that Google is hurting when it comes to quality search results but what I am saying is article marketing isn't what people think it is.

OK, you have the stage.

Why don't you tell us all what article marketing really is.

I'm all ears and very eager to hear what you have to say.

All due respect,
Allen Graves

[Steven Wagenheim]

My point is that any legitimate search should yield legitimate results.

Okay, here we go. Hypothetical situation of course.

John Doe has a really nagging problem with acne. He's breaking out all over
and he's got a date in about 5 days with this really hot chick.

He's done the Clearasil thing and it doesn't work for him. He wants a natural
home remedy for treating acne quickly and efficiently.

So he goes to the search engines.

He looks up "natural acne treatment".

He sees an article at Ezine Articles with the title "Do Natural Acne
Treatments Really Exist?" and he goes to read the article.

The article covers some pros and cons to conventional treatments and
also touches on what actually causes acne and why treating it naturally
and internally is the best course of action.

In the resource box, the article tells the reader to visit his blog at <URL>
to read his review of a natural acne treatment.

At the blog, the treatment is thoroughly reviewed. At the end of the
review is a suggestion to check out the sales page where they can pick
up this natural treatment.

The person goes to the sales page, gets the treatment and in a matter of
days, his acne is actually cured.

So please tell me...how did the search engine, in this case, not yield a
legitimate result?

When you come up with a good answer...let us know.

[Ldimilo]

Yeah, I am not exactly sure what legitimate is supposed to mean either. I think relevant is the better word. Think about it from google's world...they have to somehow figure out what the searcher is searching for on billions of search queries.

For long tail keywords, that is pretty easy...but what about the primary short tails? What would google list for something like "credit cards", which in many ways doesn't tell google which direction to really go into (is the searcher looking for information on credit cards in a general sense?...are they searching for the history of credit cards?...are they looking to apply for a credit card?...ect.)

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, here we go. Hypothetical situation of course.

John Doe has a really nagging problem with acne. He's breaking out all over
and he's got a date in about 5 days with this really hot chick.

He's done the Clearasil thing and it doesn't work for him. He wants a natural
home remedy for treating acne quickly and efficiently.

So he goes to the search engines.

He looks up "natural acne treatment".

He sees an article at Ezine Articles with the title "Do Natural Acne
Treatments Really Exist?" and he goes to read the article.

The article covers some pros and cons to conventional treatments and
also touches on what actually causes acne and why treating it naturally
and internally is the best course of action.

In the resource box, the article tells the reader to visit his blog at <URL>
to read his review of a natural acne treatment.

At the blog, the treatment is thoroughly reviewed. At the end of the
review is a suggestion to check out the sales page where they can pick
up this natural treatment.

The person goes to the sales page, gets the treatment and in a matter of
days, his acne is actually cured.

So please tell me...how did the search engine, in this case, not yield a
legitimate result?

When you come up with a good answer...let us know.

Actually, Steven I did this VERY thing just today. My nasal allergies are so awful that I take THREE different types of OTC allergy medications for them. Some days I am okay, but today I am REALLY suffering. I decided to to a search for natural remedies.

I was taken to an article on EZA that talked about natural remedies and I then went to the sales page which also had great information. I will most likely be trying one of the natural remedies I found in the next week or so.

I'm afraid that if I go to an allergist, he or she may tell me I have developed an allergy to my pets. That is NOT gonna work for me. (I'm hoping it's just something here in the damp Washington climate.) So natural remedies it is. And articles and sales pages will get me there.

It was a legitimate search that yielded legitimate results.

[HeySal]

Actually, Steven I did this VERY thing just today. My nasal allergies are so awful that I take THREE different types of OTC allergy medications for them. Some days I am okay, but today I am REALLY suffering. I decided to to a search for natural remedies.

Orange juice. It has a natural antihistamine plus a few phyto-nutrients that are helpful. I drink it a quart at a time for allergy control.

I actually am disappointed with google lately. Searching yesterday for gem hunting locations and good geology in my area all I could come up with were pages of trash - webpages of links to this and that which showed quotes from their page but once you clicked on the info was absolutely nowhere to be found. I haven't had time to go back to search yet today, but I'll have to use deep search to find a darned thing. That's okay with me as I know how to deep search - I am wondering how casual computer users ever cut through the sludge and find anything, though.

[Barbara Eyre]

Sal,

Where are you located?
We have an emerald (and 65 other naturally occurring gemstones) mine right here in Hiddenite, NC ... plus the rare Hiddenite! Geology/Mineralogy was my minor at Arizona State 10 years ago. (Physics was my major).

Sorry to go off-topic there folks ...


I'm wondering if the OP is trying to ask this ...

If article marketing is supposed to be one of THE ways to attract visitors to your website ... why aren't more articles being listed in search engine results for search terms? With so many articles written on a HUGE range of topics, surely nearly every search result would have articles listed on nearly every page.

Just curious if that is what the OP was driving at.
And if not, am curious about the answer caused I wondered about that.

[skydivedad]

Originally Posted by Ldimilo

Yeah, I am not exactly sure what legitimate is supposed to mean either. I think relevant is the better word. Think about it from google's world...they have to somehow figure out what the searcher is searching for on billions of search queries.

For long tail keywords, that is pretty easy...but what about the primary short tails? What would google list for something like "credit cards", which in many ways doesn't tell google which direction to really go into (is the searcher looking for information on credit cards in a general sense?...are they searching for the history of credit cards?...are they looking to apply for a credit card?...ect.)

Your confusing "Relevancy" with "User Intent" a common mistake made by a lot of IM'ers almost every time they conduct keyword research.
As the major Search Engines evolve they have as a task the ability of determining the “intent” of the user when he entered a query into their systems. “User Intent” is a key component of supplying the searcher with a result set relevant to that intent. Each Search Engine has found over the course of years that this is a daunting task and lacked a solid basis in research and technologies. There are inherent shortcomings that make it so.

They are limited to relying on the data from transaction logs which are excellent for collecting large amounts of data from a large number of users engaged in real search tasks. However, they do not have direct access to these users. They can only infer intent from the available data. That said there is a protocol in place based upon academic research that has laid a foundation for creating a better understanding of “User Intent”. User Intent is classified under this protocol into three distinct query classifications.



1. Informational

2. Navigational

3. Transactional



The Jansen and Spink Report (2005) shows us that query characteristics across search engines are amazingly consistent. The current best understanding of User Intent shows us that %76 of search queries can safely be classified into 1 of the above categories. Further more 75% of these queries are informational, 10% each show themselves to be navigational or transactional. (Jansen, 2008)


Caution should be used when attempting to classify User Intent because a single query may have multiple motivations behind it, Informational and Transactional as an example. Further research is called for either by applying naive Bayes Classifiers (Naive Bayes classifiers are among the most successful known algorithms for learning to classify text documents) and/or data mining algorithms to arrive at a probability of classifying a query into one or more categories. This research and it's application is an ongoing process as the Search Engines mature and build these variables into their algorithms.

Keyword Research is merely an attempt to discover the language or word set of the search query performed by the user and Internet Marketers are quick to make unfounded leaps and assumptions (usually unconsciously) with the discovery of these search query keywords as to the intent of the user when in fact the nature of this relationship between keyword usage in search queries and User Intent is mostly unknown at this time. This has resulted in complex inefficiencies in the keyword research process and in the deployment of keyword sets in the marketing mix.

Article Marketing is a useful tool and has allowed wise IM'ers a basis for proper experimentation, evaluation and adjustments necessary to maximize the benefit of targeting "User Intent" and providing a measurable "ROI" while making they're marketing more efficient.
PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... C: wait... SD: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[Veredfu]

You describe article marketers as people who just want to sell something
without giving a value.
It can be the case, but just like with any business, you can choose if you want to give value or not, and ultimately your business will not last if you will not give value.
So I believe it is in the best interest of article marketers to give their readers useful content, otherwise the reader will not become customers.
So there is no real difference between the marketer and google's interests.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by HeySal

Orange juice. It has a natural antihistamine plus a few phyto-nutrients that are helpful. I drink it a quart at a time for allergy control.

Thank you, Sal. I will definitely have to give that a try.

I actually am disappointed with google lately. Searching yesterday for gem hunting locations and good geology in my area all I could come up with were pages of trash - webpages of links to this and that which showed quotes from their page but once you clicked on the info was absolutely nowhere to be found. I haven't had time to go back to search yet today, but I'll have to use deep search to find a darned thing. That's okay with me as I know how to deep search - I am wondering how casual computer users ever cut through the sludge and find anything, though.

That's very likely because it's a small search with a small amount of competition and marketers have figured out how to place really high in Google with "manageable" competition like that. This sounds exactly like what my experience with "sponsored results" (ie, PPC) has been. In my experience (with my searches), those have been just like you describe: webpages of links to this and that which showed quotes from their page but once you clicked on the info was absolutely nowhere to be found.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Hey folks, let's not kid ourselves here.

Not every keyword search on Google is going to reveal quality info at the
top spot.

Some topics, there just isn't enough of a demand and therefore, the supply
is probably limited.

I myself have done searches for various things and have been extremely
disappointed with the results either because...

1. The info was not exactly what I was looking for.

2. The info itself, while what I was looking for, was either incomplete,
poorly written or incorrect (because I knew certain things about the topic
that immediately pointed out the incorrect data)

If you're looking for SEs to be like going to a library, you've got a very
long wait.