Articles on Your Own Site

Banned 13 years ago

From the perspective of the article directories to which you submit them after they've been published and indexed on your own site, it doesn't really matter much. They (especially EZA) just want to know that it hasn't been published under a different name/pen-name from the one under which you submit it to them, which is fair enough of course. But you don't have to put "by Catherine May" on them specifically, on your site, if that name's somewhere on your site anyway. What you mustn't do is use one name/pen-name on your own site and a different one when you submit to EZA - but you wouldn't want to do that anyway?

I've heard of someone getting into trouble because he submitted an article to EZA and on his own site, the originally indexed copy was by "Admin" ... :rolleyes: ... but who wants to read articles by "Admin" anyway?

From the perspective of your own site, it's entirely up to you how/where you set them out. I do actually have a link called "articles" and I don't mind people finding them at all, because I like people to see a content-rich site. But I don't actually publish them there "prominently" and they're not really what I most want people to find when they hit my landing-page. I'm publishing them on my own sites first mostly for the cumulative, long-term SEO benefits (which are very considerable).

I do put some internal links in them, but just remove that before submitting to EZA, and don't make other changes (apart from regarding the resource-box, obviously). There may be further "technical SEO considerations" about how optimally to link them regarding your own on-site SEO, but I'm probably not the right person to advise you about that.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4515109].message }}

CatherineMay 13 years ago

Many thanks, Alexa, for being so fast with such an informative reply...of course, that's the only kind you give!

Catherine
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4515140].message }}

hyderkhan

12 years ago

I know this thread is a few months old but I thought I would ask this follow-up since seemed relevant to this topic"

When we say that we should be focusing on posting articles to our own site before any other sites, are we basically trying to say that we are trying to get Google to rank our site as an authority site in and of itself... and that external back links are not as important?

Take this scenario:
If I post 100 articles to my own website and don't even bother posting them anywhere else such as EZA, what would happen from an SEO perspective? (Assume that all content is relevant, well-written, SEO-friendly, etc.) Can my website rank highly in the search engines of its own merit?

The reason I'm asking this is because nowadays I am reading about how so many different back linking venues are becoming devalued by Google. A back link from EZA is not what it used to be. Blasting your article to the top 50 article directories each with a link back to your own site is not what it used to be. etc. etc.

And I am reading a lot about how quality content is what really matters now in this new world, following the plethora of algorithm changes Google has gone through in the past year.

So should I be less concerned about back links and just keep adding content to my own site? 50 to 100 articles (or whatever it takes to get ranked highly in Google to beat the page #1 competition)?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Looking To Help A Fellow Warrior Out.

Need a Wordpress website built? I know Wordpress, MySQL, PHP, and even GIMP, and can help you build your website.

I'm looking to JV with anyone with a drive to succeed. Send me a PM.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5364337].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

When we say that we should be focusing on posting articles to our own site before any other sites, are we basically trying to say that we are trying to get Google to rank our site as an authority site in and of itself...

That's the long-term objective.

It isn't typically going to work out that way in the short term, but the gradual accumulation of all those initial indexation-rights has considerable benefits.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

and that external back links are not as important?

After the Panda updates of 2011 (of which more have been promised), some external backlinks are not as important. (Those definitely include "article directories"!).

Others are more important (those include relevant websites, almost regardless of the page ranks of the pages on which the backlinks appear).

So, "at a glance", it's fair to summarise by saying that article directory marketing has been the big loser, whereas article marketing (by syndication - in which the sites to which articles are syndicated are relevant ones) is the big winner - as so many of us have recently been reporting.

This is where we are, with article directories: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ries-work.html

And the last paragraph of this post is where we are with backlinks from syndicated articles: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

If I post 100 articles to my own website and don't even bother posting them anywhere else such as EZA, what would happen from an SEO perspective? (Assume that all content is relevant, well-written, SEO-friendly, etc.) Can my website rank highly in the search engines of its own merit?

That depends on the competition.

It's a little more likely now than it was a year or so ago, but they'd still have to be pretty long-tail keywords to get high rankings with no backlinks at all. (Someone yesterday was asking opinions on why a site with apparently only 17 backlinks was ranking so highly - but it had plenty of good, high-quality content. So, these things can happen, but between you and me I'm guessing that at least some of its 17 backlinks were from relevant sites, too).

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

The reason I'm asking this is because nowadays I am reading about how so many different back linking venues are becoming devalued by Google. A back link from EZA is not what it used to be. Blasting your article to the top 50 article directories each with a link back to your own site is not what it used to be. etc. etc.

That's definitely all exactly right (and backlinks from the top 50 article directories never used to be worth much to start with, even before the Panda updates, really).

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

And I am reading a lot about how quality content is what really matters now in this new world, following the plethora of algorithm changes Google has gone through in the past year.

Backlinks from relevant sites are still very beneficial, too.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

So should I be less concerned about back links and just keep adding content to my own site?

Less concerned than you were, probably, yes ... but specifically, concerned about getting some relevant backlinks.

Article syndication is a brilliant way of doing this - it works more or less "by definition", in the sense that if an article is of "syndication quality", the only webmasters who'll want to syndicate it are those with relevant sites anyway.

This is why Google's recent updates have been such a bonus to article marketers (at the expense of article directory marketers).

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post3188316

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5364623].message }}

Scott Burton

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

So, "at a glance", it's fair to summarise by saying that article directory marketing has been the big loser, whereas article marketing (by syndication - in which the sites to which articles are syndicated are relevant ones) is the big winner - as so many of us have recently been reporting.

Just my thought, but doesn't this kind of push article directories back to most of their intended purpose, as a repository of articles available to be reproduced (with proper attribution, bio, links, etc) to other sites which have an interest in adding this content?

I mean, if I have a site about skin care, I really don't need articles on welding. But if I have a site about skin care, I might have an interest in adding a couple of quality third party articles on reducing the visibility of scars, wrinkles, or clearing up acne.

While I could create content or have content created, I might be willing to pick up a couple legitimate articles from elsewhere from time to time, or even contact the authors and ask them if they'd like to do a guest spot on my site.

Backlinks from relevant sites are still very beneficial, too.

Which is, I believe, what the first article directories were trying to do is to provide quality content that could be syndicated (before syndication of articles was more evolved) to relevant sites.

This is why Google's recent updates have been such a bonus to article marketers (at the expense of article directory marketers).

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post3188316

Valuable distinction, because the original intent of article marketing was to get the content out there for others to use expanding your backlinks.

Now many people just blast volumes of articles at directories, many articles that make it into the directories suffer from extremely low quality, because people decided it was more feasible to blast 1000 garbage articles for links into directories than to send 10 quality articles that can actually get picked up and generate relevant links.

I don't use other people's content without their permission, but a lot of what's in many directories is so poor quality/so unreadable, that I would need to rewrite the content heavily to make it readable, then possibly rewrite again to make it useful. In which case, why would I pick it from a directory?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

- = Signature on Vacation = -
(We all need a break from what we do for a living. I thought it was time my signature got a break too)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5365166].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

Just my thought, but doesn't this kind of push article directories back to most of their intended purpose, as a repository of articles available to be reproduced (with proper attribution, bio, links, etc) to other sites which have an interest in adding this content?

Yes, absolutely - completely.

This is what article directories were always there for in the first place, both before and now after the advent of marketers trying (though typically not too successfully) to use them for their own traffic and their own backlinks. http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ries-work.html

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

I might be willing to pick up a couple legitimate articles from elsewhere from time to time, or even contact the authors and ask them if they'd like to do a guest spot on my site.

Exactly so.

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

Valuable distinction, because the original intent of article marketing was to get the content out there for others to use expanding your backlinks.

Well ... primarily your targeted traffic, but certainly your backlinks, too; yes.

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

Now many people just blast volumes of articles at directories

Up until a year or so ago, yes. Not so many of them now, though: these are the people starting off all the threads you see here with titles like "Article Marketing Is Dead".

They're right about that activity being pretty much dead (in terms of value).

They're not right about it being "article marketing", though: it was only ever an attempt at "article directory marketing", but many didn't appreciate the difference between them. :rolleyes:

Those authors who have consistently used article directories for their intended purpose, on the other hand, have more typically been left with flourishing businesses and increasing residual income from work already done.

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

it was more feasible to blast 1000 garbage articles for links into directories than to send 10 quality articles that can actually get picked up and generate relevant links.

It was more feasible for people who imagined that article marketing was just "a branch of SEO", yes.

But very few of them ever really made a living from it, even before the Panda updates (like many others here, I tried it myself for some months, with mass-submission, and spinning, and all the rest of the nonsense, and like many others here I made very little money indeed from it - even with decent, respectable articles I was relatively happy to have my name on!), and these days it is "dead", as they rightly say.

Originally Posted by Scott Burton

I don't use other people's content without their permission, but a lot of what's in many directories is so poor quality/so unreadable, that I would need to rewrite the content heavily to make it readable, then possibly rewrite again to make it useful. In which case, why would I pick it from a directory?

Yes, quite so ... no reason at all. Typically, you'd perhaps look quickly through Ezine Articles (only), searching there for articles on your own niche only, and rejecting at a glance about 90% - 95% of what you find? This is certainly what many ezine publishers and webmasters do.

It seems that it was because article directories were (typically) so full of garbage submitted there by those who were trying to (ab)use directories just for their own now-worthless backlinks, that Google dropped a large black-and-white furry beast on them.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5365290].message }}

JohnMcCabe

12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Take this scenario:
If I post 100 articles to my own website and don't even bother posting them anywhere else such as EZA, what would happen from an SEO perspective? (Assume that all content is relevant, well-written, SEO-friendly, etc.) Can my website rank highly in the search engines of its own merit?

The reason I'm asking this is because nowadays I am reading about how so many different back linking venues are becoming devalued by Google. A back link from EZA is not what it used to be. Blasting your article to the top 50 article directories each with a link back to your own site is not what it used to be. etc. etc.

And I am reading a lot about how quality content is what really matters now in this new world, following the plethora of algorithm changes Google has gone through in the past year.

So should I be less concerned about back links and just keep adding content to my own site? 50 to 100 articles (or whatever it takes to get ranked highly in Google to beat the page #1 competition)?

As Alexa pointed out, the likelihood of reaching a top ranking solely on the basis of your site content depends a lot on the competition.

What many people fail to take advantage of as they grow the content on their own sites is the power of internal linking.

Remember, Google ranks pages, not sites. If you have 50 or 100 articles of suitable quality, you have a great opportunity to create "internal backlinks" which, unless you are either very dense or very careless, will be highly relevant, in-context links.

I do believe external backlinking will become much less of a "brute force" tool and much more of a "finesse" tool in the very near future. So concentrate your external backlinking efforts on getting the best links you can, rather than the most.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5366253].message }}

hyderkhan

12 years ago

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

What many people fail to take advantage of as they grow the content on their own sites is the power of internal linking.

Remember, Google ranks pages, not sites. If you have 50 or 100 articles of suitable quality, you have a great opportunity to create "internal backlinks" which, unless you are either very dense or very careless, will be highly relevant, in-context links.

I do believe external backlinking will become much less of a "brute force" tool and much more of a "finesse" tool in the very near future. So concentrate your external backlinking efforts on getting the best links you can, rather than the most.

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Remember, Google ranks pages, not sites. If you have 50 or 100 articles of suitable quality, you have a great opportunity to create "internal backlinks" which, unless you are either very dense or very careless, will be highly relevant, in-context links.

I do believe external backlinking will become much less of a "brute force" tool and much more of a "finesse" tool in the very near future. So concentrate your external backlinking efforts on getting the best links you can, rather than the most.

Internal back links! Hmmm. A light bulb just went on in my head.

So if I write a 100 articles and put them all on my website, I should be creating back links internally between my articles to every other article on my site? Is this a way of doing "self-sufficient" SEO (without depending so much on external back links)?

Based on what I'm reading between yours and Alexa's responses, it seems like Google is doing a major overhaul in its indexing strategy by placing less emphasis on external back links and more emphasis on the self-sufficiency of sites based on their own content? (And back links have to be relevant to be counted by Google). Am I understanding you guys correctly?

Also:

Can you guys recommend any good, authoritative threads on the subject of internal back linking?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Looking To Help A Fellow Warrior Out.

Need a Wordpress website built? I know Wordpress, MySQL, PHP, and even GIMP, and can help you build your website.

I'm looking to JV with anyone with a drive to succeed. Send me a PM.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374349].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

So if I write a 100 articles and put them all on my website, I should be creating back links internally between my articles to every other article on my site? Is this a way of doing "self-sufficient" SEO (without depending so much on external back links)?

Internal linking structures can certainly be a very valuable part of SEO.

This kind of thing can be done in various different ways, without it distracting/detracting too much from "user experience" by being too blatant. One way would be with something like "article contents listing" in a sidebar (if using, say, Wordpress) which are therefore there on each page. There are other methods too, of course. (I'm not a Wordpress user, and my own ways of doing this are not going to be helpful to you).

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Based on what I'm reading between yours and Alexa's responses, it seems like Google is doing a major overhaul in its indexing strategy by placing less emphasis on external back links and more emphasis on the self-sufficiency of sites based on their own content?

I'd say "less emphasis on some external links but more on others". The value of backlinks from relevant sites continues to improve. That from article directories (for example), which was low to start with, continues to deteriorate.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

(And back links have to be relevant to be counted by Google)

I'd say "to be worth talking about" rather than "to be counted", technically.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Can you guys recommend any good, authoritative threads on the subject of internal back linking?

Scouring the SEO folder will probably help, or searching there for threads with the word "internal" in their titles, maybe? Not sure. John may answer this more helpfully than I managed. Take some care, in the SEO folder, here: misinformation abounds and interpretation and judgement are useful skills, to express it politely. Don't accept as "gospel" off-the-cuff opinions and interjections from people you don't recognize. Excuse my butting in, again ... I know you're asking John, really.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374405].message }}

hyderkhan

12 years ago

So I have to ask..... What is a "relevant" site. If I have a blog about airplanes, does that mean that back links from other websites about airplanes is concerned "relevant". I know of sites from the "pre-Google-Panda" days such as FreeTrafficSystem.com that let you distribute your content to other blog sites that participate in the network that are relevant to your topic - you get to choose the target blogs. And I believe LinkVana works in a similar way though I never tried it.

And I'm sure that just because a site is "relevant" doesn't mean that it itself has "quality" content.... So the "relevant site" must also have "quality" content too?

And yes I would love to get some more insight into the concept of internal linking... any links to authoritative threads on this forum would be appreciated!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Looking To Help A Fellow Warrior Out.

Need a Wordpress website built? I know Wordpress, MySQL, PHP, and even GIMP, and can help you build your website.

I'm looking to JV with anyone with a drive to succeed. Send me a PM.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374501].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

So I have to ask..... What is a "relevant" site. If I have a blog about airplanes, does that mean that back links from other websites about airplanes is concerned "relevant".

Certainly.

Major keywords in common, subjects in common, LSI terms in common.

Nobody knows the precise details of Google's algorithms and how "context recognition" works. But it's clear that for my cauliflower soup recipes site, backlinks from people's blogs about soups, feeding your kids, growing vegetables, and "101 things to do with a cauliflower" are all relevant backlinks, whereas backlinks from Ezine Articles, Squidoo, HubPages and the Warrior Forum, though maybe not completely valueless, just aren't.

(Except, arguably, I've talked here so much, now, about cauliflower soup recipes that I might have improved the value, there ...

).

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

I know of sites from the "pre-Google-Panda" days such as FreeTrafficSystem.com that let you distribute your content to other blog sites that participate in the network that are relevant to your topic

My own guess about those is that they're worth something, but perhaps not nearly as much as one might otherwise expect, because Google may see them as backlink farms, to some extent. I could be wrong, of course: Google might be clever enough to "see through them" altogether and just discount their links. Or I might be being pessimistic, and they could be worth a bit more than I expect. :confused:

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

you get to choose the target blogs.

Sounds ok, as long as they're not real link-fests?

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

And I believe LinkVana works in a similar way though I never tried it.

Well ... I believed not, actually ... but am a bit out of date with "LinkVana reviews".

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

And I'm sure that just because a site is "relevant" doesn't mean that it itself has "quality" content.... So the "relevant site" must also have "quality" content too?

It's going to help rather than hinder, one would think? The realities are that, among relevant sites, one takes everything one can get. And that's decided for us, to some extent, by the people who are willing to syndicate our articles, welcome our guest posts, publish our blog-comments, and so on. It's not as if there are so many completely relevant, first-class authority sites with precision backlinks readily available that one can pick and choose too much?

Originally Posted by DoubleOhDave

Wowsers... another thread with replies from Alexa that I will have to bookmark and read again when i am moree awake and have the brainpower to take it all in!!!

Don't get your hopes up too much: quite a few of them are "Well, one would think so", and "presumably", and "nobody knows", and "my guess is", and stuff like this. It's of limited value!

:p

Mind you, we may well get another post or two out of John, and others, in this fine upstanding thread, so it may still pick up, a little ...

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374581].message }}

DoubleOhDave

12 years ago

Wowsers... another thread with replies from Alexa that I will have to bookmark and read again when i am moree awake and have the brainpower to take it all in!!!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Could this be the best free autoresponder - ever?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374554].message }}

adammaxum

12 years ago

I am by no means an expert in this area, but I strongly believe adding content/articles to your own website is far more important then sending them off to directories. Yeah, you create back links and whatever, but I still think you accomplish a lot more by adding unique content to your own website.

As stated above, internal linking is also a great strategy to use.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374633].message }}

hustlinsmoke

12 years ago

I myself pretty much have quit using article directories. Do not get me wrong I do get alot of reads on my articles there. Its just if I put the seo into the website and have the highest quality articles I think this is much better. Never saw that many clicks on article directories but I do see the clicks on my own websites.

We are all different and do things differently.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374697].message }}

JohnMcCabe

12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

So if I write a 100 articles and put them all on my website, I should be creating back links internally between my articles to every other article on my site? Is this a way of doing "self-sufficient" SEO (without depending so much on external back links)?

I think that such a dense linking structure would be spotted for what it is - more of a back-linking exercise and less of a value-add for the visitor.

The folks who do the 'related posts' plugins have the right idea. I just haven't found one that can beat manual linking. You may also want to sprinkle in relevant links in the content.

"Borrowing" Alexa's soup example, say you have articles on picking out cauliflower in the grocery store and on storing them once you get them home. You could add notes, with links, to those articles at the end of your soup recipe. Those articles, in turn could link to an assortment of recipes, especially in-text should you mention that when choosing cauliflower for soup...

You still won't be totally self-sufficient, but those good internal links are often the answer when people ponder "why is that site outranking me when I can only see 5 backlinks compared to my 50,000?" They may only have 5 external links to that page, but dozens or hundreds of internal links.

For an ecommerce example, take a look at Amazon. You have standard navigation that will land you on many products eventually, but you also have a lot of very highly relevant links to related pages.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Based on what I'm reading between yours and Alexa's responses, it seems like Google is doing a major overhaul in its indexing strategy by placing less emphasis on external back links and more emphasis on the self-sufficiency of sites based on their own content? (And back links have to be relevant to be counted by Google). Am I understanding you guys correctly?

My own theory is that they are changing their emphasis on backlinks from pure numbers (How many links will it take to beat the site ahead of me?) to a combination of external links from 'reputable' sites and tightly themed (and linked) content. Such a combination will be very tough to accomplish with either small, 5 page 'review' sites or monstrous, loosely related sites like many autoblogs.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Can you guys recommend any good, authoritative threads on the subject of internal back linking?

Google around for anything by Dan Thies or Leslie Rohde. Especially anything recent.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

So I have to ask..... What is a "relevant" site. If I have a blog about airplanes, does that mean that back links from other websites about airplanes is concerned "relevant". I know of sites from the "pre-Google-Panda" days such as FreeTrafficSystem.com that let you distribute your content to other blog sites that participate in the network that are relevant to your topic - you get to choose the target blogs. And I believe LinkVana works in a similar way though I never tried it.

And I'm sure that just because a site is "relevant" doesn't mean that it itself has "quality" content.... So the "relevant site" must also have "quality" content too?

Focus a little tighter. Say you have a site about restoring Piper Cubs. A link from a site about "airplanes" is relevant. A site about small airplanes or vintage airplanes or Piper airplanes would be more relevant. As would sites about restoration techniques, etc. A link from a Piper Cub user group site or forum would be excellent, at least in terms of relevance.

So a loosely related string of blogs like you describe would be better than blasting away to random directories, but not as good as links from more tightly themed, authoritative sites.

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

And yes I would love to get some more insight into the concept of internal linking... any links to authoritative threads on this forum would be appreciated!

Look for threads discussing the pros and cons of 'silo structure' - and be sure to use that discretion Alexa mentioned above. There are a lot of lame ducks out there that just love to hear themselves quack...

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5374920].message }}

hyderkhan

12 years ago

One more question about article syndication:

I have read a lot about PASSIVE article syndication methods.... like Ezinearticles.com. You publish your articles there and wait passively for someone out there to MAYBE pick up your article for syndication.

Are there any ACTIVE syndication services out there... where you are in full control and you can ACTIVELY submit your article for syndication to networks where people ARE looking for your content...?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Looking To Help A Fellow Warrior Out.

Need a Wordpress website built? I know Wordpress, MySQL, PHP, and even GIMP, and can help you build your website.

I'm looking to JV with anyone with a drive to succeed. Send me a PM.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485375].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by hyderkhan

Are there any ACTIVE syndication services out there... where you are in full control and you can ACTIVELY submit your article for syndication to networks where people ARE looking for your content...?

Building a syndication network for your work is a "relationship-building" business.

Is that really something you'd want to outsource?

You need to be a bit careful with this.

There are people promoting what they call "syndication services" to try to fool people who've just about heard of syndication and know that it's a very good thing but don't really quite understand what it means, and what most of those services are really doing isn't what we'd call "syndication" at all: it's just mass submissions (in other words, basically "article directory marketing", exactly what we want to avoid).

However, you might want to look at this one, which isn't that at all, but is the real thing, and co-owned by Bill Platt ("tpw"): Article Marketing Services: Article Distribution Services from The Phantom Writers Since 2001

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486333].message }}

albertthomas

12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486419].message }}

wasp

12 years ago

I was led to beleive that you would publish your article in EZA first and once indexed then add to your own site later ensuring no duplication of article as far a EZA is concerned.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486466].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by wasp

I was led to beleive that you would publish your article in EZA first and once indexed then add to your own site later ensuring no duplication of article as far a EZA is concerned.

You were, like many people, completely misinformed by someone who (wrongly) imagined that Ezine Articles accepts only previously unpublished content. This has never been the case at all.

Article directories do not require previously unpublished content.

It's just one of those things from the Urban Myth School of internet marketing, perpetuated by people who don't quite understand the difference between "duplicate content" and "syndicated content", those promoting SEO services which have little-to-no validity or necessity but require their potential purchasers to believe something like that to justify their existence, and those who repeat what they've seen other people saying in forums without themselves understanding or thinking about it. Unfortunately, that all adds up to a lot of people, so it's really easy to become misinformed about this.

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post4309204

Article Marketers - Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All | Internet Marketing and Publishing

If you look at this long thread, you'll see an entire succession of professional, successful, experienced article marketers explaining all their shared reasons for never submitting to Ezine Articles first: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486573].message }}

Nicola Lane

12 years ago

Originally Posted by wasp

I was led to beleive that you would publish your article in EZA first and once indexed then add to your own site later ensuring no duplication of article as far a EZA is concerned.

Then I am afraid that you were led wrongly.

Take a look here:

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5476518

Hope that helps.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486577].message }}

matus37

12 years ago

Ezine articles is good way but it takes some time

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486698].message }}

hyderkhan

12 years ago

Alexa,

In the context of article syndication, you made a reference to a "Directory of Ezines" in another thread on this forum. Are you referring to Directory of Ezines?

If I wanted to find sources for "active" article syndication (where you go out there and proactively get your article syndicated rather than waiting, hoping, and praying that somebody out there syndicates your articles like might be the case with EZA), is that what this website is? An authoritative (and frequently updated) list of ezines that are looking for syndicated content? Do they just provide a list and you are on your own how to figure out how to contact them - like cold calling? Or do these websites have a "contact us if you have contact to syndicate with us" link?

In other words - rather than sending an email to info@cauliflowerrecipes.com saying "hi, i'm a wannabe article writer and I was wondering if you are looking for articles. Can I PLEASE submit my article to your network"?

... is this list an authoritative source for ezines that are on the list BECAUSE they advertise the fact that they actively accept articles for syndication?

Thanks

Signature

Looking To Help A Fellow Warrior Out.

Need a Wordpress website built? I know Wordpress, MySQL, PHP, and even GIMP, and can help you build your website.

I'm looking to JV with anyone with a drive to succeed. Send me a PM.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5501288].message }}

Articles on Your Own Site

Trending Topics

Can I change my username?

Check out DeepL Write

Is Wordpress Website Secure? - Emmanuel Katto

How did you turn it all around?

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?