Why I Won't Post To Article Directories From Now Onwards!

14 replies
Q. Why we post articles to article directories?

A. Because we want to take advantage of the resource box to get a straight one way backlink from the article page and also in some cases, get traffic.

Q. What else do we expect?

A. We expect that the article would be picked up by bloggers looking for content and they would put our article on their blog without changing it in anyway and keeping intact the resource box to credit us and thus we get a backlink and traffic sometimes from their blog too.

But this isn't true always. Naive and new bloggers forget to copy the resource box sometimes. And sometimes they copy the entire resource box without realizing that the link behind the anchor text isn't copied. This way we don't get the deserved backlink.

Q. But why this doesn't/won't work anymore?

A. Since search engines hate duplicate content, they would hate to see the same article on different pages - on our article directory page, on the blogs of the bloggers who have picked up our articles.

Q. How will it harm me/us?

A. In many ways!
Consider this example: Suppose I write a good article and put it on an article directory with a link back to "my money site". The article goes live. A new blogger super excited with the hopes of making quick bucks online looking for some content to put up on his blog makes his way to my article and decides to copy and paste it on his blog with resource box intact.

But now my article with intact resource box pointing to "my money site", is on two web pages, i.e., my article directory page and the blog of the blogger. And these pages are linking to my money site, with the same anchor text, same content (article) and guess what, search engines don't like this. Search engines would think "this dude is trying to fool me by posting the same article on multiple blogs, websites etc and trying to get a backlink link from there for higher rankings. i dont like this dude and i will slam the site in the anchor text".

And so the search engine slams the site in anchor text, i.e., my money site.

The above scenario would have been perfect for getting backlinks if duplicate content wasn't an issue with search engines.

Conclusion:
I will not be posting onto article directories for backlinks and even for traffic as few of my sites were slammed when they were picked up by bloggers. And my article directory page, my money site in the anchor text in the resources box, all were slammed by search engines for my keywords I used to rank for.

Well this may not apply, if you have big authority sites but my few niche sites obviously were slammed by this. You may think I am talking totally non sense but if you have lately lost your ranking on search engines, then this could be a reason.

P.S. Although, this is not the fault of article directories nor the innocent bloggers who were just looking for some content. I just wish search engines were smarter.
#article #directories #onwards #post
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

    Q. Why we post articles to article directories?

    A. Because we want to take advantage of the resource box to get a straight one way backlink from the article page and also in some cases, get traffic.
    Nope. Those are not the reasons for posting to article directories. Those are not the reasons for which article directories exist, nor are they purposes that article directories can productively fulfil for us.

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

    Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

    Naive and new bloggers forget to copy the resource box sometimes.
    That isn't actually a reason for not doing it.

    Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

    Since search engines hate duplicate content, they would hate to see the same article on different pages
    This is completely wrong.

    It isn't duplicate content - it's syndicated content (which Google goes to great length to clarify that it likes).

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

    Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

    guess what, search engines don't like this.
    Also completely wrong, I'm afraid: again, you've confused duplicate content with syndicated content.

    What about all the world's leading news websites, who syndicate so much of their content from Associated Press and Reuters? Doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?!

    Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

    You may think I am talking totally non sense but if you have lately lost your ranking on search engines, then this could be a reason.
    Also completely wrong, I'm afraid. The sites of people who syndicate their articles have actually been helped by (recent and earlier) Google updates. It's the people who have done mass automated submission to article directories, bought spammy backlinks, have thousands of non-context-relevant backlinks, forum profile backlinks, Xrumer, SENukex and those types of backlinks who have been penalized for "overoptimization". Nothing to do with syndicated content at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6319669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author youngchild92
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Nope. Those are not the reasons for posting to article directories. Those are not the reasons for which article directories exist, nor are they purposes that article directories can productively fulfil for us.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872



      That isn't actually a reason for not doing it.



      This is completely wrong.

      It isn't duplicate content - it's syndicated content (which Google goes to great length to clarify that it likes).

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



      Also completely wrong, I'm afraid: again, you've confused duplicate content with syndicated content.

      What about all the world's leading news websites, who syndicate so much of their content from Associated Press and Reuters? Doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?!



      Also completely wrong, I'm afraid. The sites of people who syndicate their articles have actually been helped by (recent and earlier) Google updates. It's the people who have done mass automated submission to article directories, bought spammy backlinks, have thousands of non-context-relevant backlinks, forum profile backlinks, Xrumer, SENukex and those types of backlinks who have been penalized for "overoptimization". Nothing to do with syndicated content at all.
      Lol you slammed me in an instance.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6319679].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by youngchild92 View Post

        Lol you slammed me in an instance.
        I'm sorry!

        You made a perfectly fair comment, here - I never mean it rudely, only with clarity!

        To the extent that you mean you won't be submitting to article directories for their own backlinks and/or their own traffic, of course, I completely agree with you that we shouldn't do that anyway. We should be using them only for the purpose for which they exist: their syndication potential (which - relatively speaking - continues to improve).

        Just pointing out that "syndicated content" is absolutely fine: never "penalized" or "disadvantaged" in any way by Google.

        http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

        http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6319758].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author youngchild92
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          I'm sorry!

          You made a perfectly fair comment, here - I never mean it rudely, only with clarity!

          To the extent that you mean you won't be submitting to article directories for their own backlinks and/or their own traffic, of course, I completely agree with you that we shouldn't do that anyway. We should be using them only for the purpose for which they exist: their syndication potential (which - relatively speaking - continues to improve).

          Just pointing out that "syndicated content" is absolutely fine: never "penalized" or "disadvantaged" in any way by Google.

          http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

          http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678
          Thank you for clarifying that to me. I just realized how much I still have to learn.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6319829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author celente
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Nope. Those are not the reasons for posting to article directories. Those are not the reasons for which article directories exist, nor are they purposes that article directories can productively fulfil for us.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872



      That isn't actually a reason for not doing it.



      This is completely wrong.

      It isn't duplicate content - it's syndicated content (which Google goes to great length to clarify that it likes).

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



      Also completely wrong, I'm afraid: again, you've confused duplicate content with syndicated content.

      What about all the world's leading news websites, who syndicate so much of their content from Associated Press and Reuters? Doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?!



      Also completely wrong, I'm afraid. The sites of people who syndicate their articles have actually been helped by (recent and earlier) Google updates. It's the people who have done mass automated submission to article directories, bought spammy backlinks, have thousands of non-context-relevant backlinks, forum profile backlinks, Xrumer, SENukex and those types of backlinks who have been penalized for "overoptimization". Nothing to do with syndicated content at all.
      Wow with all the crap and BS posts I see in here everyday (and by god there is a lot of it), reading this is like a breath of clean crisp mountain air.

      Go alexa!!! **shakes pom poms**
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6324469].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author toby26
    I donor agree. Like Alex said this is syndication n google does not hate duplicated . Check google video on YouTube to learn more on this duplication content issue
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6319688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WraithSarko
    alexa handles these daily duplicate content posts with class and patience. the duplicate content myth is so pervasive it's going to take awhile for people to start understanding the truth.
    Signature
    SuperExpensiveNUKE...SubmitterEnvyNUKE...SENukeXCRaptastic
    I've spent the last 59 months building 412 MFA sites. Each site averages 8 cents per day...I said average, some make up to 17 cents per day, PASSIVE INCOME! This income allows me to live comfortably and buy ANY flavor Jolly Rancher or Skittles I desire. Don't give in to fear, it CAN be done!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320007].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seeyou
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320209].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
      Originally Posted by seeyou View Post

      Article marketing works. if you do not want your content to be flag duplicate content then use the {|} approach to your article marketing.
      Have you bothered to read this thread or any others from today on the same subject??

      Perhaps you could expand on your "theory" explaining exactly what duplicate content is, who exactly is going to be flagging it and what the {|} approach is.

      Or would reading this thread - and any others, and explaining your theory interfere with your spinning business and take time away from your sig link dropping campaign?
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320623].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Neale
    I too like the idea of "syndicating" quality content as much as Alexa but I don't think it's quite as simple and straightforward as she does (I wish it was).

    For one thing the latest Penguin update has gone after "duplicate anchor text" and when syndicating a great article you are also duplicating the anchor text. Google could inadvertently slap you somewhat for that (mistakenly I might add). I have no idea if this has happened but based on what I've read about Penguin it could.

    Secondly regarding syndicating news stories, I think this has also become somewhat "murky" as suggested in this Matt Cutts video.

    If I report the same news story as someone else, is that duplicate content? - YouTube

    As mentioned I like the concept of syndication of quality content, it is 100% white hat, legitimate and should cause no problems with search rankings and results BUT Google makes mistakes and sometimes "just gets it wrong".
    Signature

    David Neale

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6324082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
      Banned
      Originally Posted by David Neale View Post

      Secondly regarding syndicating news stories, I think this has also become somewhat "murky" as suggested in this Matt Cutts video.

      If I report the same news story as someone else, is that duplicate content? - YouTube

      As mentioned I like the concept of syndication of quality content, it is 100% white hat, legitimate and should cause no problems with search rankings and results BUT Google makes mistakes and sometimes "just gets it wrong".
      Thanks for the video! But I'm confused about something... If Google is making the rules, what is it getting wrong? Are you saying Google is wrong about its own policies? Or are you just signalling a displeasure with its policies?

      I'm also confused about what Matt 'suggested as "murky"'. Here's the video transcript in full. Can you show a pair of tired eyes where it indicates Matt's own confusion about this issue? Google's stance seems loud and clear to me.

      0:00 Today's question comes all the way from Zurich, Switzerland,
      0:03 where John Mueller wants to know, I have a news website.
      0:07 I heard Google doesn't like duplicate content.
      0:10 But I can't make up news!
      0:12 What can I do to stay in Google's favor?

      0:14 That's a fun question, because we don't expect you or want
      0:17 you to make up news.

      0:19 Whenever we're talking about duplicate content, especially
      0:21 in news, think more along the lines of
      0:23 wholesale duplicate content.

      0:25 So if all you're doing is taking a wire story or some
      0:28 other syndicate that's produced things, and you slap
      0:31 that up, and it's exactly the same text, then probably users
      0:34 don't want to see 17 different copies of that whenever they
      0:37 do a search.

      0:38 More likely we'd want to see the site that's considered
      0:41 more authoritative, the site that does original reporting,
      0:45 the site that at least writes their own version of the story
      0:47 rather than just re-using that
      0:49 syndicated particular document.

      0:52 It's not the case that you need to worry
      0:54 about making up news.

      0:55 If you are the sort of site who has expertise on a
      0:57 particular topic, I would say just make sure that you write
      1:00 the article yourself rather than just using the same
      1:04 article that everybody else is using.

      1:06 At the same time, you would probably benefit by asking
      1:10 yourself, do I have any value add?
      1:12 Do I have any expertise?

      1:13 Because if all you're doing is taking a story and just
      1:16 rehashing it, and not adding any unique insight, or
      1:19 anything that's different, a different angle, no unique
      1:22 reporting, you didn't contact anybody in the story, then it
      1:25 is a little harder to get noticed, because you sometimes
      1:28 get lost in the noise.

      1:29 There are a bunch of people that will just write the same
      1:31 sorts of stories, even if they're not exact duplicates.
      1:34 I talked to the guy who runs Techdirt, Mike Masnick.
      1:37 And I think he's got a really good philosophy.

      1:39 He doesn't write about something unless he's got some
      1:42 different take on it, some unique angle, or some insight
      1:45 that he doesn't think has been covered yet.
      1:48 And there is also the issue of what's your wheelhouse.
      1:51 What's your specialty?

      1:52 What do you know a lot about?
      1:53 If you don't know anything about Android phones, then
      1:56 writing the same story that seven other sources are
      1:59 writing about--
      2:00 this particular change related to the Android market--
      2:03 is probably not going to give the best quality story.
      2:05 Compared to if you are expert on something about health, and
      2:09 you can you really dig into this cancer story, and does
      2:13 this really cause cancer?

      2:14 And those kinds of things.
      2:15 So I would say concentrate on what your strengths are.
      2:18 I would also say make sure that if you're writing
      2:20 original stories, that definitely helps.

      2:22 And if you don't have any expertise, and you're just
      2:24 taking the same story that everybody else has and putting
      2:27 it up on the web somewhere, then maybe Google doesn't
      2:30 necessarily want to show that first. More likely we'd want
      2:33 to show the site that has got original content, got original
      2:36 reporting, is an expert on this, or is local.
      2:40 So if something happened in Dallas, maybe you want to show
      2:42 the Dallas newspaper.

      2:44 Those are the sorts of factors that ideally we'd use to try
      2:46 to return the best content to users.
      2:48 Hope that helps.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6324247].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author David Neale
        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        Thanks for the video! But I'm confused about something... If Google is making the rules, what is it getting wrong? Are you saying Google is wrong about its own policies? Or are you just signalling a displeasure with its policies?
        Not at all. I'm saying that using mathematics to accomplish what Google is trying to accomplish is extremely difficult. Mistakes will be made from their own stated goals.

        Are you making the case that "by definition" all SERPs are exactly the way Google would like them to be? That imperfections in the algorithm do not exist?

        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        I'm also confused about what Matt 'suggested as "murky"'. Here's the video transcript in full. Can you show a pair of tired eyes where it indicates Matt's own confusion about this issue? Google's stance seems loud and clear to me.
        Originally Posted by David Neale View Post

        Secondly regarding syndicating news stories, I think this has also become somewhat "murky" as suggested in this Matt Cutts video.
        I did not say Matt was confused... but that the issue of duplicate content as it relates to News Syndication has become murky (to me). Until recently I believe it was generally agreed that syndication news verbatim was perfectly fine and acceptable and Alexa Smith would appear to agree with that;

        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        What about all the world's leading news websites, who syndicate so much of their content from Associated Press and Reuters? Doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?!
        However Matt's recent video seems to contradict that view and suggest that verbatim syndication of news is no longer acceptable since Panda/Penguin.
        Signature

        David Neale

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6324345].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
          Banned
          Originally Posted by David Neale View Post

          Not at all. I'm saying that using mathematics to accomplish what Google is trying to accomplish is extremely difficult. Mistakes will be made from their own stated goals.

          Are you making the case that "by definition" all SERPs are exactly the way Google would like them to be? That imperfections in the algorithm do not exist?
          Oh I see. Thanks. But no -- I think we've all seen some bizarre results from Google's latest "search patch." Lol

          Originally Posted by David Neale View Post

          I did not say Matt was confused... but that the issue of duplicate content as it relates to News Syndication has become murky (to me).
          Got it. I really *am* tired. But I do want to thank you, again, for posting the link to that video. Extremely helpful!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6324390].message }}

Trending Topics