Article Resource Box?

Alexa gave you the reasons why, so I'll just add my own practices...

Single link - landing page.

Two links - One to landing page, one to related article or perhaps a category or tag page. All have my opt-in in the sidebar. I'm testing adding a short version of my landing page/semi-squeeze page at the top of my category and tag pages. Too early to comment on results...

Thank you all for the good answers. It is much appreciated.

This is "second-best" advice.

Not only would that have no benefits at all, but it can even do you some real harm.

It's actually a deeply flawed approach. What you're doing, if you do that, is giving article directories (and/or other sites) initial indexation-rights to content not previously published. In the long run, that gives significant SEO disadvantages to your own site, compared with the alternative.

When you have time to read through this thread, you'll find in it a whole succession of experienced, successful article marketers explaining at length and in detail all their shared reasons for not doing that: Article on site or EZA first ?

Spinning is absolute nonsense, devoid of benefits and based only a fundamental misunderstanding (in spite of all Google's lengths to clarify it!) about the difference between duplicate content and syndicated content (explained here). Its only remaining advocates are those with a financial interest in the promotion of spinning software/services and the graduates of the Urban Myth School of Internet Marketing.

Everyone who actually makes a living from article marketing (rather than from supplying spinning software or services) will tell you the same thing about this subject. For people open-minded enough to read them and learn something, these five items explain much more, at greater length and in greater detail.

• this post explains the benefits of spinning
• the first half (or so) of this thread contains a good discussion of what you can gain from spinning articles
• the advice on this subject given by so many people throughout most of this thread has been really helpful to many people here
• this little article is also a very useful and accurate explanation of the subject
• this post, and its links, explain in detail the closely related subject of how article directories really work and why they exist

Not at all - your politeness here has put me to shame, and I've changed a word or two in my post above and I apologise for strong wording originally. Occasionally I look back at a post from the day before and think "Wow, did I really phrase it quite like that?" Thank you very much for taking it as I intended it rather than as I actually worded it. :rolleyes:

Well, I am a niche marketer.

Well ... not so much, in my case, because I don't like SEO traffic and it doesn't convert well for me. I do get plenty of Google traffic, though. Article marketing by syndication produces high quality SEO, funnily enough, even though that isn't its primary objective. In the way explained in the last paragraph of this post: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

I'm not quite with you, here.

Every syndicated copy of every article I write credits me with a backlink (unless I ever get one syndicated to an unindexed site, I suppose? But I'm not going to know about those, anyway?).

The good thing about article syndication backlinks is that they're all on relevant sites (because nobody else would want the article anyway). And linkjuice is determined primarily by relevance.

No ... all the backlinks count.

Even if an article is indexed for my keywords only in Google's supplemental index rather than in the main index (which often happens, of course) that doesn't affect the value of its backlink.

Sure ... 20 backlinks on relevant sites are worth far more than 1 backlink on a relevant site.

But 20 backlinks from relevant sites attached to articles in the supplemental index aren't worth any less than 20 backlinks from relevant sites attached to article in the main index.

20 backlinks attached to 20 copies of the same article in 20 different places aren't worth any less than 20 copies of "unique" articles in the same 20 places.

The value of any backlink attached to any article on any given page of the web isn't worth any more, or less, because the content it follows has previously been published somewhere else: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5867601

(But they have to be relevant sites, of course. Even before all the Panda updates, according to standard SEO textbook authors, one decent backlink from a relevant authority site was worth 50,000+ article directory backlinks: they have no real value at all).

Don't feel bad. There are some very good marketers with a vested interest in making the process as difficult as possible. If it were too easy, they'd have a much harder time selling spinners, submission bots and other tools for spreading spun nonsense as widely as possible.

Since the backlinks are equivalent either way, I much prefer to see one author show up on a multitude of relevant sites. It builds a lot more authority into what that author has to say. If someone sees the same article on several different sites (much less common that the spin and scatter types would have you believe), what does that tacit endorsement from relevant, trusted publishers say about the value of that author's information?