11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Question about article syndication that I can't find an answer for (After reading a Dracobar Thread)

by Iamcap
8 replies
Hello warriors,

Unforunately I do not have enough posts to post links, but I recently came across a thread started by Dracobar titled "$30 out of $1000 penguin proves 2.0 works". In said thread Dracobar, the OP, explains how he ranks his websites by syndicating his articles to his own web 2.0's and getting those web 2.0s indexed.

He goes on to explain that he writes his articles as pages (static pages) and writes filler articles as posts (has a date + appears on the rss feed, etc).

He states numerous times that you should never syndicate a "page" article (articles that he wants to rank for his keywords), but to only syndicate "filler" articles that aren't targeting any keywords.

Why is this? Why wouldn't syndicating the articles that I want to rank for, assuming they have been indexed already, help? If I use the resource boxes to link back to the original articles (not directly to the same article, but cross-link them, so for example "syndicated article a links back to original article b", etc)

Does having your content syndicated devalue your content or pagerank in any way?

I realise that some people syndicate everything, as they do not care about google and benefit in other ways from syndication, but if I want to rank like the OP in the mentioned thread, is syndicating everything really that bad?

Thanks in advance guys,
#answer #article #dracobar #find #question #reading #syndication #thread
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    I'm not familiar with the post you mention but the premise is flawed. Syndicating articles, real article syndication has little, if anything to do with SEO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832324].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      I'm not familiar with the post you mention but the premise is flawed. Syndicating articles, real article syndication has little, if anything to do with SEO.
      I wish I could post links, but I am unable to do so. If you google "$30 out of $1000 penguin proves 2.0 works", it will be the first page to appear.

      It sounded believable and possible, but I didn't understand why he was so adamant not to syndicate the pages that he wanted to rank for.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    He states numerous times that you should never syndicate a "page" article (articles that he wants to rank for his keywords), but to only syndicate "filler" articles that aren't targeting any keywords.
    How strange. I can't begin to understand that.

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    Why is this?
    Seems like Dracobar is the only person who can answer that, perhaps?

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    Why wouldn't syndicating the articles that I want to rank for, assuming they have been indexed already, help?
    I don't know. It works very well for me. :confused:

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    If I use the resource boxes to link back to the original articles (not directly to the same article, but cross-link them, so for example "syndicated article a links back to original article b", etc)
    I wouldn't ever want to do that, myself. Why would you want to link from one article to another? :confused:

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post6816122

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    Does having your content syndicated devalue your content or pagerank in any way?
    No. (Why would it?).

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    I realise that some people syndicate everything, as they do not care about google and benefit in other ways from syndication
    Do they? I don't care that much about Google traffic myself, but the SEO benefits from syndication to relevant sites (and who else is going to syndicate your articles apart from relevant sites?) is brilliant, compared with other backlinking methods, because those are precisely the sort of backlinks that Google values so highly and wants to identify and is getting better and better at doing so ...

    Originally Posted by Iamcap View Post

    but if I want to rank like the OP in the mentioned thread, is syndicating everything really that bad?
    I can't see why? But I perhaps haven't read the thread to which you refer (though with my memory and concentration, who knows?!), and it may be that only its OP can answer your questions? (I'm just wondering whether that thread might have been a better place to ask?). But as explained toward the end of this post, my own off-page SEO has been far, far better since I've been syndicating every article on my sites as widely as possible, than it ever was before I did that. Though that's only a side-benefit to syndication, which isn't aimed specifically at SEO anyway. So I'm kind of confused by your questions.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832344].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
    Thank you for your response Alexa, I would have added a reply to that thread, except it's a few months old now and I don't want to seem like a spammer.

    My website is an amazon affiliate site, so it will mainly be composed of reviews and articles about the products, etc. I don't have a landing page for a list, as these purchases are one offs really, I would benefit most from organic google traffic. So I am trying to decide what the best approach to seo would be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832352].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Well, here's a link to the thread, anyway: http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...2-0-works.html

      I really haven't seen it before. I was half expecting that it might turn out to be some thread in which I'd actually posted, and that I was going to be embarrassed by having said I didn't remember it. But not this time.

      But it's in the SEO Forum, not the Main Marketing Forum. I don't have a strong enough stomach/nerves to start reading threads down there. Quite a bit of the article marketing "information" in that quarter leaves a little to be desired, shall we say? (You can kind of expect that, if they're people who imagine that article marketing is intrinsically "part of SEO"). :p

      It's ok to post again in a thread which had its previous post a few months ago, when you have something to say/ask about it that adds something. It won't make you look like a "spammer": that's just when people drag up ancient threads for the purpose of getting their sig-file into them. You don't have a sig-file, so nobody's going to accuse you of that. :p

      Sorry not to be able to answer your questions, really, but as Travlinguy wisely comments above, "the premise is flawed", I think.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Iamcap
    Thanks for posting the link! I was googling for help and ran into that thread, didn't realise it was in another section, oops!

    I will post there and hopefully the OP is still around.

    I have read a few of your threads, Alexa, and they're quite interesting, however, I've only ever seen you mention that you are an article marketer, I.e. you write articles to eventually get people in email lists where you sell them your affiliate products.

    The best thing, of course, is to focus on what's working, but have you any experience with amazon affiliate websites? I want to make my website to be an authority in its sector, and I have designed a beautiful website, and I will slowly add great original content that people will find useful. What would you recommend would be a long-term seo plan? Just a brief outline of what you'd do.

    Thanks for posting on my thread
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Forget Penguin and the rest of the Google zoo. Here's a short lesson on syndication:

    Say you write articles on fly fishing and get them syndicated. About a month after you put your last article up for syndication it's on 100 sites that deal with fishing. Okay. Most, if not all of these sites already have lots of visitors. These visitors are real fishing enthusiasts and go there and to other sites to read about fishing.

    Your syndicated article gets read. You don't care about keywords or any of the other SEO stuff because syndicated content goes out to sites where there is already lots of "built in" traffic. That's the beauty of true syndication.

    As for SEO, if the article is well written, and it would have to be or it's not going to get picked up for syndication in the first place, there will be some SEO traffic simply because it's great content and is going to rank. So you would get some traffic from the SEs but that's gravy, not the primary intent.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832430].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      that's gravy, not the primary intent.
      You have this knack of saying exactly what I wanted to convey, but with about a tenth of the number of words!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832437].message }}

Trending Topics