Hmmm . . just visited ezine and don't see the value

by 24hours 26 replies
I'm re-building my site so I don't have any new content yet. Once it's done (this week) I know I'm suppossed to add unique content to my site first then upload it to ezine, but I just visited the ezine site for the first time and it seems like open pickings for people to cut and paste from.

What am I missing? Why would I want to add my unique article there?

Thanks.

Chris
#main internet marketing discussion forum #ezine #hmmm #visited
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author trade4861
    But will ezinearticles even allow you to submit an article to their site after you've published it to your site?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7777511].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7777515].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by trade4861 View Post

    But will ezinearticles even allow you to submit an article to their site after you've published it to your site?
    Yes.

    Article directories don't require previously unpublished content.

    Ezine Articles even makes available to its authors a special WordPress plug-in enabling them to publish their articles on their own sites first and then submit them automatically to EZA for approval and eventual publication there. They'd hardly do that, if they didn't want articles that are already on your own site, would they? They also specifically invite the submission of such articles (on their blog, in their email course for beginners, and so on).

    Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

    I just visited the ezine site for the first time and it seems like open pickings for people to cut and paste from.
    So is your own website.

    It's more likely to happen from EZA than from your own site, admittedly, but it doesn't really do you much harm? It's the price you pay for the syndication potential, anyway.

    Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

    What am I missing?
    Some syndication potential, I think (if you decide not to use it). It's explained here, really: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

    I benefit from it, myself. I submit all my articles there, as a "last thing to do", after everything else I've done with them as a routine part of my article marketing business.

    By the time EZA publishes them, there are typically multiple copies of each online. (Of course this has no relevance at all to why one's using an article directory).

    It's only an afterthought, really, but it's a valuable and helpful afterthought (for me, anyway).

    Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

    Why would I want to add my unique article there?
    You wouldn't.

    It would make no sense to submit unique content to an article directory, rather than publishing it on your own site and having it indexed there first.

    For all the reasons explained in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...marketing.html

    Not to mention this much longer one (in which a large number of successful, expert article marketers explain all their shared reasons for never submitting unique content to an article directory): http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html

    The people who submit unique content to EZA comprise various groups (but all misguided, in one way or another): people who are confused between unique content and original content; people who are confused between duplicate content and syndicated content; people who wrongly imagine that EZA doesn't publish articles already published elsewhere (yes, there still some of those around!); people who are confused between "article marketing" and "article directory marketing"; people who imagine that they'll somehow, magically, "get a better backlink out of it that way" (complete nonsense, of course); graduates of the Urban Myth School of Internet Marketing; and maybe even some others, too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7777726].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author 24hours
      Thanks everyone -

      Not sure I understand Alexa's last paragraph, but will try to assimilate all the info.

      On an aside - I ordered 3 fiver article writing gigs a few weeks ago in an effort to gauge the competiton so to speak (I thought article writing might be a possible avenue for me). One never delivered, one wasn't bad, but the other was a very disparate article. At the time I thought it was just bad writing technique, but now that I've visited ezine, I wonder if the seller didn't just peruse like-minded articles and copy/paste a few different paragraphs for his "article".

      Will need do do some more research, but I appreciate the comments.

      Thanks again.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778125].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

        Not sure I understand Alexa's last paragraph, but will try to assimilate all the info.
        Sorry!

        I'm just making the point that anyone who submits unique content to Ezine Articles has gone wrong, and misunderstood how article marketing works, for one reason or another - because that isn't a sensible thing to do, however you look at it and whatever you're trying to achieve from it. The sensible way to use Ezine Articles is the one explained in the posts linked to above.

        Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

        I ordered 3 fiver article writing gigs a few weeks ago in an effort to gauge the competiton so to speak (I thought article writing might be a possible avenue for me). One never delivered, one wasn't bad, but the other was a very disparate article.
        I'm guessing that your overall experience there, from those three gigs, is probably "about average" or even maybe a little bit better (because you said one wasn't bad, and for $5 that's a real result!).

        Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

        At the time I thought it was just bad writing technique, but now that I've visited ezine, I wonder if the seller didn't just peruse like-minded articles and copy/paste a few different paragraphs for his "article".
        That (and similar things) are what quite a lot of article writers at Fiverr will do, I think. :p
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778133].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stuart Walker
    On an aside - I ordered 3 fiver article writing gigs a few weeks ago in an effort to gauge the competiton so to speak (I thought article writing might be a possible avenue for me). One never delivered, one wasn't bad, but the other was a very disparate article. At the time I thought it was just bad writing technique, but now that I've visited ezine, I wonder if the seller didn't just peruse like-minded articles and copy/paste a few different paragraphs for his "article".
    That's exactly what most cheap article writers do. They find a similar article then badly re-write it changing a few words and the odd sentence here and there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author l2ascal
    Alexa, I've been following your posts and I had a couple questions for you. I understand that content originating from your site can then be syndicated to other sources and it's not duplicate content, it's syndicated content. However, I've never seen you give a clear explanation of what duplicate content is.

    If the article doesn't originate from your site and instead, you use a unique article and submit it to multiple places, would this be duplicate content, or syndicated content that originated from the first place you sent it? Of course, in this situation, you wouldn't link to the first place you submitted it, you'd be linking to your website. So this may be the factor that makes you say that this isn't syndicated content.

    I'd also like to address content spinning. Obviously, spinning your content to submit to article directories doesn't help much because the directories do not provide very useful backlinks. But, what's your take on content spinning for other purposes? What if you are going to be building web 2.0's or something else that's more valuable than an article directory. Spinning the content would increase the index rate of the web 2.0's over syndicating your content to them, resulting in more backlinks. If you did high quality, manual spins, isn't this beneficial to your SEO? I'd just like to hear your take on this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778994].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Alexa, I've been following your posts and I had a couple questions for you. I understand that content originating from your site can then be syndicated to other sources and it's not duplicate content, it's syndicated content. However, I've never seen you give a clear explanation of what duplicate content is.
      It's multiple copies of the same text within one domain: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7443850

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      If the article doesn't originate from your site and instead, you use a unique article and submit it to multiple places, would this be duplicate content, or syndicated content that originated from the first place you sent it?
      If you put two or more copies of it within one domain, those two or more would be duplicate content. The rest are syndicated content.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      I'd also like to address content spinning. Obviously, spinning your content to submit to article directories doesn't help much because the directories do not provide very useful backlinks.
      It doesn't help "at all" (but that isn't the reason, though it's also true).

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      But, what's your take on content spinning for other purposes? What if you are going to be building web 2.0's or something else that's more valuable than an article directory.
      I don't share your implicit assumption that a Web 2.0 site is necessarily more valuable than an article directory. (I see that there are ways you can choose to make it so, but in my opinion they're misguided ways, and a poor use of your time, energy and effort for considerably less benefit than you could have got by expending that time, energy and effort in ways that don't involve using "Web 2.0 sites").

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Spinning the content would increase the index rate of the web 2.0's over syndicating your content to them, resulting in more backlinks.
      What do you mean by "index rate"?

      I hope and trust you're not implying that whether Google indexes something depends on whether or not it's previously been published? Or that the linkjuice value to your site of any given backlink depends on whether the content to which it's attached has previously been published? Or that the linkjuice value to your site of any given backlink depends on whether it happens to be in the "main index" or in the "supplemental index" on that particular day? Please excuse me if I malign you, but many people do make those assumptions, all of which are entirely mistaken.

      The reason people spin content before submitting it to "their" pages in other people's "Web 2.0 sites" is usually the fact that many Web 2.0 sites don't accept syndicated content. So they're making the text they submit unrecognizable to Google (they hope!) as "previously published" by spinning it. Effectively, they're giving the Web 2.0 site "unique content" (they hope).

      Typically, people do this because (a) they believe that backlinks from a page with higher PR will be worth more to them, regardless of the context-relevance of the whole site on which their backlink appears (in other words, they've misunderstood what makes backlinks valuable), and (b) they get confused between the page rank of a site's own home page and "their" page on it, often imagining - for example - that the fact that Squidoo's own home page is PR-7/8 is somehow going to give "their" page on Squidoo a higher page rank (quite untrue, of course, and not very relevant anyway. It's true that they can build the page rank of "their" page on someone else's Web 2.0 site in exactly the same way that they can do that for a page on a site they own and control themselves, and it may even be true that on a site like Squidoo's they can do that slightly more easily than they could on a site they themselves own and control - I don't realy believe it but I can't prove I'm right on that point, so it suits me to acknowledge the possibility - but that doesn't help much anyway, the important point being that the one thing they can't do on Squidoo's site is to make the site relevant to theirs: they can make only their lens relevant to their own site, but unfortunately for them that isn't what primarily determines the linkjuice value :p ).

      It's not easy to disucss it with people who believe this, though: it's rather like trying to discuss "link diversity" with someone selling backlinks, who wants his audience to believe in the concept so that crap backlinks will acquire some potential benefit in their minds (simply because "crap backlinks" are different from "good backlinks" and "difference" means about the same as "diversity" so that "must" be a "good thing" :p ). In this context, the equivalent concept to that example's "link diversity" is the one called "domain authority" (a term often used by people promoting Web 2.0-related services in their signature-files and/or in WSO's ). You can see what I'm saying, here, I think? It's hard to discuss sensibly in a forum in which there are so many people with various different kinds of vested interests in bandying about pseudo-scientific terms which confuse their audience and lend themselves an unwarranted air of credibility and authority (they hope!). Ultimately, people just have to decide for themselves by whom they want to be guided. But I digress. Frequently.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      If you did high quality, manual spins, isn't this beneficial to your SEO?
      It's more beneficial to your SEO than painting your toenails and going out for lunch, yes. But it doesn't help as much as doing something sensible and better-planned and not based on largely mistaken assumptions. The situation is analgous to the issue arising when people ask "Are there people earning $100 per month from Squidoo?". Of course there are, and quite large numbers of them. But that isn't important and it isn't a reason to use Squidoo. What's important is how much they'd be earning if - instead of using Squidoo - they did whatever they're doing at Squidoo on pages on (even free) hosting elsewhere which they themselves own and control. And the answer is typically "more than $100 per month". I know we're talking about "backlinks" here rather than "income", but the same thing is true.

      What gives backlinks value is relevance. You can increase the relevance of your artificially constructed backlinks by not building them on Web 2.0 sites. (It's the relevance of the site that really matters, not the relevance of the page, of course - otherwise article directory backlinks would be worth something, but they're not)

      All the people who point out, so regularly, that spinning has no benefits mean that it has no benefits compared with not spinning. Nobody's suggesting that it's impossible to spin material and still get backlinks from it. The point is that they're no better than the backlinks you can get without spinning (and in reality they're often a lot worse). For the most part, people who do this and imagine that they gain by doing it are simply making an "attribution error". But unfortunately "attribution error" is notoriously difficult to explain.

      The following five items explain much more about spinning.
      • 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
      • on the meaning and significance of "duplicate content", in this context, this little post from expert article marketer Anne Pottinger includes direct quotations from Google's WebMaster Central Blog on the subject (not easy to find a more authoritative source than that!)
      • this little article is also a very useful and accurate explanation of the subject.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7779954].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 24hours
        *sigh* - one step forward, two steps back. :confused:

        Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply.

        I always wondered about how/when an article was indexed by Google, and now I know (thanks to Alexa's first link). Spinning isn't something I'm familiar with so that's the next thing I need to research, but thanks for mentioning it as I wouldn't have know about it otherwise (ergo, could not have researched it).

        ps - I didn't expect much from the fiverr article gigs, but I needed something to compare my writing skills against, and I think I'll do okay if I decide to give article writing a try.

        Thanks again!!!!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780492].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Malcolm Thomas
    Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

    I'm re-building my site so I don't have any new content yet. Once it's done (this week) I know I'm suppossed to add unique content to my site first then upload it to ezine, but I just visited the ezine site for the first time and it seems like open pickings for people to cut and paste from.

    What am I missing? Why would I want to add my unique article there?

    Thanks.

    Chris
    It's not necessary to post your articles onto ezine in order to improve your rankings. In my opinion your time is better spent finding blogs and forums related to your niche and building a relationship with them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780505].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marc Rodill
    So Alexa let me see if I can summarize your post. Basically the best strategy is you want to create good unique content about "XYZ" topic, and put it on a domain name that you actually own and control.

    Then you want to get backlinks from websites about topics that are directly relevant to "XYZ" topic, not sites that are mostly non-relevant and cover a whole range of different topics.

    (Such as a "general info" directory)

    So a directory, blog, website, whatever, that is all about one highly relevant topic, period, would be best.

    And as for the content itself, while it should be good, it's more important to get backlinks from relevant websites, than it is to post unique content on those websites.

    So basically if you can get 1 article published on 10 different sites...

    aka. syndicate it

    ...then the most important thing is that those websites are relevant to the content of your website. And Google knows when you've "spun" something so it's generally a waste of time.

    Am I close?

    Marc
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780638].message }}
    Signature
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

      Spinning isn't something I'm familiar with so that's the next thing I need to research
      You don't even need to do that. Spinning has no benefits for you - period. It's based entirely on a fundamental misunderstanding. The only people who gain from it are the people selling spinning software and services. Here's the key point: since the value to your site of any backlink on any given page of the web has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the content to which it's attached has previously been published, there's nothing to gain by making the content "unique" (not that most spinning even does that anyway!), so there's no need for it, and nothing to think about, here.

      Originally Posted by Marc Rodill View Post

      So Alexa let me see if I can summarize your post. Basically the best strategy is you want to create good unique content about "XYZ" topic, and put it on a domain name that you actually own and control.

      Then you want to get backlinks from websites about topics that are directly relevant to "XYZ" topic, not sites that are mostly non-relevant and cover a whole range of different topics.

      (Such as a "general info" directory)

      So a directory, blog, website, whatever, that is all about one highly relevant topic, period, would be best.
      Exactly so - all of that.

      Originally Posted by Marc Rodill View Post

      And as for the content itself, while it should be good, it's more important to get backlinks from relevant websites, than it is to post unique content on those websites.
      If you depend on off-page SEO and Google rankings, then this is so, yes.

      If you get content syndicated, though, it will be on "relevant enough" sites, because webmasters of irrelevant sites wouldn't want to publish your articles anyway?

      (And the only purpose in your submitting it to Ezine Articles - which of course isn't a relevant site - is to use Ezine Articles for its intended purpose of serving as a stepping stone toward reaching some additional relevant sites, if/when their webmasters find your article there and choose to re-publish it. Article directories have no purpose other than this, and can serve no benefit other than this. EZA's own backlink is worthless to you. It was even in 2009/10, before all those Panda updates decimated the SEO potential of article directories.)

      The backlinks are just a small side-benefit, in article marketing. It's true they can be great backlinks, if the articles are written for syndication, and if they're actually syndicated, which of course means approaching people in the right sort of way to ask them to re-publish your articles.

      Originally Posted by Marc Rodill View Post

      So basically if you can get 1 article published on 10 different sites...

      aka. syndicate it

      ...then the most important thing is that those websites are relevant to the content of your website.
      Absolutely right.

      Originally Posted by Marc Rodill View Post

      And Google knows when you've "spun" something so it's generally a waste of time.
      It makes no difference whether Google knows or not.

      Even if Google didn't know, and you could "spin an article" and fool Google every single time, you still wouldn't be gaining anything from that, anyway.

      Because the value to your site of any backlink on any given page of the web has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the content to which it's attached has previously been published. So there isn't anything there to "gain" anyway.

      Here's a one-post overview of how article marketing works, if it helps anyone (the last paragraph comments on the backlinks): http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

      Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

      Who said you are supposed to upload your article to ezine (assuming you are reffering to ezinearticles.com) after publishing it on your site?
      Every single person who uses EZA in the course of successfully doing article marketing for a living, Nail.

      There's not much point in submitting to an article directory an article that you haven't previously published and had indexed on your own site, for all the reasons explained in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...marketing.html .

      And if you look through this longer thread, you'll find it packed with successful article marketing experts explaining all their shared reasons for publishing their articles on their own site first, having them indexed there, and then submitting them to EZA: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html

      Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

      I don't believe in article directories anymore but if I would ever use them to drive traffic to my site
      To "drive traffic to your site"?! That would be very futile, and counterproductive, and is more likely to damage your business than to help it. (We all lose most of that traffic, but can choose instead to keep it all by attracting it to our own site in the first place, instead of to an article directory which makes its own living out of all the traffic that doesn't reach our site).

      No article marketer wants to use Ezine Articles to "drive traffic to their site".

      That isn't how article directories work at all. It never has been.

      Nobody's suggesting that people should do that.

      The people who do that are the same ones starting off all the threads here with titles like "Is Article Marketing Dead?" (For them, it is!).

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
    Originally Posted by 24hours View Post

    I'm re-building my site so I don't have any new content yet. Once it's done (this week) I know I'm suppossed to add unique content to my site first then upload it to ezine, but I just visited the ezine site for the first time and it seems like open pickings for people to cut and paste from.

    What am I missing? Why would I want to add my unique article there?
    Who said you are supposed to upload your article to ezine (assuming you are reffering to ezinearticles.com) after publishing it on your site? I don't believe in article directories anymore but if I would ever use them to drive traffic to my site, I wouldn't upload articles that I published on my site.

    A side note: Please save the Internet from producing more rubbish like spinning, twisting or whatsoever they call it. Spend your energy on producing quality content on your site. This is what every long term business focuses on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780690].message }}
    Signature

    You will be remembered not with what you did for yourself, but with what you did for others.

  • Profile picture of the author l2ascal
    Alexa, I think your posts are very intellectual, but I can't help but try to get some more insight out of you. In your response to me, you said that duplicate content is ONLY content that duplicates itself on your own website. However, Google's own definition of duplicate content is not that. Direct quote: "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar." What do you make of the "across domains" section of their duplicate content definition, if you believe this is not the case?

    When I said people spin content in order to increase the index rate, I am referring to the fact that when you syndicate content, Google will not always index every article that was syndicated. Instead, they choose which one is most important (such as your own site) and they index that one. Or the syndicated content may end up in their supplemental index. Now in your response, you said that it doesn't matter whether it ends up in the supplemental index or whether it gets indexed at all. What evidence do you have to support this theory? The fact that your SEO is successful is about as much evidence as the people who spin have as evidence, that their SEO is successful.

    To me, either way you look at it, isn't there value to spinning when you consider the points above and the fact that you could be wrong that backlinks not indexed or in the supplemental index are not as valuable? If Google recognizes the content as unique, then each page is more likely to get indexed and not thrown into the supplemental index or not get indexed at all.

    Now, when you say that it doesn't matter whether the content has been previously published or not in regards to the value of the backlink, that may be true. However, if the content doesn't get indexed, then there is clear value in spinning in order to get it indexed.

    Keep in mind, I'm not doubting that your method of marketing works, I believe it does and I'm sure it works very well. However, I might be doubting that you are 100% accurate that spinning content has no value and I'd like to hear a more in depth explanation of this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780838].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Alexa, I think your posts are very intellectual, but I can't help but try to get some more insight out of you. In your response to me, you said that duplicate content is ONLY content that duplicates itself on your own website. However, Google's own definition of duplicate content is not that. Direct quote: "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar." What do you make of the "across domains" section of their duplicate content definition, if you believe this is not the case?
      Whether Google chooses to define blocks across domains as 'duplicate' or not, they've been adamant that there is no 'dulicate content penalty' for syndicated content. Even in the case of true duplicate content, such as a blog page which can be reached via several urls, they simply choose which version to display for a given search.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      When I said people spin content in order to increase the index rate, I am referring to the fact that when you syndicate content, Google will not always index every article that was syndicated. Instead, they choose which one is most important (such as your own site) and they index that one. Or the syndicated content may end up in their supplemental index. Now in your response, you said that it doesn't matter whether it ends up in the supplemental index or whether it gets indexed at all. What evidence do you have to support this theory? The fact that your SEO is successful is about as much evidence as the people who spin have as evidence, that their SEO is successful.
      You have a slight misunderstanding here. Google will not spider every page, collate duplicated (syndicated or otherwise) content, and then decide which copy to index. They index it all. I can search for an article I syndicated ten years ago, and get back a list of the sites still carrying it. If G only chose one copy to index, that would not be possible.

      It is true that G will only display one instance of an article or other piece of content. Whether or not the copy on your own website is the one which will be displayed depends on more than where it was indexed originally. I want my original article on my site to come up, obviously. But if that isn't going to happen, I want my original article, hosted on a related site, to come up. Not a watered down or spun version done in the interest of "uniqueness" as defined by passing some mechanical filter like Copyscape. If all else fails, I want my original article to come up on a directory.

      The second and third alternatives have benefits beyond mere "linkjuice". Showing up on a related site, especially a popular one, puts my content as I intended it to be read in front of active consumers of said content. And it does so with the tacit endorsement of the site owner or publisher. The third (directory) listing puts my content as I intended it to be read in front of potential publishers, where benefit #2 kicks in.

      Although I far from a serious SEO guy, I have learned that when it comes to Google, the only real constant is that they will do what is in the best interests of the searchers, which in turn serves the best interest of the stockholders. Once you learn a market or niche, people are far more consistent than bits of software crawling, indexing and displaying web pages.

      Edit: On a side note, what's the deal with saying something is "80% unique"? As I see it, the quality of uniqueness is like pregnancy - either you is, or you ain't. I don't see a girl going to her parents, boyfriend or husband and saying "the bad news is that I'm pregnant - the good news is that I'm only 40% pregnant...":p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Direct quote: "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar." What do you make of the "across domains" section of their duplicate content definition, if you believe this is not the case?
      Yes, I know ... this has been debated here for years. In that context, they're actually talking about duplicated content, rather than duplicate content, to all intents and purposes. I was slightly concerned, reading your post above, that you might choose to quote this. ("Concerned" only because it's far more prejudicial than probative, and has never helped anyone to understand the point on the many previous occasions it's been discussed here).

      To be fair, Google goes to great lengths to differentiate between duplicate content (on one domain) and syndicated content (on different domains).

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      When I said people spin content in order to increase the index rate, I am referring to the fact that when you syndicate content, Google will not always index every article that was syndicated.
      Sorry, I don't believe that at all. That's never been my experience at all, nor the experience of other article marketers I know. It's pretty easily verifiable by anyone who wants to check it out for themselves.

      To me, that's on a par with the people who say that blog webmasters with high quality sites "will only publish unique content" or that "Ezines Articles will only publish unique content". There's a whole army of us making our livings and building our businesses out of the fact that all these assertions are simply incorrect.

      If you're going to allege something as outlandish as that, then you get to be the one who adduces some convincing evidence to "justify" it.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Instead, they choose which one is most important (such as your own site) and they index that one.
      That's not so. (What do you imagine the "supplemental index" is for? ).

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      Now in your response, you said that it doesn't matter whether it ends up in the supplemental index or whether it gets indexed at all. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
      Interviews with Matt Cutts, comments on Google's own sites, all my own experience over the last 4 years, all the experience of other more longstanding, equally successful article marketers I know and trust, the opinions of orthodox textbook writers, and so on.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      To me, either way you look at it, isn't there value to spinning when you consider the points above and the fact that you could be wrong that backlinks not indexed or in the supplemental index are not as valuable?
      No; that isn't a "fact" at all: it's just a completely erroneous belief.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      If Google recognizes the content as unique, then each page is more likely to get indexed
      All the article marketers I know appreciate that this is entirely mistaken.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      when you say that it doesn't matter whether the content has been previously published or not in regards to the value of the backlink, that may be true.
      A little more than "may be true": it is true.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      However, if the content doesn't get indexed, then there is clear value in spinning in order to get it indexed.
      To justify that perspective, you'd have to make out that syndicated content isn't always indexed, but the reality is that anyone who spends a little time checking it out can see for themselves that that's mistaken.

      Originally Posted by l2ascal View Post

      I might be doubting that you are 100% accurate that spinning content has no value and I'd like to hear a more in depth explanation of this.
      With apologies, not from me, thanks. Over the last 3-4 years, I've done more than my share of discussing and explaining this here at great length and in great detail (usually with threads-full of people promoting spinning services in their sig-files, some of whom have subsequently and spontaneously contacted me, a long time afterwards, to apologize and explain that they've changed their minds and were mistaken at the time. That's been very decent of one or two people with whom I'd had considerable public arguments in the past, and I was both pleased and actually pretty impressed to hear from them. I'd have preferred them to say it in public rather than in private, of course, but there are limits to what can reasonably expect, and nobody's going to relish fessing up in public that they were previously selling here services for which there was actually no need at all, are they?).

      If you really choose (for some reason) to believe that syndicated content is (for some reason) "less likely to be indexed than unique content" (though I've never even heard someone selling spinning software allege that, myself - and it's certainly never been true of any of my own syndicated content, nor that of others I know!), then we'll just have to agree to differ on that specific point.

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

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7780924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vallank2
    I write articles, place them on a blog on my site, then sometimes use them in the description section of my videos, and sent them out to my list from time to time. I have yet to send them to an article directory.

    Lank
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sid Hale
    OK. I waited as long as I could stand it.

    This came up earlier, but I never saw anyone ask the question...

    Is it more beneficial to my SEO, if I paint my toenails WHILE manually spinning articles, and then submit the articles to a popular article directory?

    (the devil made me do it)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781010].message }}
    Signature

    Sid Hale
    Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Crocket013 View Post

    Ezine will not publish your article if it is directly cut and pasted from your site.
    This one's on a par, for accuracy, with a backlink attached to syndicated content being "less likely to be indexed than one attached to unique content"!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781143].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marc Rodill
    Regardless of technique, whether or not toenail painting is beneficial to your SEO efforts has yet to be substantiated. Keep an eye out for my next WSO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781172].message }}
    Signature
  • Profile picture of the author DBMEDIALLC
    Great thread

    The content syndication approach definitely has its advantages, as far as the potential for niche relevant sites to pick up the article and put it on their site, resulting in high quality backlinks opposed to the garbage ones you get from article directories. However, I see it as a very long-term approach and it's certainly not going to get a site ranked quickly until you start to build a network of sites to syndicate to.

    As far as traditional link building services, what is your opinion on them Alexa? Are there any type of 'free to submit/build' links that you actual think are worthwhile? This is referring to services like blog comments, press release submissions, link directory submissions, social bookmarks, web 2.0's, etc. Do you just look at the links as being a waste of time and since they are non-relevant to your niche, not worth the effort? Your approach to link building is about as white hat as it gets, which also means it's a slow mover in regards to search engine rankings. I'm just wondering what you feel about the types of services people often purchase in order to get their rankings up.

    Originally Posted by Crocket013 View Post

    Ezine will not publish your article if it is directly cut and pasted from your site.
    How does he post this without commenting on anything else in the thread? LOL everything in this thread says the complete opposite.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781215].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Sid Hale View Post

      Is it more beneficial to my SEO, if I paint my toenails WHILE manually spinning articles, and then submit the articles to a popular article directory?

      (the devil made me do it)
      Sid, it depends on what shade you use, and whether you paint with your right or left hand...

      Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

      As far as traditional link building services, what is your opinion on them Alexa? Are there any type of 'free to submit/build' links that you actual think are worthwhile? This is referring to services like blog comments, press release submissions, link directory submissions, social bookmarks, web 2.0's, etc. Do you just look at the links as being a waste of time and since they are non-relevant to your niche, not worth the effort? Your approach to link building is about as white hat as it gets, which also means it's a slow mover in regards to search engine rankings. I'm just wondering what you feel about the types of services people often purchase in order to get their rankings up.
      Blog comments on relevant posts can have value, while comments sprayed across unrelated blogs (especially the auto-accept spam magnets) have little to negative value. Do you want your comment and link in the same stream of comments as a few hundred Viagra or porn peddlers?

      Press releases that get picked up by relevant outlets obviously have value. I do believe that some of the 'press release' sites are little more than renamed article dumps, with no more value than 99.9% of the article directories out there.

      Most of the other tricks you mentioned are obvious attempts to manipulate search rankings. As such, if they still have any residual value, it will be short-lived.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781456].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DBMEDIALLC
    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

    Blog comments on relevant posts can have value, while comments sprayed across unrelated blogs (especially the auto-accept spam magnets) have little to negative value. Do you want your comment and link in the same stream of comments as a few hundred Viagra or porn peddlers?

    Press releases that get picked up by relevant outlets obviously have value. I do believe that some of the 'press release' sites are little more than renamed article dumps, with no more value than 99.9% of the article directories out there.

    Most of the other tricks you mentioned are obvious attempts to manipulate search rankings. As such, if they still have any residual value, it will be short-lived.
    Thanks for the response John!

    Most of the SEO services you find on forums today consist of the types of links I'm not referring to. Such as automated blog comments done with Scrapebox or XRumer. Niche relevant, manual comments done on authority blogs without viagra links are of course the blog comments I feel have value. I do believe web 2.0's have value as well. A web 2.0 often provides a subdomain and you can post several, niche relevant articles on the property. I'm not saying these links can be as beneficial as a niche relevant blog that has syndicated your content though.

    If you browse through SEO threads here and on many other forums, there's nothing truly white hat being provided like the types of tactics being discussed here. It would be nice of there were services geared toward more legitimate things than the automated submissions that have become the norm in link building.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781492].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

      Thanks for the response John!

      Most of the SEO services you find on forums today consist of the types of links I'm not referring to. Such as automated blog comments done with Scrapebox or XRumer. Niche relevant, manual comments done on authority blogs without viagra links are of course the blog comments I feel have value. I do believe web 2.0's have value as well. A web 2.0 often provides a subdomain and you can post several, niche relevant articles on the property. I'm not saying these links can be as beneficial as a niche relevant blog that has syndicated your content though.
      I think some web 2.0s may still have value. Folks are getting traction with sites like tumblr, for example. But the ones I hear from are doing it by participating in the community and building a rep (dare I say it, a brand?) in the community. They're not using the sites like an article dump just for backlinks.

      Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

      If you browse through SEO threads here and on many other forums, there's nothing truly white hat being provided like the types of tactics being discussed here. It would be nice of there were services geared toward more legitimate things than the automated submissions that have become the norm in link building.
      Automated submissions, especially as a service, are used for leverage. Charge anywhere from $5 one time to $97 or $197 per month for a task that takes a few minutes to set up and runs on its own. Legitimate, white hat tactics don't lend themselves to that kind of leverage. People who acquire the necessary skills usually realize they can do themselves more good by putting those skills to use in their own behalf.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781600].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

        As far as traditional link building services, what is your opinion on them Alexa?
        It's not really fit to print.

        Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

        Are there any type of 'free to submit/build' links that you actual think are worthwhile? This is referring to services like blog comments, press release submissions, link directory submissions, social bookmarks, web 2.0's, etc. Do you just look at the links as being a waste of time and since they are non-relevant to your niche, not worth the effort?
        Yes - this.

        http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post6021235

        http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...d-tactics.html

        Press releases can be good (but just like article marketing, they're not primarily about SEO at all).

        Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

        Your approach to link building is about as white hat as it gets, which also means it's a slow mover in regards to search engine rankings.
        Yes; it's slow.

        Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

        I'm just wondering what you feel about the types of services people often purchase in order to get their rankings up.
        I've done better without them than with them. (I used to do "all that" at one time ).

        It's only SEO traffic (not that "those services" will bring it anyway) .

        I have nothing against blog commenting, and I like it and use it, and it helps me (mostly because sometimes "today's blog comment is tomorrow's guest post", through relationship-building). But those are good backlinks too, of course. And the same with forum sig-file links (in relevant forums, obviously). But I'd never outsource these. I need to "be there myself" to add value, and I wouldn't let anyone else represent my business, apart from possibly a full-time VA whom I'd trained myself who knew my business really well and whose writing I trusted (and could later edit myself, if I wanted to!). And the same with Yahoo Answers (I did well with that but never seem to have time for it, now). I'm actually starting to think about employing a full-time VA soon. But I digress. Frequently.

        John's replies to you, above, are more helpful to you than mine.

        Originally Posted by DBMEDIALLC View Post

        How does he post this without commenting on anything else in the thread? LOL everything in this thread says the complete opposite.
        His post's gone now - he only wanted to get his link into the thread.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781699].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stuart Walker
    I use manual blog commenting mostly for traffic generation. Using Google Alerts or now Buzz Bundle I'm often the first to comment on new blog or forum posts based on my keywords and I'm a master at getting the comments to stick WITH a link and these can drive a lot of targeted traffic.

    Often I can get just as many visitors from having top blog comment with a link as I can from a guest blog post.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7781558].message }}

Trending Topics