77 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
77 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Today a SEO Said: Spun Articles Dont Work Anymore

by seoed
66 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Hello,

this is what the seo told me after his rankings dropped. He and his
fellow seos came to the conclusion that from now on links on spun articles will
be devalued as well as profile links.

I dont know if this was discussed here before but it would mean
death to a wide range of backlink strategies. To be honest I would
still use the claimed devalued strategies.

Has anyone experienced something like this too?
#anymore #articles #seo #spun #today #work
  • Profile picture of the author Andy Money
    That's a completely ridiculous conclusion to come to after losing rankings. i.e. The "SEO" you're talking about isn't an "SEO" at all, no offense.

    Links get devalued all the time--it could be ANY kind of link. Link from a Squidoo lens could be devalued as well as a link from a PR9 authority site. If you have a lot of links coming from a lot of similar sites, they will be devalued in "bulk" and you will lose your rankings.

    Spun content works but it won't work if you're too aggressive with your link building and raises red flags--then your links can get devalued.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357426].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
      Originally Posted by Andrew Maule View Post

      ...it won't work if you're too aggressive with your link building...
      Can you give an example of too aggressive?

      Thanks

      Matt
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357456].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Andy Money
        Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

        Can you give an example of too aggressive?

        Thanks

        Matt
        Too many similar anchor texts in links (i.e. 2500 links with "golf training" as the anchor), too fast of link building, not enough link diversity (i.e. using nothing but article backlinks), etc.

        If the link building doesn't look natural links get devalued very easily. I learned my lesson the hard way . Rules are diversify your anchor text, your backlink "profile" (the places where your links come from) and do it over time the best you can. It's easy as hell to get too aggressive with SEO but after sand boxing a few of my biggest sites I'll never make those mistakes again
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357470].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
          [quote=Andrew Maule;3357470]
          too fast of link building,
          I hear people talk about this too but they never really get specific so it's hard for anyone to know what is too fast.

          So many generalities when talking about SEO, like too fast.

          If the link building doesn't look natural links get devalued very easily.
          Again, look natural. If you could, from Google's point of view, what would natural look like?

          (the places where your links come from)
          How do you determine the places that you can do this and the places you can't?


          ...do it over time
          Backlink a "place" wait a day? Two days?...

          Thanks again for your time.

          Matt
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357529].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
          Originally Posted by Andrew Maule View Post

          Too many similar anchor texts in links (i.e. 2500 links with "golf training" as the anchor), too fast of link building, not enough link diversity (i.e. using nothing but article backlinks), etc.
          Simply not true.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359006].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bay37
      Originally Posted by Andrew Maule View Post

      Spun content works but it won't work if you're too aggressive with your link building and raises red flags--then your links can get devalued.
      Did you mean to say "stupid" instead of "too aggressive"?

      Because if you aren't stupid - you won't get caught because there won't be anything to "catch" in the first place...

      This whole discussion is ridiculous. There are winners and suckers (those who manage to **** up everything they do and complain a lot) in every area in life. Meh.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357486].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by Andrew Maule View Post

      ...but it won't work if you're too aggressive with your link building and raises red flags--then your links can get devalued.
      Well, "aggressive" and "SEO" are two different terms. SEO'ing can be aggressive, of course, but the very fact that you are SEO'ing neutralizes the aggressiveness ...

      To give you a better example of what I am saying.

      You can definitely get 2500 links a month (well, that's an extreme though). That's "aggressive"!!!

      But if you are SEO'ing, you will know not to use only article directories to gain the backlinks but also include social bookmarking, forum posting, blog commenting, PRs, RSS feed directories, blog directories submission, guest posting, link exchanges, tweeting, Facebook fan page creating and so forth.

      In this way, Google would bypass your "aggressive" factor and just tag your site as an upcoming authority site.

      There you go!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3360793].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author schttrj
    I haven't heard of anything like that yet!

    But let's look at it from a different point of view.

    Your spun articles smell crap most of the time. So, they won't gather any backlinks or popularity on their own. Neither would they be used on any eZine for that matter.

    Nor will anyone click your resource box links after reading your article.

    To sum it up, your spun articles don't do their job. Just bringing back home a PR(n/a) non-contextual backlink to your site. That's it.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357430].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rodger McFarland
      Funny, I heard the same thing about Social Bookmarking. I wonder if it was the same guy.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357458].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      Your spun articles smell crap most of the time.
      In your opinion, what is the single biggest difference between spun crap, as you put it, and a high quality article?

      Thanks

      Matt
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357481].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ElectronPlumber
        Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

        In your opinion, what is the single biggest difference between spun crap, as you put it, and a high quality article?

        Thanks

        Matt
        I understand you were being sarcastic, but it still is pretty obvious when something is poorly spun, even for a robot to detect. I did two quick spins on Alexa post as an example.

        Original:
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        As the forum's greatest skepchick, and the person here who perhaps believes less than anyone else of what she sees posted on the board, I have to say that this one really wouldn't greatly surprise me at all.

        It's clearly in keeping with Google's long-term objectives for assigning relevance and value to backlinks, and definitely exactly in keeping with other things they've recently announced about content-farms, and so on.

        Anyway, let's just hope for the good of the web, and Google's searching customers, that it's true, and await developments with interest.
        This is a bad spin:
        Mainly because the forum's greatest skepchick, as well as the individual the following who possibly believes below any person else associated with exactly what the lady views submitted across the panel, I must state that A single really would not substantially shock myself in any respect.

        It's obviously consistent with Search engine long-term goals with regard to determining importance and also well worth to inbound links, as well as absolutely specifically commensurate with other issues they have lately declared regarding content-farms, and so on.

        In any case, let's simply expect ab muscles excellent with all the web, as well as Search engine searching consumers, it really is precise, and watch for developments with curiosity.

        This is a good spin (at least I think so):
        It is obviously one of the big G's interests to attach weight and importance to links back to your site. For certain it's precisely in keeping with the other actions they have stated lately about copied content sites and the like.

        I am this discussion boards biggest skeptic, as well as the individual who thinks most of what is posted on the forum is hard to believe, I need to state that this information would really not be much of a shock to me, not even a little bit.

        Well, I for one expect this will be better for everyone, especially anyone using Google to search online. I really hope it is true, and will hold my breath for more information.

        -------------

        The good spin took me approximately 3 minutes longer to create than the bad one. Could probably pump out 50 of them in an hour using my favorite spinning tool.
        Signature
        The Electron Plumber
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357775].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by ElectronPlumber View Post

          This is a good spin (at least I think so):
          If you were joking, I apologise in advance.

          If you mean it seriously, I could hardly disagree more. I think it's shockingly dreadful: to me, it reads like something translated out of another language into English by someone whose third language is English (and they don't understand idiom, word order, sentence structure, or what a reasonably literate reader will tolerate, because they're not even reasonably literate themselves).

          In short, it's just plain awful. Sorry, but it is. Under no circumstances would I be prepared to put my name to it, and neither should you.

          If that's "a good spin", I'm the Duke of Wellington.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358232].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ElectronPlumber
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            If you were joking, I apologise in advance.

            If you mean it seriously, I could hardly disagree more. I think it's shockingly dreadful: to me, it reads like something translated out of another language into English by someone whose third language is English (and they don't understand idiom, word order, sentence structure, or what a reasonably literate reader will tolerate, because they're not even reasonably literate themselves).

            In short, it's just plain awful. Sorry, but it is. Under no circumstances would I be prepared to put my name to it, and neither should you.

            If that's "a good spin", I'm the Duke of Wellington.
            Oh come on "Duke". You have to admit two things:

            1) The second spin is noticeably better than the first.
            2) It's better written than 40% of the posts on this forum.

            Sure, it's not going to win any awards, but I'd probably let it through when approving comments on my site. Looks like a non-native speaker. That first one though has obviously been spun through a machine.
            Signature
            The Electron Plumber
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358338].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author DireStraits
              ElectronPlumber:

              I disagree with what Alexa's said: to me, your spins are a real work of contemporary art ...
              Just don't ask me what I think of contemporary "art"!!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

        In your opinion, what is the single biggest difference between spun crap, as you put it, and a high quality article?

        Thanks

        Matt
        Well, in MY opinion, if you have noticed a spun article, it does not reserve that much needed PERSONALITY that makes an article a GOOD article.

        Well, if you are hiring a writer to rewrite a whole article per sentence, then it would be a bit better, of course.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3360811].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
          Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

          Well, if you are hiring a writer to rewrite a whole article per sentence, then it would be a bit better, of course.
          See, this is my problem with this whole debate over spun, rewritten, quality, and "crap".

          I have seen spun articles that have turned out with a higher quality than some of the things written by folks.

          I personally believe that the closer one gets to understanding the subject and writing about it themselves, the better the quality the article will be.

          However, for people to make an argument that "quality" articles are the way to go when needed for SEO purposes just doesn't stand up.

          Google can't tell the difference.

          Does that mean that I personally think that people should write crap if they want to? No.

          But for the sake of an SEO discussion, I don't think quality or personality, as you put it, plays any part in it.

          If someone wants to slap together a blog with crap content and Adsense, you can't convince them to do otherwise if Google is going to keep serving it up and paying them.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361551].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bay37
            Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

            However, for people to make an argument that "quality" articles are the way to go when needed for SEO purposes just doesn't stand up.

            Google can't tell the difference.

            Does that mean that I personally think that people should write crap if they want to? No.

            But for the sake of an SEO discussion, I don't think quality or personality, as you put it, plays any part in it.
            If you look at my post history, you will find me saying the exact same thing over and over again.

            Yet again - there are ways to use spun content efficiently, and there are ways to "waste" it, so to speak. That's all I was trying to say; no need to look for conspiracy theories where there aren't any.

            When replying to your previous post about spun content I wasn't talking about any of these: keyword density, how good the content is, how much "personality" was put into writing it, etc... I was merely saying that if you spin your content badly, you risk having your links devalued/not counted/not indexed.

            Perhaps we're talking about two completely different things here? I meant this:

            Write one original article, spin it badly and post it to 200 blogs. See how hard it will be to get those posts indexed.

            Now if your articles come out relatively unique (this you need to test yourself) - your 200 posts will all get indexed in Google without too much effort.

            By bad spinning I mean that the articles come out almost identical. Good spinning - they are different. Nothing to do with keyword density.

            No testing data is ever anecdotal. Results == all that matters. Do this stuff for yourself, not to prove a point on a public forum. If you are getting good results (be it making money, good rankings in SERPS, etc) - well done. Talkers talk and doers do.

            Perhaps that clears things up a little... I actually do agree with almost everything you've said here so far.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361771].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Warren.Richards
    I have also heard about devaluation of profile backlinks but devaluing spun article backlinks is nothing more than a myth to me.

    To be honest, I have submitted articles to hubpages and squidoo by just copy pasting it from my website (the original content of my website) and it helped me a lot.

    A new website of mine which was ranking nowhere in the search engine suddenly ranked somewhere. All because of hubpages and squidoo + some other backlinks.

    Now do your think spun articles are worst than copied articles?

    Warren.
    Signature
    Email CopywriTer
    FREE HIRE For 2 WEEKS
     See The Monies Roll In

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bay37
    Badly spun articles maybe... but even then - I call BS. Got thousands of blogs with spun articles myself and my rankings are just fine.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
      Originally Posted by bay37 View Post

      Got thousands of blogs with spun articles myself and my rankings are just fine.
      So would you say that this whole idea of people getting penalized for spun content is a "myth"?

      Or, just the people who make "stupid" mistakes as you say?

      What is an example of a stupid mistake?

      Thanks

      Matt
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357640].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bay37
        Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

        What is an example of a stupid mistake?
        A badly spun (30% or so in TBS) 500 word article posted to 200 blogs. Some lazy SEO providers do that and those posts are nearly impossible to get (and stay) indexed. No SERP boost at all. Not much of a penalty - just wasted time and money.

        I have never been penalized for using spun content (as in lost rankings). But there's a massive difference in indexing rates and SERP boost when comparing different levels of spun content (tested this too many times to count).

        A "myth"? I don't really care to be honest. All I care about is how my keywords/websites do in SERPs.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357681].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
          Originally Posted by bay37 View Post

          A badly spun (30% or so in TBS) 500 word article posted to 200 blogs.
          So a "badly spun" article is an article that has a 30% keyword density?
          What would you say the density on a properly spun article should be?

          When you mention "500 word" and "200 blogs", are you implying that there is a problem with those numbers too?

          If so, how many words would you suggest and what would be the right amount of blogs?

          Thanks

          Matt
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357744].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            We aren't at the point yet where a program can understand the difference between a badly written article and a good one. Whats easier for Google to do however is just devalue the links coming from some article directories in th same way they devalued link farms. So the same effect would take place with no real knock on spun content itself.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357769].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              We aren't at the point yet where a program can understand the difference between a badly written article and a good one.
              So you basically believe then that Google would not be able to tell the difference between a spun article and one that wasn't spun.

              ...no real knock on spun content itself.
              Whats easier for Google to do however is just devalue the links coming from some article directories...
              So you are talking about links coming from places that are already ranked higher by Google, yes?

              ...in the same way they devalued link farms.
              What would Google classify as a "link farm"? Could you give an example of a link farm.

              Thanks

              Matt
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357819].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bay37
            Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

            So a "badly spun" article is an article that has a 30% keyword density?
            What would you say the density on a properly spun article should be?

            When you mention "500 word" and "200 blogs", are you implying that there is a problem with those numbers too?

            If so, how many words would you suggest and what would be the right amount of blogs?

            Thanks

            Matt
            Matt,

            You asked for an example, I gave you one. Exactly that - nothing more, nothing less. Not going to discuss this here - I see what you're trying to say.

            Also... "keyword density" has absolutely nothing to do with the % I was talking about.

            Lets assume that no one knows anything and no one has ever tested any of those ideas and we can all go back to whatever it is we do.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357928].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
          Just looking for some clarification.

          I constantly see people come in on threads and offer generalized statements about why something works or doesn't work, but it only serves to add more confusion to the discussion.

          For instance, if Google can't tell the difference between spun and not spun, then quality is not an issue. Google's algorithms can't measure quality of content based purely on the content itself.

          People (including Google), do a lot of talking about "link farms".
          Ok, so what is a link farm?

          A lot of people come here and tell everyone that a link farm is a blog, or site with a bunch of links leading to a site.

          How does Google distinguish between a blog with a bunch of links and an article directory?

          So on and so on.

          The truth is that no one has enough data sampled and tested on a big enough scale to be in a position to call themselves an expert on what Google does or doesn't do.

          Even Frank Kern talks about this in a couple of his Mass Control videos.

          Any tests that result in someone knowing how Google operates is all anecdotal "evidence".

          Just my humble 2 cents.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358147].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sam770
    I do not buy that
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by seoed View Post

    this is what the seo told me after his rankings dropped. He and his fellow seos came to the conclusion that from now on links on spun articles will be devalued as well as profile links.
    As the forum's greatest skepchick, and the person here who perhaps believes less than anyone else of what she sees posted on the board, I have to say that this one really wouldn't greatly surprise me at all.

    It's clearly in keeping with Google's long-term objectives for assigning relevance and value to backlinks, and definitely exactly in keeping with other things they've recently announced about content-farms, and so on.

    Anyway, let's just hope for the good of the web, and Google's searching customers, that it's true, and await developments with interest.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      As the forum's greatest skepchick, and the person here who perhaps believes less than anyone else of what she sees posted on the board, I have to say that this one really wouldn't greatly surprise me at all.

      It's clearly in keeping with Google's long-term objectives for assigning relevance and value to backlinks, and definitely exactly in keeping with other things they've recently announced about content-farms, and so on.

      Anyway, let's just hope for the good of the web, and Google's searching customers, that it's true, and await developments with interest.
      What is in Google's interest and what they can do something about are two different things.

      I don't believe Google has a way to detect spun content easily. Can you imagine the insane amount of computer power that would be needed to cross reference the index?

      What is more likely is that Google has further devalued certain types of pages. Factors like age, age of backlinks, staying power and relevancy become more important. In that regard, it will probably help keep some low level spammers out.

      The last Google algo update was pretty good, you have to give Google that, yet it was really only a small change after the short term derivative effects wore off of changing one co-dependant factor in a complex algoritm. Nothing really changed for the cunning SEO'er.

      I even suspect Google likes these unintended short term consequences. Shock and awe keeps the timid on their good behaviour.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3376941].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    ElectronPlummer,

    Could you highlight the sections of your example of a "bad spin" article that Google would be able to recognize as "bad", or would send up red flags?

    Thanks

    Matt
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Even if this were true (and I have a hard time believe Google can tell the difference between spun garbage and someone writing with really bad grammar skills), if you are talking in terms of spinning your own articles, who cares? Spinning your own articles is a waste of time anyways.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357923].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author daisy172
    I agree with bay37. You've forgotten the human element - article sites have owners, who do patrol their sites and delete stuff that is unreadable. They don't want gibberish cluttering up their site because they want to make money too. If you spin to 30% and submit to 200 sites - you will find that most of your stuff gets zapped. What is the point of a low success rate like that?

    If you are spinning and submitting to blog networks, then be aware that the recipient blogs will also set limits - some may insist on 90% or 100% spun (and they tend to be the better high PR blogs). You'll simply not get accepted on those blogs if you spin badly.

    I spin my stuff manually so that it reads well and has a very high spun %, and have had no problems.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BruceWood
    Spinning and posting articles just to get links is a common game. Isn't it more important to have people find the articles, read them, and find your site through the resource box?

    Who cares if the links have seo value, if you're getting traffic from the articles?

    Seems to be a case of quantity vs. quality.
    Signature

    Bruce Wood
    High-Ticket Affiliate Marketing
    Creative Marketing For Local Businesses
    PingFarm

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358488].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Blueprinter
    A spun article is powerful is the article is spunned at least 70-80%. Google will not noticed the spun article then.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358504].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seoed
    thanks for the active contribution so far.

    there are a lot of seos here who claim that Google would not be able to
    detect spun content. I dont think that this is so difficult.

    Google is a multi-billion company, dont you think that they have gathered the
    best programmers and language specialists to code a software which
    would be able to detect exactly if a content is 100% unique or not?

    I think they already have this kind of stuff, which doesnt mean that
    they devalue ALL of the links within those kind of content.
    Signature
    120% in 3 days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358774].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bimawarrior
    People can say whatever about SEO.
    But as long as there's no proof of trial and test that has been done, I'll shut my ear and just do what I know what's working for me....

    That: spinning and distribute the content I spun work very effective to help my site ranking and traffic

    There's too much myth and bad advice on Internet Marketing which sometimes you gotta learn not to listen.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358789].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The Prophet
      With the last Google Update and algorithm update the spun article technique has to be done and applied correctly to be effective. Spun articles are just as effective as they were but the instant credibilty doens't get granted as fast .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Barboza
    I like this kind of threads. If only one person can be convinced of this, then whoever do good spinning has one less competitor
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3358861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
    Banned
    Originally Posted by seoed View Post

    Hello,

    this is what the seo told me after his rankings dropped. He and his
    fellow seos came to the conclusion that from now on links on spun articles will
    be devalued as well as profile links.

    I dont know if this was discussed here before but it would mean
    death to a wide range of backlink strategies. To be honest I would
    still use the claimed devalued strategies.

    Has anyone experienced something like this too?
    Sounds official to me......not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359121].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gittar1122
    You cannot apply your findings on the whole phenomenon because there are many variables directly/indirectly effecting your rankings. Spun Articles worked for me recently and I am going to hit first page in Finance niche. So cannot agree with your statement.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seoed
    again:

    this claim is something which was pronounced because of the latest Google
    Algo update    , so we still cannot say if this far-away-from-the-truth-allegation
    is true or not. time will tell...
    Signature
    120% in 3 days
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359382].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gittar1122
      Google is continuously changing its algorithm so we cannot rely on one statement. Matt is always saying that Google is cracking spammers but still there are so many spam sites ranking in Google for every term.

      Originally Posted by seoed View Post

      again:

      this claim is something which was pronounced because of the latest Google
      Algo update      , so we still cannot say if this far-away-from-the-truth-allegation
      is true or not. time will tell...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sergtekwizard
    Hey guys, can I submit the same article to 6 different high PR sites, on the same day to get backlinks? ...or should I spin it a little bit 6 times for a result?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3360407].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by sergtekwizard View Post

      Hey guys, can I submit the same article to 6 different high PR sites, on the same day to get backlinks?
      There's no such thing as a "high page-rank site".

      Sites don't have "page-rank".

      Pages have page-rank.

      If you're talking about article directories, then whichever ones you submit to, all of your articles will go on PR-0 pages (just like all of mine), regardless of the PR of directory's home-page.

      Apart from that, the answer to your question is "yes", and there's no need to spin them, and no amount of spinning them (although there may be other benefits from spinning, for some people) will improve or vary the backlinks in any way.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3364003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    He obviously based his words on the recent announcement by matt cutts to devalue what they call "content farms" with low quality articles....as well the fact that they (G) mentioned something about devaluing comment links also.

    HOWEVER - it remains to be open what a "content farm" is, Matt is not really clear in that.

    Also..there are spun/spinnable articles where you can NOT see that they are actually spun.

    He was probably some [sarcasm] "SEO" [/sarcasm] who submitted horrible, unreadable spun articles and now is surprised his rankings dropped..
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

      See, this is my problem with this whole debate over spun, rewritten, quality, and "crap".

      I have seen spun articles that have turned out with a higher quality than some of the things written by folks.

      I personally believe that the closer one gets to understanding the subject and writing about it themselves, the better the quality the article will be.

      However, for people to make an argument that "quality" articles are the way to go when needed for SEO purposes just doesn't stand up.

      Google can't tell the difference.

      Does that mean that I personally think that people should write crap if they want to? No.

      But for the sake of an SEO discussion, I don't think quality or personality, as you put it, plays any part in it.

      If someone wants to slap together a blog with crap content and Adsense, you can't convince them to do otherwise if Google is going to keep serving it up and paying them.
      I understand what you are saying.

      But if I got it right, here's something that should be considered.

      You are saying that you don't mind the quality of an article as long as SEO is concerned. Yes, churning out a keyword rich, spun article without any grammatical or spelling errors is indeed possible.

      But then it has to be one GOOD content to be spun to recreate another good spun article...the first case!

      And secondly, if you want to spin an ordinary article to create another readable article, that's okay. But that does not really enhance your credibility and popularity in the market.

      As I read in the other post of Nick Usborne, your content base should include two types of content, viz. long user-oriented articles and short SEO-oriented articles.

      I don't have a problem with a spun article here.

      But if you want to establish yourself as a niche expert, don't just offer value, offer MORE! Don't hanker after search engine ranking, but prepare yourself for viral marketing. Search engine ranking will come once social authority comes.

      That's my point.

      Originally Posted by GeorgR. View Post

      He obviously based his words on the recent announcement by matt cutts to devalue what they call "content farms" with low quality articles....as well the fact that they (G) mentioned something about devaluing comment links also.

      HOWEVER - it remains to be open what a "content farm" is, Matt is not really clear in that.

      Also..there are spun/spinnable articles where you can NOT see that they are actually spun.

      He was probably some [sarcasm] "SEO" [/sarcasm] who submitted horrible, unreadable spun articles and now is surprised his rankings dropped..
      Just the other day, I was reading a blog on WebProNews, where it said that:

      If Google aims to penalize the content farm content, Google will end up penalizing a lot many personal sites apart from Demand Studios, Huffington Post or any other article publishing site for that matter. Because, a Demand Studios article is not much from an average Joe's blog who writes a blog regularly and tries to build a few backlinks to it to get a higher ranking in the SERPs.

      Google will not penalize a specific company here. Google, if it takes action, will penalize each and every site that does not offer value but churns out SEO blogs/articles just to get higher ranking in the search engines.

      And needless to say, not many sites out there offer REAL value, user-oriented content for that matter. So, it would really create a huge gap in the search engine results.

      So, what you consider content farms may just be any other regularly updated blog and if action is taken, more or less a huge amount of webmasters would end up losing their monthly income, not just the Demand Studios, eHow or Huffington Post.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361748].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
        Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

        You are saying that you don't mind the quality of an article as long as SEO is concerned.
        No I'm not saying that.

        I think that people should do their best and put out content that has value (useful and relevant) for search engines and human readers alike.

        But for SEO purposes, it's not necessary in order to get a good ranking.

        bay37,

        Yes I see that now. I misunderstood what you were saying when I first read it.
        Sorry for the confusion.

        On the surface, when people start talking about spun content there is a tendency to assume that it is all crap. But as I stated earlier, I myself have seen software spun articles that turned out to be better content than some articles written by humans.

        So, how can someone argue that all spun content is crap and imply that all written content is good?

        It just isn't the case.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361899].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author schttrj
          Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

          No I'm not saying that.

          I think that people should do their best and put out content that has value (useful and relevant) for search engines and human readers alike.

          But for SEO purposes, it's not necessary in order to get a good ranking.

          bay37,

          Yes I see that now. I misunderstood what you were saying when I first read it.
          Sorry for the confusion.

          On the surface, when people start talking about spun content there is a tendency to assume that it is all crap. But as I stated earlier, I myself have seen software spun articles that turned out to be better content than some articles written by humans.

          So, how can someone argue that all spun content is crap and imply that all written content is good?

          It just isn't the case.
          Yes, well, that is true! For instant SEO rankings, it may not be required.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361936].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jenny Willapana
            Great comments and thread guys, it's nice to see that people can intelligently discuss this issues without it getting super heated...like on other threads. Kudos.

            -J
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361953].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bay37
          Originally Posted by Matt Maiden View Post

          On the surface, when people start talking about spun content there is a tendency to assume that it is all crap. But as I stated earlier, I myself have seen software spun articles that turned out to be better content than some articles written by humans.

          So, how can someone argue that all spun content is crap and imply that all written content is good?
          I believe that some people just like to argue. And perhaps are not all that bright.

          Seriously though, no idea... Maybe they're just trying to "fit in"? Herd mentality? Lack of knowledge on the topic (though this is more to do with simple logic IMHO)? No idea.

          Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

          Yes, well, that is true! For instant SEO rankings, it may not be required.
          Instant rankings? Where, how? I'll take all.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3361972].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author schttrj
            Originally Posted by bay37 View Post

            I believe that some people just like to argue. And perhaps are not all that bright.

            Seriously though, no idea... Maybe they're just trying to "fit in"? Herd mentality? Lack of knowledge on the topic (though this is more to do with simple logic IMHO)? No idea.

            Instant rankings? Where, how? I'll take all.
            Well, do you homework, you will know...even, I don't understand some people want to rise by idiotically criticizing others...don't you think even that is stupid?!

            Well, I read somewhere, that is a classic case of human psychology. Either you want to join the herd or you curse everyone around to get noticed! Phew...after all, we are all HUMAN, ain't it?

            Anywaaaaiiii....just as you asked, you probably got the Google vs. content farm news. So, if your spun, unoriginal content rank high in the short run (that's what I meant by instant SEO results), it can get penalized in the long run...but that's again a probability.

            You can of course swim with the wave at the moment...but then again it always helps to stay on the safer side I think.

            Let me know if I can help you further.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3366405].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author scott g
          No respectable businessman should ever call themselves "SEO's" or an "SEO." That just PEEVES me! LOL!

          Spun articles (IMO) are a joke anyways... That isn't how Article marketing is done... You're just bogging down Article directories with sh*t. No offense. If you want a backlink that bad..?! Make some blogger or squidoo pages... Really. Or hell do all the other things out there! Spun articles are just lame!!

          Be original and put some time forth...

          CHEERS!

          P.s. Here come the people who are going to defend article spinning and its legitimacy!!! :p
          Signature
          scott g
          "Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve."
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3368372].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by scott g View Post

            No respectable businessman should ever call themselves "SEO's" or an "SEO." That just PEEVES me! LOL!

            Spun articles (IMO) are a joke anyways... That isn't how Article marketing is done... You're just bogging down Article directories with sh*t. No offense. If you want a backlink that bad..?! Make some blogger or squidoo pages... Really. Or hell do all the other things out there! Spun articles are just lame!!

            Be original and put some time forth...

            CHEERS!

            P.s. Here come the people who are going to defend article spinning and its legitimacy!!! :p
            Hi scott,

            The junk that you are referring to as "spun" content is just as offensive to me as it is to you. However, I think you are characterizing it all wrong. You are referring to low quality content, not necessarily spun content. Junk content is often created without spinning and much high quality content is created through spinning.

            If your content is crap it doesn't matter what technology you used to create it, it's generally not the fault of the technology, but the person that is using it improperly. Granted there are spinning tools that are only capable of creating junk, but spinning in and of itself can be used to create some of the best articles that you have ever read.

            It all boils down to the skill of the author, not the tools. Great content can be created through spinning, it all depends on how you use the tools.
            Signature

            * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
            *             Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3368497].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author scott g
              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Hi scott,

              The junk that you are referring to as "spun" content is just as offensive to me as it is to you. However, I think you are characterizing it all wrong. You are referring to low quality content, not necessarily spun content. Junk content is often created without spinning and much high quality content is created through spinning.

              If your content is crap it doesn't matter what technology you used to create it, it's generally not the fault of the technology, but the person that is using it improperly. Granted there are spinning tools that are only capable of creating junk, but spinning in and of itself can be used to create some of the best articles that you have ever read.

              It all boils down to the skill of the author, not the tools. Great content can be created through spinning, it all depends on how you use the tools.
              You hit that one on the head dburk! I was putting two and two together but the ducks didn't make geese, obviously!

              Good post!

              CHEERS!
              Signature
              scott g
              "Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve."
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3371454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author khenmhike
    Spun articles still works, maybe he was just unlucky when his rank was dropped.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3362194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TZ
    So this "SEO" told you this when????

    Between bong hits?
    Signature

    $php_coding = "consistent cash";

    echo ("Give me" . " " . $php_coding . "!");

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3364028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jslee
    Until you find a better method, you keep doing what you are doing. Certainly, that could be a very good excuse for not doing the work.
    Signature

    Let's talk about insuring automobiles

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3364281].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HostStage
    They do work !
    Just do something that other peoples don`t when they spin content.

    For example :
    *Don`t use the same number of paragraphs as the original article.
    *Don`t put the anchor on the same spot.
    *Don`t bold your anchor on all spunned articles. Use italic, underline too ...

    And the lists goes on and on. Just think outside the box and you will find many ways to make your spunned articles get indexed again.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3364295].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author freelans
      Originally Posted by Bragah View Post

      They do work !
      Just do something that other peoples don`t when they spin content.

      For example :
      *Don`t use the same number of paragraphs as the original article.
      *Don`t put the anchor on the same spot.
      *Don`t bold your anchor on all spunned articles. Use italic, underline too ...

      And the lists goes on and on. Just think outside the box and you will find many ways to make your spunned articles get indexed again.
      This is great (if not obvious) advice. It pays to take a few extra minutes to tweak the article and make it unique in other ways than merely substituting with synonyms. I think as spinners evolve, ways of seeking out spun articles will evolve alongside. You still can't beat the human touch for originality.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3367033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nightcrawler
    To the OP, It is a myth. It can be true because Google is taking action against Content Farms. IMO, the spun content is complete rubbish and so many people are using software. Imagine how much pollution on the internet and original content fades. So, maybe in future spun content will totally go out!!
    Signature
    E-Wali
    [B]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3367973].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sergtekwizard
    Thanks for your help
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3375905].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author OrganicSeoGuru
    All the oldies still work when done completely differently than how it was done in the past. Spun works when done properly, and there is significant difference.

    This could be a thousand word post, but I am sure you get the idea.

    I would never do mass profile linking to your target domain, always use buffer domains...
    Signature
    Seo Services and Search Engine Optimization Services
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3377026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    How to Write Effective SEO Copy

    Nearly anyone can create content for a site, but it takes special skills to write for human readers while also writing for search engines so that your site ranks as high as possible. It requires writing content in a systematic manner so as to get as much out of it as you can. You will soon learn that system so that you can write the most effective copy possible.

    Search engines have smartened up as of late and so only ranks content that is written with the intention of providing quality to human readers. So, if you hope to be a successful copywriter, you must ensure you're providing quality content. What do you suppose readers want when utilizing search engines for the information they're seeking? They're looking for both good content as well as a solution to the problems they're experiencing. Copywriters often fail because they put too much emphasis on creating more copy rather than creating good copy. You will have to not only create quality content that solves their problem, but you must also use the right keywords for the search engines. Search engines like content that solves readers' problems. Great SEO copy provides you with a lot of benefits. When a reader, and even a blogger, finds that your content helps them, they'll link to it. You will effectively get backlinks this way, which will help you with your search engine rankings. Therefore, it's necessary to create copy that has to do with what the reader is searching for.

    A good tip to learn is to use variations on the keywords you use instead of using the same ones repeatedly. The main reason this is good is because the search engines don't take kindly to keyword stuffing. Not only that, but search engines will view your use of varying keywords as a tell that your site is an authority over your given subject matter. Search engines like to use something called LSI or lateral semantic indexing that assists them in finding like words on a page that help them rank it more effectively. That's why a thesaurus is handy so that you can utilize as many synonyms as you are able to.

    Using tags in the right manner will assist you with ranking better with the searches and it will also help you with content organization. This is why you need to use the h1 tag when creating your page's title, as that's the tag that Google sees as the most important. Make sure you utilize the keywords in your title as well as the body of your copy. Don't be like the many SEO marketers that don't see h1 tags as important when creating their headings, because using the tags can give you a jump in the rankings. Not only that but you should also make use of h2 tags for your subheadings.

    SEO copywriting, then, isn't the most difficult thing to do, but you can help your results by using the methods you just learned about..
    Does this look spun to you?

    thought so ...
    Do it right...or don't do it at all...
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3377048].message }}

Trending Topics