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

Syndicated Articles in Web 2.0 Sites?

by Carl Brown
9 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I don't hear anyone doing this, but, is there any downside to grabbing a few articles from the article directories and using them exclusively on web 2.0 properties, since they are secondary sites? I'm thinking it would be a quick way to build up a dozen (or more) without having to write original content for all these sites.
#articles #sites #syndicated #web
  • Profile picture of the author debra
    Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

    I don't hear anyone doing this, but, is there any downside to grabbing a few articles from the article directories and using them exclusively on web 2.0 properties, since they are secondary sites? I'm thinking it would be a quick way to build up a dozen (or more) without having to write original content for all these sites.
    Really????

    You've been hangin' around this forum since at least 2009 and your still considering plagiarism. Seems by now you would know the answer to that.

    Really?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6474340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Builder154
      Originally Posted by debra View Post

      Really????

      You've been hangin' around this forum since at least 2009 and your still considering plagiarism. Seems by now you would know the answer to that.

      Really?
      What do you mean? Aren't the articles in the article directories submitted by people wanting them syndicated? I thought that is what he was referring to.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6474360].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
        What do you mean? Aren't the articles in the article directories submitted by people wanting them syndicated? I thought that is what he was referring to.
        Yeah. Strange how some people read things. So, again I'll ask, is there any downside to using SYNDICATED articles (you know, the ones Article Directories HOPE you'll use) in web 2.0 properties.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6474417].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author debra
    I read "grabbing" and "syndication" to mean entirely two different things.

    Even with syndication can be tricky to rank...especially if the original content has already been indexed.

    I guess you can throw a butt load of backlinking towards the pages. Good luck with that lately.

    I mean, couldn't you throw a couple bucks towards someone to decently rewrite (not spin) a group of articles? Seems to be cheaper and much quicker in the long run.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6474445].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
      One more time, sloooowly.

      Ezinearticles places people's work in the HOPE that you'll use THEIR writer's work on your site. People have used my articles--many times. I would never use syndicated articles on my money sites. Some do. I want to use this content on my secondary sites

      INSTEAD of spinning crappy articles and spamming these webhosting sites with unreadable garbage (as so many here seem intent on doing), is their any downside to using articles from an article directory on these SECONDARY sites?

      No, I'm not gonna pay someone to fill these secondary sites with content. I've been writing them myself. I have a link or two per web property (who said anything about a "butt-load" of links).

      If you want to build a more complete and HONEST secondary site, you need content. Does the fact that a percentage of your content is syndicated (maybe 50% - 75%) cause a problem for your ONE or TWO links to your money site?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6474528].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Attraction Marketing
        I know your question was from quite some time ago. Did you ever try this? How did it work out for you?

        Maybe you could try curated content for these web 2.0 properties. Much less writing and search engines seem to like it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6992416].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
          Only a couple of ezine articles on each site. I do leave the resource box in place. I just wanted to add additional content to make the sites look active. I should do more and mix it in with original content. I had to "google" content curation. Never heard of it. Looks interesting. I could use an article scraper for this couldn't I? I assume Google wouldn't see this as scraped content as long as you link back to the source?

          Looks like something to consider.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6992463].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jonathan Davis
        Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

        One more time, sloooowly.
        Made me laugh

        I assume you're using the 2.0's to point to your money site, or to other links you've built...have you been doing this long enough to be able to measure results?

        It seem like a pretty good way to make the 2.0's look less spammy. If there's no concern of actually ranking those 2.0's and the main concern is just that they're indexed it wouldn't be a problem I wouldn't think.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6993342].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Attraction Marketing
        Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

        Only a couple of ezine articles on each site. I do leave the resource box in place. I just wanted to add additional content to make the sites look active.
        Really great idea, thank you for sharing it.

        I should do more and mix it in with original content.
        You could also add youtube videos to increase visitor engagement and fill out the site a bit.

        I had to "google" content curation. Never heard of it. Looks interesting. I could use an article scraper for this couldn't I? I assume Google wouldn't see this as scraped content as long as you link back to the source?

        Looks like something to consider.
        You definitely could use a scraper. The idea is that the mixture of curated content and your original commentary along with the attribution is counted as original content to google. People who love curation tout the acceptance of huffington post and perez hilton, which are almost entirely curated sites. Yet they get lots of google love and are worth millions of dollars.

        There are some programs out there that use rss feeds from your favorite sources to find you fresh content to curate, also. I like the idea, as they also find you images with the right license to curate, as well and some of them even have the ability to post to a self hosted blog for you.

        The most popular tool I can think of is also now the most expensive, unfortunately, but it started here as a WSO with rave reviews and has a great video on their site about what content curation is and how to build a post using curation techniques.

        I don't think I can post links, yet, but google "pageone curator" and go to the first site listed if you want to see the video.

        I have my suspicions that one of the most amazing authority sites we could build would be a mixture of quality original content mixed with the most popular curated content on the subject with plenty of opportunity for social engagement. I think a site like that would get some serious people love and return traffic which should translate into naturally higher PR and increased SEO traffic, as well.

        I have PLR to a course on content curation that I am happy to share with you. I have not actually read it, so I can't say for certain the quality, but I had it in my collection and the source was a good one. I am happy to share it with you.

        I don't have enough posts to pm but if you pm me your email address I will send it over.

        Great discussion, thanks again

        Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

        One more time, sloooowly.
        Originally Posted by Jonathan Davis View Post

        Made me laugh
        Made me laugh too.


        Originally Posted by Jonathan Davis View Post

        Made me laugh

        I assume you're using the 2.0's to point to your money site, or to other links you've built...have you been doing this long enough to be able to measure results?

        It seem like a pretty good way to make the 2.0's look less spammy. If there's no concern of actually ranking those 2.0's and the main concern is just that they're indexed it wouldn't be a problem I wouldn't think.

        Thank you for your informative post. I agree that it should make web 2.0s look less spammy, definitely more readable and more engaging for the consumer since you can use the most popular articles that you find. It's a great idea. Thanks to Carl for proposing such an interesting idea.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6993616].message }}

Trending Topics