Is there really a difference between article writing and seo writing ?

43 replies
Is there really a difference between article writing and SEO writing ? It's basically the exact same thing right ?
#article #difference #seo #writing
  • Profile picture of the author hardworker2013
    I would say they are the same thing, seo writing is optimizing your articles
    with rich keywords for the search engines to index and rank them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632531].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    Originally Posted by imagoodguy View Post

    Is there really a difference between article writing and SEO writing ? It's basically the exact same thing right ?
    No, its not the same on many levels. Will "Article Writing" get you SEO results... sure it can. But there is a difference between "It Can" and "It Will".

    I personally have a very defined formula that I use to write for the purposes of SEO be it 1 or 6 target words in an article. Once you have done this for a while the flow of the words becomes rather natural. However someone that does not have the repetition and experience is going to get a very forced feel to the read. In the same way that writing itself is a craft, writing for the purposes of SEO is the same.

    I think the most misunderstood concept of SEO is basically within the premise of the question you are asking. "How can I get my content to rank?"

    SEO does focus on the words on the page, but it goes deeper than that. It has to do with the code that displays the page. It has to do with the links that come and go from the page within your site. It has to do with the links that come and go outside of your site.

    More advanced SEO gets into the concepts of not only the page itself but the structure that is "holding" the page. Where does that page sit in correlation with other content on your site.

    Overall Article writing is producing content that is good quality, unique, and engaging. SEO done correctly, is the same with many more factors.
    Signature
    Success is an ACT not an idea
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632553].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author saxatwork
    Originally Posted by imagoodguy View Post

    Is there really a difference between article writing and SEO writing ? It's basically the exact same thing right ?
    There is a difference, but you generally see the term "article writing" in terms of SEO in internet marketing circles, so you may tend to think they are the same. I have used article writing services for newsletters, e-magazines, e-books etc. and that didn't have to do anything with SEO (unless my clients wanted to use the articles for SEO purposes). It all depends on the scenario where you use it.
    Signature

    "Be Still Like A Mountain And Flow Like A Great River"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632562].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author imagoodguy
    Thanks guys, I appreciate it...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632669].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lightlysalted
    Two are very different. Please write articles for people rather than the search engines. That's the key difference between creating good quality article content and SEO content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632721].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author savidge4
      Originally Posted by Paid Surveys View Post

      Please write articles for people rather than the search engines.
      I am not in any way attacking you on this. We see the above statement ALL the time. I get it. However, its a catch 22. If its not at least semi search engine friendly people in general will not read it. I understand all the other methods of obtaining traffic, but honestly what percentage is good at any of those?

      There really needs to be a happy medium here. Good quality writing does not have to be one way or the other. The key here is understanding what makes for good SEO and developing those writing skill.

      Most people correlate writing for SEO as spun or unreadable and that simply is not the case. SEO writing can be just as fluid as any other writing; again with practice.

      The age old argument about SEO being free traffic fits right in with this. it can take what a extra 5 minutes once you have written an article to make it more SEO friendly.?ensuring the images on the page have solid file name and img tags doesn't take anymore time, it just takes a conscious choice to do so.

      If you are using Article Marketing or Social Marketing or what ever other method of getting consistent traffic that's great. But learning just the basics and spending an added 5 minutes to assist in extending your contents reach sounds like a decent investment of time to me.
      Signature
      Success is an ACT not an idea
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632838].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BookBetty
        Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

        There really needs to be a happy medium here. Good quality writing does not have to be one way or the other. The key here is understanding what makes for good SEO and developing those writing skill.
        Bears being repeated.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9643686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author elcidofaguy
    There is a subtle difference with the end product but how you get there is hugely different and significant!!!

    SEO writing involves keyword research and identification of your target keywords.. From that you would form a list of articles and use keyword variations such as long tail etc being mentioned in your article noting subject and heading tags are important with regards to inserting those keywords...

    Now the trick is to keep the keyword density low!!! and for the article to be natural to read and for it to be high quality... For example just because you want to rank for red widgets doesn't mean you should mention red widgets 100 times... All you need is to mention it once in the title and/or in sub titles using long tail variations e.g. low cost red widgets vs high cost red widgets, blue widgets vs red widgets etc etc... But keep it low as Google's algo is sensitive to the keyword density...

    Now with normal article writing you are doing none of that and further you are not thinking that you want to rank for a particular keyword so you have no measurable data to compare yourself... i.e. did my rankings for these keywords for this page go up or down?

    In every case you'll will also find a bunch of other inadvertent keywords which people type to get to you website - just check out the seo section of your traffic reports such as with analytics...

    Overall the SEO approach in my opinion is the smart way to do it as you will have formed an article plan which covers many topics semantically and from the onset you have defined what your target is vs. lets just write and see what happens...

    Hope that helps!
    Signature
    Clickbank Affiliates. Are You One Of The 95% That Struggle To Make An Online Income? Introducing The Game Changing Strategy That You Need to Know About... Click Here!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632870].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnnyPlan
    A really good (indepth) article will be naturally optimized without the need for keyword stuffing or unnatural word patterns. And, this is true, because an article writer will automatically use words related to her subject as those are the words that best describe the subject.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9632911].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by imagoodguy View Post

    Is there really a difference between article writing and SEO writing ?
    I was hoping the question was ironic/joking ... but reading with increasing surprise through the replies above, it looks like others are taking it seriously, so I suppose I'd better, too.

    Yes - there's an enormous, overwhelming difference between the two. An enormous, overwhelming difference in intent, purpose, method, usage and outcome.

    Originally Posted by imagoodguy View Post

    It's basically the exact same thing right ?
    Again - it's kind of a stretch to imagine you're serious, but if you are, you're profoundly mistaken.

    "SEO writing" was (note past tense: it has very reduced value, these days) a way of using content for search engines to identify keywords in it and rank your site higher in their SERP's. The style/structure of the content was typically regarded as having little significance, as its primarily intended "reader" was an automated algorithm. The only kind of traffic it was intended (or indeed able) to bring comprised search-engine visitors: generally the least responsive and most difficult kind of traffic to monetize for all the reasons explained in post #13 of this thread.

    Article writing and distribution is a way of attracting to your site highly responsive, highly targeted people who are already looking elsewhere for information on the niche, and a way of demonstrating to them to your credibility, of educating and informing and entertaining them, of making them want to read and learn more from the same source, so that you'll be the person they like and respect and trust, and the one from whom (or through whose links) they eventually buy many things. In other words, it's (a) typically attracting a very different kind of traffic, and (b) subtly "pre-selling" to them, too.

    Unsurprisingly, therefore, SEO-writing and article writing are two entirely different skill-sets. (Yes, you could say both involve typing in words, speaking the language, constructing sentences, and so on, but that's no more than a "pedantic similarity".)

    And then, of course, there are the people (usually service-providers, making their income by selling articles to other people, rather than by using them themselves) who claim that the two "can overlap substantially" and "are closely connected" and "can be combined together by people who know how" (referring to themselves, natch, and implying that people who don't agree must lack their magical skills! ). Perhaps you've been listening to them, and that's what prompted this question??

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633091].message }}
    • At present there is not a major difference between an article writing and SEO writing, But some basic things need to be called up during writing an SEO article.

      An SEO article is made up of two distinct, but very important components:

      1) it has to contain relevant and value added content
      2) it has to be supported by good website infrastructure
      3) it should be search engine friendly
      Signature

      Hi-Tech Transcription Services

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633238].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rally2win
      Obviously, a classic case of one-size does NOT fit all here.

      If you are lucky, your article could be quite SEO effective where all of the keywords fit just fine for great SERPs, depending on length, depth, breadth of subject/context. This would be a forward-chaining process that hopefully fits the natural flow of your thinking process, generally. However, chances are this might not always be the case.

      Then the back-chaining process applies with the best keywords plugged in strategic places to wordsmith your way into more SE relevance.- most likely case-by-case depending on your target.
      R2W
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633331].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        There seems to be a split, with some strong opinions, but no one has specified whether the article in question is destined for one's own website or for wider distribution.

        Pertaining to articles used on your own site, it is, as Savidge4 said, a two step process. Write the article for people to read, then make sure the underlying structure is spider friendly. There are lots of good guides for on-page SEO.

        For articles meant for syndication/distribution, that structure is largely out of your control. So other than avoiding keyword stuffing and other dicey tactics, you need to write for two audiences more important than search spiders: the eventual publisher, and his audience.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    Originally Posted by imagoodguy View Post

    Is there really a difference between article writing and SEO writing ? It's basically the exact same thing right ?
    You are correct there is no real difference, i.e most articles on high Page Ranked sites are “normal articles”, but are rank well, so you can say these are "SEO articles" too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ivanadee
    As I know, article writing is the general writing activity. It does not guarantee the optimization while SEO writing will optimize your chosen keywords. Hope it helps
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author talfighel
    When you are writing an article, your goal is to have it ranked in the search engine. Your goal is not to have it sit there and look pretty.

    So for me, article writing and seo writing are the same.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633483].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by talfighel View Post

      When you are writing an article, your goal is to have it ranked in the search engine.
      "It must be true: I read it in the Warrior Forum".

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633576].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    All but a few of the answers are absolutely astounding. There have been numerous threads on this and related topics and I'm worn out trying to convince people of what should be obvious.

    There are always people here asking how they should go about making money online. You'll hear the "take action" mantra repeated a lot and I agree that without taking action nothing happens.

    But I agree only with strong reservations. The truly important thing about taking action is taking the right action. Working your butt off doing the wrong thing or working an outdated strategy brings the same type of failure you'll encounter had you taken no action at all.

    Someone mentioned writing for people and that's the truth in this discussion. I KNOW there are people embracing worn out models that have never made any real money yet they plod along waiting for their turn at success while they chant about business models that never worked well in the first place and definitely don't work now. It's gonna be a long wait, baby.

    There are billions and billions and billions of Web pages out there and more coming every day. It should be easy to understand that even your best efforts at trying to impress Google are going to fall flat. But people won't listen. It's sad really.

    I go to the WSO forum occasionally and see that article spinners are still among the most successful offers. I read posts here where members are asking if fiverr is a good place to buy traffic. When will they learn?

    If you're going to have a certain keyword density in a short article that article is going to suffer greatly. I don't care how clever you are, that piece is going to suck. And people might not know exactly what's wrong but they know something is and they leave. And if you do actually manage to get some SE traffic, what the hell kind of content are they going to encounter when they get to your site? More crappy SEO articles? Ugh.

    Business is about offering the best stuff you have, not doing as little as possible so you can get paid. When you create an article for a SE rather than to inform an individual interested in the topic you're shortchanging your potential customer and you're shortchanging yourself as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      All but a few of the answers are absolutely astounding.
      I couldn't agree more: I was genuinely astounded by this thread. Couldn't at first decide whether to post (and thereby risk perpetuating the discussion) rather than hoping it just slipped off the page quickly.

      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      Someone mentioned writing for people and that's the truth in this discussion.
      I'm close to giving up trying to explain this to anyone. Or, at least, I vacillate between wanting to, and sometimes just thinking "Well, look, if people really want to continue to imagine that your goal in writing an article is to have it ranked in a search-engine, then good luck to them (and if I'm lucky, might they even convince some more of my competitors that that's so, because I really do profit from that?!)."

      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      I KNOW there are people embracing worn out models that have never made any real money yet they plod along waiting for their turn at success while they chant about business models that never worked well in the first place and definitely don't work now. It's gonna be a long wait, baby.
      Yes, indeed.

      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      It should be easy to understand that even your best efforts at trying to impress Google are going to fall flat. But people won't listen. It's sad really.
      I confess (and have never really tried to conceal) that it saddens me, too.

      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      If you're going to have a certain keyword density in a short article that article is going to suffer greatly. I don't care how clever you are, that piece is going to suck. And people might not know exactly what's wrong but they know something is and they leave. And if you do actually manage to get some SE traffic, what the hell kind of content are they going to encounter when they get to your site? More crappy SEO articles? Ugh.
      Thanks very much for expressing succinctly, calmly and accurately the things that I ought also to have said, above.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9633858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
    I think the difference has lessened. There is enormous merit in instituting traffic channels that are not Google-dependant and making sure those channels remain in place regardless of Google's SERPs. However, many writers, tired of $5 article job offers and other things like keyword stuffing and spinners, are now jaded and bash Google and any notion of 'writing for the search engine'.

    Shrugging off traffic from search engines is short sighted, IMO.

    Do people who bash 'writing for Google' realize how many millions upon millions of dollars have been made by IMers from search traffic? I obviously do not have the stats, but I would bet that Google has made IMers MORE money than any other source. Google is the single largest contributor to IMers stuffing their wallets.

    Things change, and they can change fast. SEO writing is not what it was 2-3 years ago, certainly not what it was before panda/penguin. SEO writing must be more natural, now. Wait another 2-3 years and see how sophisticated Google's algo becomes.

    Hell yea you should make your site and writing SEO friendly. Why wouldn't you? For in 2014 and beyond, Google is getting way better at figuring all of this stuff out. SEO writing and pure article writing do not occupy different spheres like they have in recent past, and that is because of all of the PhD engineers, mathematicians, linguists, etc., working at Google.

    To me, a big part of SEO writing is nothing more than being cognizant of the different keywords and long tails that could produce a result where your article is served up in the SERPS. Yet, from reading this site, one could walk away with the notion that doing things like keyword research, longtail reasearch, etc., before composing the article is stupid, a waste of time, and the hallmark of a poorly written article, as well as a poor business plan and model. That doing so somehow means you are no longer writing for people and the the resulting article will be of a lesser quality.

    Nonsense. If one is a skilled writer, this is simply FALSE, for with a well written article, there is NO DEGRADATION in quality for optimizing for certain words and phrases.

    To completely ignore SEO when authoring an article is silly, to me, for with a skilled writer, there is no real discernible difference to the reader between an article that was written for an offline source and one that was written knowing that Google WILL read it, too, in addition to the human readers, and has been 'optimized' for certain words, phrases, and structure. But there will be a difference to Google ...

    Google is the single largest traffic source for the Net. More people are sent to websites from Google's advice than any other source. Not keeping the SERPs and what people type into the Google search bar in your mind as you write is shortsighted and could cost you money, potentially a lot, over the course of time.

    I'm on the band wagon of bashing the SEO article writing of recent past with all of the stuffing, spinning, and $5 articles from not the most talented writers. But yesterday ain't today.

    It is NO problem for a skilled writer to incorporate SEO principles into their writing. It does not affect readability or any other measure of a 'good' article. Part of that is because of all of those smart people at Google and what Google wants to serve up. Google does NOT want to serve up keyword stuffed, spun, poorly written content.

    People that just continue their knee-jerk reactions and condemn 'writing for the SERPs', need to get with the times. SEO writing is not an either/or proposition like it has been in the past - either a quality article or a poorly written, keyword stuffed, and then spun and thrown out to multiple places article. Google wants to serve up your well written, written for humans, authoritative type article. I don't understand why some get so pissy about being aware of this and doing the little things with your writing that will help Google do this, for there are NO NEGATIVE effects for doing so, only positive potential upside. Again, SEO writing today isn't keyword stuffing and spinning, etc., so SEO does not equal poorly written content by less than skilled writers.

    Yea, focus on consistent and profitable traffic sources other than Google, certainly when starting out, but for all of this talk about a 'real business model' from people who bash Google as a traffic source, well, I don't understand it. Sounds way more bitter than logical, to me, for there is only upside to writing optimized articles.

    And since you want to do some freelancing (I think I saw you mention that elsewhere), many of your potential clients are wanting SEO articles, so I would educate yourself on the subject and practice the craft of SEO writing for a post panda/penguin world, despite the cries of those who bash Google as a traffic source. Many of your potential clients are quite concerned with SEO, for very good reasons, so you need to be able to provide them with what they want.

    For your original question, I think there is a difference, but not like there was in recent past. I further think it silly and shortsighted to completely ignore what Google might think of your article when the spiders crawl it, like some writers here do.
    Signature
    One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

    - Seldom Seen Smith
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9634066].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author collison
      Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post


      To me, a big part of SEO writing is nothing more than being cognizant of the different keywords and long tails that could produce a result where your article is served up in the SERPS. Yet, from reading this site, one could walk away with the notion that doing things like keyword research, longtail reasearch, etc., before composing the article is stupid, a waste of time, and the hallmark of a poorly written article, as well as a poor business plan and model. That doing so somehow means you are no longer writing for people and the the resulting article will be of a lesser quality.

      Nonsense. If one is a skilled writer, this is simply FALSE, for with a well written article, there is NO DEGRADATION in quality for optimizing for certain words and phrases.

      .
      Absolutely there is hardly any discernible difference the way I would approach, a "normal" article , and a "SEO article", no sane person is doing keyword stuffing in their articles these days. An SEO article is being set up as straw man, that argument it is just not relevant anymore.

      I don't write my own articles these days anyway, but the only thing I give to my article writers is a title and the number of words. I get good traffic from the search engines(and not just google, bing is even better), I do PPC too, seems to work out fine.
      Signature

      viva business

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9634251].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Samuel Adams
      Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

      Do people who bash 'writing for Google' realize how many millions upon millions of dollars have been made by IMers from search traffic? I obviously do not have the stats, but I would bet that Google has made IMers MORE money than any other source. Google is the single largest contributor to IMers stuffing their wallets.
      .
      That all depends on what niche you are in and how many competitors are there. If you are talking about IM gurus selling info products about how to sell online, then they are most certainly using way more than search engine traffic to make sales. And, if those same people are saying how they get enough traffic to earn millions from search engine traffic alone, then they are doing so, just to convince others that their info product (which instructs how to do the same) is worth buying. Not that these people would share any real secrets of success.
      Signature

      Would you like to learn how I make $2000/month from a super easy listbuilding system?

      Click here to get my listbuilding report for FREE!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9639655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ross Dalangin
    The only difference is that SEO writing need to add few targeted keywords to the article. Nothing else.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9634258].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bjarne Eldhuset
      It's easier to SEOify a good article, than to goodify a SEO article
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9634277].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Like a few others, I also thought the OP was a joke, but it really is a serious marketing mistake not to make the distinction between writing real articles and writing for SEO. Many of the comments posted here seems to make reason itself burst with laughter.

        Articles for SEO are limited by long tail keyword contraints, but articles that drive traffic directly have almost no SEO value. In my experience, words that convert and strum the strings of the heart and mind have neglible effect in the search engines.

        One good article well-placed in publications targeting your reading audience can beat thousands of SEO "optimized" articles all-to-hell.

        "Fan the sinking flame of hilarity with the wing of friendship; and pass the rosy wine."
        - Charles Dickens
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9635026].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author collison
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          One good article well-placed in publications targeting your reading audience can beat thousands of SEO "optimized" articles all-to-hell.
          Hi,

          You make an interesting point, could you post a link as an example of: "one good article well-placed"(it does not have to be one your own, just any example) ? So it will be clear to see how it differs from a SEO article? I think your success may be because the article is "well-placed", rather than it being a non-SEO article!

          That would be very helpful, I would genuinely like to see one!
          Signature

          viva business

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9635323].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by collison View Post

            Hi,

            You make an interesting point, could you post a link as an example of: "one good article well-placed"(it does not have to be one your own, just any example) ? So it will be clear to see how it differs from a SEO article? I think your success may be because the article is "well-placed", rather than it being a non-SEO article!

            That would be very helpful, I would genuinely like to see one!
            Let me see if I can make make this point more clear; my writing style has absolutely nothing at all to do with SEO considerations. The entire focus and purpose of my articles has always been to maximize article distribution (ie syndication) while getting the attention and direct response of my targeted reading audience.

            Perhaps some of the best examples of this writing style can be found in many of the featured articles published in Popular Science magazine. If your targeted demographics closely match such a readership base, then an article published there would certainly be "well-placed" for directly driving highly convertible traffic. On the other hand, an "SEO" article laced with keywords optimized for search engines would have a snowball's chance in hell for even getting published, much less read by this audience.

            Originally Posted by elcidofaguy View Post

            .... But what you say is in fact an SEO strategy lol!!! Think about it..... ;-)
            Think about this .... "SEO strategy" is nothing more than an impotent mutation of article syndication spawned by gaming the search engines. Writing for robots and SERPs is labor-intensive and often futile compared to the conversion power of words that directly engage humans into action.


            Originally Posted by elcidofaguy View Post

            That said - you'll find that this approach has a short term gain with traffic to your own site but will not be enduring as you get from the SERPs when you rank well... On the upside if you're getting a backlink from an authoritative site with your guest article then that for sure is awesome!
            Au contraire .... even though I am semi-retired from the business, articles I've written as long as 16 years ago continue to drive traffic and get republished by new outlets. For any given commercially viable niche, there are virtually unlimited online/offline publications suitable for relevant articles. And, contrary to SEO, the article syndication marketing model (the highest form of "article writing") works even better as the competition intensifies.

            "We are so very 'umble."
            - Charles Dickens
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9637189].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author savidge4
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              Think about this .... "SEO strategy" is nothing more than an impotent mutation of article syndication spawned by gaming the search engines. Writing for robots and SERPs is labor-intensive and often futile compared to the conversion power of words that directly engage humans into action.
              myob... you are anything but right with this statement. I would label that more in line with " SEO Stupidity " before " SEO Strategy "

              There are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 200+ variables that dictate SERP placement. Proper Search Engine Optimization Strategy goes beyond finding the ONE that is currently working the best, and more into spreading across as many of these indicators as possible.

              When Google decides to make a algorithm update and people start wining how they have lost placement... well in my eyes it is their own damn fault. Nov. 16th 2003 is day that will / should live in any well respected SEO specialist mind. This was the day that Google released its FIRST real solid SERP altering update. The updates name was "Florida". The Florida update in particular put the smack down on those that were keyword stuffing. The effects of this update are STILL in place to this day.

              Nov 16th 2003 is also the date that created the separation in the SEO world from those that practiced " SEO Stupidity " and " SEO Strategy "

              Understanding the absolute basics of what an algorithm is, is essential for making good SEO decisions. An algorithm is for the most part simple math. Variable A; check. variable B; check. Variable C; fail ( to much or to little ) and that is what these Search Engine algorithms do. Set values to elements on and off the page.

              The Key to a solid Search Engine Optimization is to stay away for the land of exceptions ( to much or not enough ) To many "bad" back links not good. To many single keywords on a page, not good. To many reviews on your Google Business listing ( in comparison to page traffic ), not good.

              A good amount of keyword placement, Good. A good social foot print, good. Consistent tag placement and text, good. A nice flow of consistent content, good. An aged web domain ( preferably on that has been in place, and not one just bought - again this is a point of " Stupid " and " Strategy " ) good.

              Again these are all but minor pieces to the greater puzzle. And I know it sounds "Complicated" and 'time consuming" but the reality is, its not as bad as one wants to think. The ONE element that takes me the longest is the actual site structure. When I am development a website. I personally employ Silo Site structure ( you can look it up if you are not familiar )

              In my own personal strategy I focus on context. So not only what is on the specific page, but how it correlates with the content that is around it and linking to it on the site and off. If someone lands on my page and wants information about a " Blue Car " I obviously want to supply that. I go a step further and ensure that there is ADDITIONAL information clearly linked on that page to like information, in this case about " Blue Cars ".

              This is not only a good Strategy for the SERPS but it is better than good for the end user. Not only do they get what they linked to, but further information is available on my web property to keep them reading and hopefully they engage. THAT is " SEO Strategy "

              PS: The above post was optimized for SEO. The keyword that was targeted was " SEO Strategy "

              #1 You will find the keyword in bold at the top of the page.
              #2 You will find the text is 616 words in length.
              #3 You will find that the keyword was used 4 times with an exact match.
              #4 You will find that the synonym "Search Engine Optimization" was used 2 times.
              #5 You will find the terms " SEO " and " Strategy " separate from the keyword chain was used 2 times each.
              #6 You will find the targeted keyword was evenly distributed through the article.
              #7 You will find the term was used as close to the top and bottom of the article as possible.
              #8 Because I am used to writing in this type of format actual time spent to "Make" it SEO friendly was less than 30 seconds.

              For anyone to say this article was not written with the intent of being directly engaging, is straight up on drugs or something. Until the very end that it is POINTED out... you probably had no clue. It was not only natural looking... it was natural. SEO is NOT contrived and mechanical and spun and all that other crap... that is SEO Stupidity.

              Have a nice day!
              Signature
              Success is an ACT not an idea
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9640702].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

                myob... you are anything but right with this statement. I would label that more in line with " SEO Stupidity " before " SEO Strategy "

                There are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 200+ variables that dictate SERP placement. Proper Search Engine Optimization Strategy goes beyond finding the ONE that is currently working the best, and more into spreading across as many of these indicators as possible.

                When Google decides to make a algorithm update and people start wining how they have lost placement... well in my eyes it is their own damn fault. Nov. 16th 2003 is day that will / should live in any well respected SEO specialist mind. This was the day that Google released its FIRST real solid SERP altering update. The updates name was "Florida". The Florida update in particular put the smack down on those that were keyword stuffing. The effects of this update are STILL in place to this day.

                Nov 16th 2003 is also the date that created the separation in the SEO world from those that practiced " SEO Stupidity " and " SEO Strategy "

                Understanding the absolute basics of what an algorithm is, is essential for making good SEO decisions. An algorithm is for the most part simple math. Variable A; check. variable B; check. Variable C; fail ( to much or to little ) and that is what these Search Engine algorithms do. Set values to elements on and off the page.

                The Key to a solid Search Engine Optimization is to stay away for the land of exceptions ( to much or not enough ) To many "bad" back links not good. To many single keywords on a page, not good. To many reviews on your Google Business listing ( in comparison to page traffic ), not good.

                A good amount of keyword placement, Good. A good social foot print, good. Consistent tag placement and text, good. A nice flow of consistent content, good. An aged web domain ( preferably on that has been in place, and not one just bought - again this is a point of " Stupid " and " Strategy " ) good.

                Again these are all but minor pieces to the greater puzzle. And I know it sounds "Complicated" and 'time consuming" but the reality is, its not as bad as one wants to think. The ONE element that takes me the longest is the actual site structure. When I am development a website. I personally employ Silo Site structure ( you can look it up if you are not familiar )

                In my own personal strategy I focus on context. So not only what is on the specific page, but how it correlates with the content that is around it and linking to it on the site and off. If someone lands on my page and wants information about a " Blue Car " I obviously want to supply that. I go a step further and ensure that there is ADDITIONAL information clearly linked on that page to like information, in this case about " Blue Cars ".

                This is not only a good Strategy for the SERPS but it is better than good for the end user. Not only do they get what they linked to, but further information is available on my web property to keep them reading and hopefully they engage. THAT is " SEO Strategy "

                PS: The above post was optimized for SEO. The keyword that was targeted was " SEO Strategy "

                #1 You will find the keyword in bold at the top of the page.
                #2 You will find the text is 616 words in length.
                #3 You will find that the keyword was used 4 times with an exact match.
                #4 You will find that the synonym "Search Engine Optimization" was used 2 times.
                #5 You will find the terms " SEO " and " Strategy " separate from the keyword chain was used 2 times each.
                #6 You will find the targeted keyword was evenly distributed through the article.
                #7 You will find the term was used as close to the top and bottom of the article as possible.
                #8 Because I am used to writing in this type of format actual time spent to "Make" it SEO friendly was less than 30 seconds.

                For anyone to say this article was not written with the intent of being directly engaging, is straight up on drugs or something. Until the very end that it is POINTED out... you probably had no clue. It was not only natural looking... it was natural. SEO is NOT contrived and mechanical and spun and all that other crap... that is SEO Stupidity.

                Have a nice day!
                [Eyes glazed over]

                Unwittingly, you just emphasized my point. Congratulations.

                The SEO "strategy" is becoming more expensive as it becomes more difficult to rank in the SERPs. Keyword competition is rapidly increasing in nearly all industries; there’s always going to be someone else doing it better and spending a higher budget than you. Although a technical knowledge of SEO strategies may be useful, the practical learning curve and ongoing algorithm changes are a formidable challenge especially when going head to head against deep-pocketed professional SEO strategists.

                Over the last few years we’ve seen many changes when it comes to SEO "strategies", but one thing is certain: despite the changes, businesses continue to experience value in terms of building their reputation, increasing brand visibility, driving traffic, raising conversion ratios, etc. In my experience from marketing in some of the most hotly competitive niches, the fastest way to achieve all of this is through article syndication, which includes getting intelligible, relevant, and engaging articles (not for backlinks) placed on sites that already are ranking in the SERPs.

                Long before "SEO", article syndication was a proven marketing strategy effective in any niche no matter how heavy the competition may be. Back in the day (long before the Google animals came out), we called it "hitchin' a ride"; getting traffic directly from publications and sites that already were targeting the audiences we wanted to reach. This strategy still beats waiting weeks or months for your site to rank (if ever), and even now continues to consistently beat the competition all-to-hell.

                "Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle."
                ~ Abraham Lincoln (attribution)

                PS: The above post was optimized for keywords. Butt the targeted keywords was not an SEO Strategy.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9641012].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author elcidofaguy
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          One good article well-placed in publications targeting your reading audience can beat thousands of SEO "optimized" articles all-to-hell.
          .... But what you say is in fact an SEO strategy lol!!! Think about it..... ;-)

          That said - you'll find that this approach has a short term gain with traffic to your own site but will not be enduring as you get from the SERPs when you rank well... On the upside if you're getting a backlink from an authoritative site with your guest article then that for sure is awesome!
          Signature
          Clickbank Affiliates. Are You One Of The 95% That Struggle To Make An Online Income? Introducing The Game Changing Strategy That You Need to Know About... Click Here!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9635395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JensSteyaert
    If you can combine the two and write engaging articles that are well optimized, then that's the best.

    When trying to write optimized articles that don't add any value then you're going to suffer eventually.

    I also have a blog, and i just write long articles, i don't care about ranking in Google as it's not my main business. Perhaps i could get more traffic, but i feel comfortable writing articles that my audience likes. No hard feelings to the people that do keyword research and all, i just don't care.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9634273].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matthew Trujillo
    Article marketing is writing articles that appeal to people in your niche.

    SEO writing is writing for the "search engines". You need both let me explain why.

    It's best to write for humans and not SEO. It's also good to have keywords in their.

    But don't make it too obvious or else it'll be detected as spam.

    Just focus on posting good quality content that has the keywords you need it'll be a win/win.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9640656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mary Davis
    Yes, there is difference. Telling a writer you'd like to commission an "article" is like going onto a car lot and telling the salesman you want to buy a vehicle. You may end up driving off the lot with something, but it may not be the right vehicle for the job you had in mind.

    So it is with structuring an article properly to optimize it to meet the end objective of what you want to use it for.

    SEO is a specialty form of writing, and an art of itself. The key is to find balance in blending the keywords seamlessly for a natural sounding final product -- one that pleases both the reader AND the search engines. Too many people in their quest for SEO Nirvana tend to focus on the latter at the detriment to the former - and readers (and sales) suffer accordingly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9640919].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ellakatie94
    Actually article is a way of SEO. The main intend is to increase the rank of the both Article & SEO. So I think they are similar with each other. There is no specific difference between these two.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9641120].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author savidge4
      Myob,

      I get what you are saying, Article syndication is very effective. I personally do this as well. HOWEVER. To post this content on your own web property for the sake of posting it and NOT at least doing a minimum of SEO in my eyes is a waste.

      If the idea is to diversify your incoming traffic flow, and you simply are focusing on your abilities to syndicate a piece, are you not minimizing the "possible" scope of traffic you could be getting?

      Somebody here on the forum states they write 2 to 3 articles a month... that is all they need to draw traffic through article syndication. what happens if JUST one of those doesn't get re-published? what happens if the publication sources already have content for the month and NONE of them get re-published? You are crud out of luck now aren't you?

      Granted the person I am directing that comment to is a hella good writer and that probably doesn't happen very often. But the reality is, as you have stated the competition has gotten tougher and as article syndicators you are in the same boat as SEO'ers are. it might get re-published this week, it might get re-published in a month, or it simply wont get re-published at all.

      Over the years traffic diversification has become essential in prolonged success in what we do. How can you make each and every piece of content you produce work at its best across as many platforms as you can get it to. I hate to say it because you will come up with some other excuse...but SEO strategy is the over all answer.

      Sharing that content you have published to social media points. Using the Barnicle method ( you call hitching a ride ). Developing authority and sharing in forums. Commenting and engaging on other blogs. These are ALL SEO methods, that when utilized at the human interaction level ( and not being SEO stupid and trying to get some bot to do it ) is VERY effective.

      Sure you are saying you only share content where your target traffic is and its not for backlinks... that's just silly.. not the placing content where your buyers hang out, but not doing it for a backlink I do it for BOTH reasons.

      That comment really threw me for a loop... basically: I share content because of the traffic and not for the backlink. oooo kkkkk uh, that would actually be a very good SEO practice. For more than many years now, this is exactly what I practice. If I am not contributing, engaging, or if the site isn't within context... I don't link back to any of my properties. do you see a sig link below? NO you don't. and why? because this forum is not relevant in context to any of my sites.

      This isn't a win or loose discussion. This is a discussion of implementing the abilities of both concepts. basically creating one piece of content with the understanding that it will produce across a number of traffic platforms. I really don't understand the argument you present. Weather you are willing to admit it or not, you implement a good amount of SEO tactics in what you are sharing here. You simple are trying to convince yourself they are not.
      Signature
      Success is an ACT not an idea
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642752].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

        Somebody here on the forum states they write 2 to 3 articles a month... that is all they need to draw traffic through article syndication. what happens if JUST one of those doesn't get re-published?
        One builds up a syndication-list. The frequency with which different sorts of publishers want content varies, of course ... but in reality there are always some who take "almost everything decent they can get" (and one has, of course, selected the niche in the first place having researched that potential, at least to some extent - though it's usually fairly apparent). One isn't limited to websites, of course: there are always ezines, newsletters and a huge array of potential print media publishers. But it's always possible in theory, of course, as you say.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642783].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Gifted Jay
          I would say that there is. While the traditional article writing is aimed at expressing and relaying information to your reader, seo writing is for the search engines. note that seo requires an extra effort.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642844].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author savidge4
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          One builds up a syndication-list. The frequency with which different sorts of publishers want content varies, of course ... but in reality there are always some who take "almost everything decent they can get" (and one has, of course, selected the niche in the first place having researched that potential, at least to some extent - though it's usually fairly apparent). One isn't limited to websites, of course: there are always ezines, newsletters and a huge array of potential print media publishers. But it's always possible in theory, of course, as you say.
          Without question both roads are tough. Alexa, I personally probably could not have the success you have simply because you are a damn good writer. I do have success in the WordPress / WooCommerce circles because I am more technically inclined ( go figure ) but that really is not a niche that produces the income that say my Halloween or Soccer site does.

          With Soccer as an example I am not going to be able write any content that will get onto espn.com or any of the other major traffic points. But the reality is, my soccer site is my month in month out top producer. I don't article syndicate AT ALL with that site. The best I can muster for content is reading a couple 3 articles online and or in magazines and spewing out content in my own words.

          It becomes a matter of spitting that content out to your network of followers before they see it anywhere else.

          I literally buy 30+ magazines every month across my different niches. ( I don't get subscriptions, because they hit the stands before you get them in the mail! ) I spend a ton of time and money to "create" content. I have to have that content kicking on any and every cylinder it can.

          I am right there with anyone that says you need to get your content in front of the right people in the right places. THAT is my SEO strategy. Go to the traffic, and don't wait on them... however in doing so, you are leaving a trail. That trail leads back to.... your site. That trail is back linking ALL DAY LONG. These are all indicators that Search Engines are looking for. So in my attempts to reach those at where they go, I am also delivering the needed elements to draw from those that are searching for that hang out.

          Back linking is probably the most difficult element of SEO. To understand that sharing content A) where the traffic is and B) that is directly related in context. Is simply the best method to getting them. If you are sharing content and somewhat particular in where it is, you are doing the "hard" leg work that many if not most try to automate and get Google slapped for, because they are not concerning themselves with the content end of it, just he link end of it.

          So with all of this, you can now see my side of this discussion as to why I ask: why wouldn't you develop at least the minimum of SEO within the articles you write?
          Signature
          Success is an ACT not an idea
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642916].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

            So with all of this, you can now see my side of this discussion as to why I ask: why wouldn't you develop at least the minimum of SEO within the articles you write?
            Yes, I do see that.

            My reasons, such as they are ...

            (i) I used to, to some extent, for about my first year and a half. I eventually decided that it didn't help me, and stopped bothering;

            (ii) It's much harder to get "keyword-optimized articles" published: many "better sites", understandably, don't want them;

            (iii) I've had enough years of experience, in enough entirely different, unrelated niches (coupled with something of an obsession for analysis/statistics/monitoring of which I'm not altogether proud - in spite of these allegedly being such useful and valuable interests for all internet marketers), to have worked out that just having articles syndicated to relevant websites, while accumulating their initial indexations for one's own site, is so beneficial to SEO in its own right as to make targeting specific keywords of little additional benefit (people really do, very widely and seriously, underestimate the SEO power of article syndication);

            (iv) All my articles are written about niches rather than about products, and in writing such articles it isn't really possible to avoid "niche keywords" anyway, whether one specifically targets them or not (this is true even on the level of what SEO-service providers tend to call "latent semantic indexing", known to me more simply but equally effectively as "chatting away about the niche and using the kind of vocabulary one's forced to use, in order to do so);

            (v) If Google de-indexed all my websites tomorrow morning, it would cost me (in round numbers) 20% of my traffic but only 2% of my income, because I'm primarily a ClickBank affiliate marketer, and search-engine traffic, overall, across my entire range of niches, has about a tenth of the value to me that traffic from just about any other source has: these are visitors who typically stay the least time, view the fewest pages, opt in the least often and actually buy anything by far the least often, so in the overall scheme of things, I don't really care very much whether I get these visitors or not.

            There you have it. My reasons - as you see - are a mixed bag: a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I don't need this traffic anyway; it's of very little use to me; I do get floods of it anyway (far more, and for a far wider range of keywords than when I was consciously trying to get it); and it's just not worth bothering with. Just my perspective, of course.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642973].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author flesterking
    Normal Article Writing = No need of any keyword research + Can talk anything in general

    SEO Article Writing = Targeting keywords in the article + Market your product or service

    There is difference between writing article for a book or article directory versus my money site. So yes there is a lot of difference.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9642852].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zaheera
    SEO writing is a condensed, targeted offshoot of traditional writing forms.
    While,In traditional writing, the emphasis is on expressing ideas and relaying information, usually with a unique flair that is enjoyable for the reader. This desire for a rich style runs throughout many different traditional writing mediums—from daily newspapers to literary novels.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9643132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

      Myob,

      I get what you are saying, Article syndication is very effective. I personally do this as well. HOWEVER. To post this content on your own web property for the sake of posting it and NOT at least doing a minimum of SEO in my eyes is a waste.
      Really now. Actually, it seems to me you still don't get it. For me and many other very successful article marketers, SEO is a waste. The real power of content lies in the nuances of language, context, perception, emotion, etc. The article syndication marketing model has absolutely nothing to do with SEO, and "SEO articles" laden with keywords for ranking in the SERPs are comparatively impotent.

      As a marketer (now semi-retired) in some of the most hotly competitive niches, writing for SEO is worthless and the attempt would have been detrimental. There is a wide gulf between keywords that rank in the SERPS and keywords that trigger human response.

      For example, I targeted medical professionals, legal specialists, accountants, mechanical/electrical/aerospace engineers, managers in business/industry, academia faculty/researchers, trade associations, churches, civic groups, etc. Given the insurmountable competition by some of the best in SEO strategy for these demographics, it would have been counter-productive in an attempt to outrank them in the SERPs. And "keywords" would have only diluted the impact of my articles.

      Consider also when querying a potential publication for article syndication, there are always standards that must be met for not only the editor but also expectations of the reading audience. Writing articles without the uncompelling constrictions of SEO can not only provide much wider distribution, but even more importantly - engage your targeted prospects.

      In my not so humble opinion, article syndication is the "crème de la crème" marketing model for traffic generation and conversions. Quite the opposite of "SEO", actually, which nearly always requires compromises for "low competition" keywords, article syndication becomes ever more effective as the competition intensifies. As competition increases, there is generally a commensurate increase in the number of publications for article syndication. For any given commercially viable niche, there may be thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of relevant online/offline publications suitable for article syndication.

      I don't believe you really understand the full leveraging power of article syndication. When a publisher accepts an article from a writer, there is a subtle but very powerful effect that transcends the article itself. Readers (especially long-term subscribers) will often have the perception (real or not) that the editor endorses your article. Never overestimate SEO nor underestimate article syndication; they are completely separate writing methods and cannot be interchanged effectively.

      "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
      - Mark Twain
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9643506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    My eyes, my beautiful blue eyes, they burn! This thread has got to be one of the most painful reads I have experienced in quite a while.

    Worse still, now I don't know maths.

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9643381].message }}

Trending Topics