For articles - Do I use Google keyword planner to use in articles? | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

9 years ago

Hey bro!

I think you should sought by keywords. Just place in your keyword, and search fo rkeywords. Google around, you will sure find tutorials on that

Cheers!

Thanks

Signature

How to Write and Create Video Sales Letters That Converts at 5-10%

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688015].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by chilldy

I feel I'm doing this completely wrong.

This observation is well-judged. Seriously, well done on having worked out that this isn't the way to go (many people never realise that at all!).

Three important things to know about content marketing ...

1. Using articles to attract traffic has nothing to do with SEO at all. Article marketing is unconnected with SEO. http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

2. Publishing content just on your own site isn't really a traffic-generation plan at all: the only traffic that's ever realistically going to attract is (maybe) some gradual, eventual, search-engine traffic - and (as the saying goes) "Good luck monetizing that!". It's not the way forward, at all. And that's putting it mildly.

3. You need to write for people, not for search engines.

(If the thread now fills up with people telling you that "you can do both", as some of these discussions do, you'll have to decide for yourself to whom you wish to listen

).

.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688484].message }}

chilldy

9 years ago

So basically stop worrying about writing for a search engine and just write for people as SEO only isn't the way to go?

Should I be submitting my articles to places like ezinearticles after having submitted them on my site? If so is there a good list of sites I should be submitting to?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688661].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by chilldy

Should I be submitting my articles to places like ezinearticles after having submitted them on my site?

You can, certainly. It's quite a minor afterthought to the article marketing process, but if any ezine publishers or webmasters find and re-publish it when they look there for content, it can bring you some extra traffic from their targeted publications/sites. And of course it costs nothing to do.

Be clear, though, if using it, that its purpose and function are simply to offer the articles for re-publication elsewhere - not to bring you traffic from EZA's website (no article marketer would want to do that; it's counterproductive!).

Posts #2 and #6 of this thread may help you: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

Originally Posted by chilldy

If so is there a good list of sites I should be submitting to?

Any sites that already have the targeted traffic you want to attract. (Not other article directories, and not "web 2.0 sites"!).

So what the sites are depends on your niche.

Relevance is everything.

Suggestions on "how to find those sites" are here.

And some suggestions on "how to ask them to publish your article/post" are here.

The rule of thumb (and it's a good and accurate rule of thumb) is that anywhere you can just submit the article on your own and get it published, with no editorial/approval/acceptance processes, is not going to be helpful. Using those places isn't really "article marketing" at all: that's just a misguided sort of hangover from the days when many people very unwisely imagined that it was a good idea "simply to get as many backlinks as possible" (it never really was - not even 5-10 years ago when so many people thought it was - and definitely not now!).

.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688764].message }}
- Steve B 9 years ago
  
  chilldy,
  
  The importance of focusing on a niche is critical to article marketing. Many marketers get this wrong because they focus on SEO, keyword competition, and casting a wide net in order to increase their "reach."
  
  You want your article to be seen and read by potential prospects that will one day make a purchase from you. That means you concentrate on putting your content in front of that specific audience and don't worry about trying to persuade or convert others who aren't in the niche.
  
  So for instance, if you are into bee keeping, your focus should be getting your article, "Raising Bees in Your Pajamas from the Kitchen Table," onto the blogs, portals, directories, and authority sites in the bee keeping market. The prospects that frequent those places are the audience you're trying to attract.
  
  Yes, a few people in that market may find your article on EZA, but your chances of having your article read by potential subscribers and buyers is much, much greater if you place it on an authority site that is targeted directly to bee keepers.
  
  Article marketing is so much more effective when:
  
  You have chosen a tightly niched market where all the audience is looking for exactly the same kind of information
  
  You write high quality articles that are targeted directly to the wants, needs, desires of that audience
  
  You write articles of great substance which are generally (not always) longer than the typical 200-400 word PLR pack variety. (Say in the 800-1500 word range) - Authority sites and bloggers love these meaty professional gems.
  
  You develop a reputation (as a result of your knowledge and expertise) and a well known name in the industry - others will come calling asking for your content.
  
  Why does this method work so well? Because others won't take the time to become an authority in the niche. All they want to do is put up a quick cookie cutter blog, post some general and dubious PLR articles, slap a few affiliate links on site, and hope to make some referral income.
  
  Thanks for listening,
  
  Steve
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
  SteveBrowneDirect
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688853].message }}

mlepisto

9 years ago

Originally Posted by chilldy

So basically stop worrying about writing for a search engine and just write for people as SEO only isn't the way to go?

No. You're writing for people. People use keywords to search for stuff. You want to make sure you use the keywords people are looking for in order to have a chance of getting them to your article.

ex: If I want to look for "red high heel shoes" that would be the term I type in. If your article is "bright items people wear to walk with" you'll have no chance of me landing on your page. This is an exaggeration but you get the idea.

You want your content to appeal to people once they get to the page and so it doesn't read just like a page full of crap stuffed with keywords.

Originally Posted by chilldy

Should I be submitting my articles to places like ezinearticles after having submitted them on my site? If so is there a good list of sites I should be submitting to?

If you're talking about using the same article, no. Don't submit your own content to another site - keep it unique. You can however re-write that article and then do this. You'll want it to be substantially different not only swapping out words here and there. It's like writing two school assignments. One for you and one for the classmate who paid you to do it for them. Have to make sure the teacher doesn't read it and think it's the same piece.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9690968].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by mlepisto

Don't submit your own content to another site - keep it unique. You can however re-write that article and then do this.

Sorry, but this really is terrible advice, that runs entirely contrary to all the fundamental principles of content marketing.

Far from losing anything by having content originally indexed on your own site circulated to other relevant sites exactly as it is, your site's SEO will gradually, collectively, gain by having accumulated the initial indexations of subsequently syndicated content.

Originally Posted by mlepisto

You'll want it to be substantially different not only swapping out words here and there.

This isn't right at all!

You should want it not to be different at all. There would be no long-term advantage to your own site in giving away unnecessarily to other sites the initial indexation-rights to any unique content. This is shooting yourself in the foot completely unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by mlepisto

It's like writing two school assignments. One for you and one for the classmate who paid you to do it for them. Have to make sure the teacher doesn't read it and think it's the same piece.

A complete myth. It wasn't even true 5-7 years ago when so many people imagined that it was. Looking in any respected, widely accredited, up-to-date SEO textbook would rapidly inform you how mistaken this historically misguided view is.

The mistaken view expressed above was originally based simply on a fundamental confusion between "syndicated content" and "duplicate content". This post explains the difference between them.

This little thread, well worth a read, also explains the point in some detail.

.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9690997].message }}

Wizardofwisdom

9 years ago

Thank goodness for not only reason, but well researched reason, Alexa. You've probably saved the guy who started this thread (and many others), years of useless work. Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Sorry, but this really is terrible advice, that runs entirely contrary to all the fundamental principles of content marketing.

Far from losing anything by having content originally indexed on your own site circulated to other relevant sites exactly as it is, your site's SEO will gradually, collectively, gain by having accumulated the initial indexations of subsequently syndicated content.

This isn't right at all!

You should want it not to be different at all. There would be no long-term advantage to your own site in giving away unnecessarily to other sites the initial indexation-rights to any unique content. This is shooting yourself in the foot completely unnecessarily.

A complete myth. It wasn't even true 5-7 years ago when so many people imagined that it was. Looking in any respected, widely accredited, up-to-date SEO textbook would rapidly inform you how mistaken this historically misguided view is.

The mistaken view expressed above was originally based simply on a fundamental confusion between "syndicated content" and "duplicate content". This post explains the difference between them.

This little thread, well worth a read, also explains the point in some detail.

.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Establish your online biz in weeks not months without selling, coercing, persuading or manipulating anyone into buying your services... Talk to me for FREE...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691137].message }}

mlepisto

9 years ago

I've seen sites that outrank the original content because the engines give them the credit instead of the original source for the exact same terms.

I would never jeopardize a domain I didn't consider disposable by posting the exact same content on another site.

Your experience may be different, but this is my position.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691120].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by mlepisto

I've seen sites that outrank the original content because the engines give them the credit instead of the original source for the exact same terms.

Yes, that can occasionally happen, too - but it's nearly always temporary, as your own site continues accumulating initial indexations of content subsequently syndicated.

Originally Posted by mlepisto

Your experience may be different, but this is my position.

Then please excuse my mentioning that your "position" is one that's based on a rather fundamental misunderstanding (one that used to be relatively widespread - sadly - around 5-6 years ago, when you perhaps initially formed your impression of this subject?). That's not only in my experience, with respect, but also the experience of everyone else making our livings through content marketing ... and for solid, reliable and universal reasons which are pretty easily understandable, and unambiguously confirmed by Google, too, if that matters to you.

I don't mind discussing it.

I don't mind not discussing it.

I did mind the advice you produced above, because that helps nobody and it's all based on a "historical misunderstanding" - sorry.

.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691143].message }}

mlepisto

9 years ago

Well, I will defer to you guys on this. I don't claim to know it all

I just know that I dealt with other sites outranking mine for the exact same content and it wasn't temporary. I don't remember the exact time frame, but it may have been when you mentioned it being 5-6 years ago.

Just a question though - from a value perspective if your content isn't unique what value does it provide?

Engines can change their policy and algorythms any time they want. If the lines become more blurry between syndicated and duplicate content in the future, where does that leave you? I still would not take the risk with a brand I cared about long term.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691192].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by mlepisto

Just a question though - from a value perspective if your content isn't unique what value does it provide?

Exactly the same value that all the articles in today's Sunday newspapers, magazines and supplements (some of which mention in a footnote that they were "originally published in etc. etc. etc.") provide.

They're unique to those readers.

Webmasters, ezine publishers, newsletter publishers, magazines and newspapers syndicate articles because they constantly need content for their readers. The value of the content to their readers isn't determined by whether or not it's previously been published elsewhere.

People are not syndicating content "for SEO benefits". They're syndicating it because it's content they want to share with their own readers, visitors and subscribers. (I don't suggest that many people would want a site on which all the content is syndicated, of course.)

I take your point about Google's ability to change its algorithms any time it likes; but when you look at what Google say about syndicated content, on their own sites and blogs, and what their senior staff say about it, on their own blogs and in interviews with web magazines and websites, it becomes very clear that they respect and appreciate the need for syndicated content and the needs it serves, and that they differentiate at a very fundamental level between "duplicate content" and "syndicated content". And many of the world's leading news and sports websites also syndicate the bulk of their content from places like Reuters and Associated Press, too, don't they? Doesn't seem to bother them?

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691221].message }}

mlepisto

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Exactly the same value that all the articles in today's Sunday newspapers, magazines and supplements (some of which mention in a footnote that they were "originally published in etc. etc. etc.") provide.

They're unique to those readers.

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

And many of the world's leading news and sports websites also syndicate the bulk of their content from places like Reuters and Associated Press, too, don't they? Doesn't seem to bother them?

And therein lie my points.

If you search for any given story that was syndicated by your local paper, how many times do you see your local paper ranking for it? Besides, how many local papers re-write some of these articles prior to publishing them? They *make* them unique to those readers - otherwise they aren't unique, they are just distributed to that audience.

Why would I subscribe to my local paper if they just syndicate another source? Well because they add value in other ways. If they didn't, I could get the same news from the source.

If you look at Google News or Google for the article, do you see AP or Reuters ranking for anything even though they're the source of most of that content? Not all the time.

This from just now. Yahoo News outranks Reuters for their own article.
https://www.google.com/search?q=No+e...m=122&ie=UTF-8

Google may not penalize the source for them, but there is no more "unique" value added to the internet by syndicating the content.

I'm NOT saying it doesn't work to syndicate content, I'm just saying it doesn't provide any additional new value and considering the changing nature of the industry I wouldn't risk my brand with syndicating unless it was part of my revenue model (Reuters/AP)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691349].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by mlepisto

Why would I subscribe to my local paper if they just syndicate another source?

I'm not talking about "local papers".

I was talking about today's Sunday Times.

I was just using it as an "offline equivalent" illustration of the value of such articles, because you asked what the value of such articles is.

Originally Posted by mlepisto

Google may not penalize the source for them

There's no "may" about it.

Google doesn't "penalize the source" (or the recipient site), and says so very openly and very repeatedly.

(On the contrary, in fact: Google rewards the source for being the authority from which content has been syndicated to other relevant sites.)

Originally Posted by mlepisto

but there is no more "unique" value added to the internet by syndicating the content.

There's value to readers.

As explained above, people who syndicate content don't do so for SEO benefits: they do so because it's content they want to share with their readers. Nothing difficult to understand about it!

Originally Posted by mlepisto

I'm NOT saying it doesn't work to syndicate content

No. Clearly! I know you're not.

Originally Posted by mlepisto

I'm just saying it doesn't provide any additional new value

And I'm saying that's wrong. It does provide additional new value to the site's readers and to its webmaster. And that's why so many people have wisely and understandably been doing it all over the web ever since I've been online (and for many years before that, too).

Nobody's telling you to do it. Whether you choose to do it yourself is your business. But please don't try to tell other people that they shouldn't do it, or that people doing it are not providing additional, new value - they know they are, and so do their readers!

.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9691357].message }}