Where does the traffic of article marketing come from ?

37 replies
Hey warriors,

I'm not posting a lot on warriorforum but here I've got a question about article marketing :

When you write an article on ezinearticles for example, does the traffic come from the visitors inside ezinearticles or from google ?

Another question : does an article have a lot of views ONLY IF it ranks well on google ?


Thanks for your answer !
#article #marketing #traffic
  • Profile picture of the author Paleochora
    Most traffic will come as a result of your article ranking well in the search engines (not just Google, remember). Thats why its important to put some thought & research into the keywords your article is based around and to include them in the title, 1st paragraph and once every 100 words or so. Also, put thought into the resource box. This is your call to action so make it good.

    I really have no idea how many people use the likes of Ezine articles site as a search engine or research tool, so how much traffic from that source is hard to predict.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Darren Hodgson
    When you log into your ezineartcles account it'll tell you how much traffic is coming from ezinearticles

    You ezinearticle will count as a backlink for google but you'll only get traffic from google when they click on your site in the SERPS

    Depends on what you mean by alot.

    If you rank highly in google for a high traffic keyword you'll get a continuous amount of traffic if not then you'll get a big spike at te beginning then a slow drip of traffic afterwards

    For more info on article marketing find warrior - zeus66 - check his threads and advice, it's supberb
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hugues26
    Thank you for your answers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498434].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author uzomaeze
    the best way to determine how traffic comes in from your views is by going through your account on ezinearticles; but the truth is your articles are crawled on google and other search engines out there, ezine has a high page rank and this helps alot especially if you have long tail keywords that are search engine friendly
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498447].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jclz3d
    Traffic comes from people reading the articles then clicking the link... OR from google if your articles raise your moneysite in serps.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498526].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Both.

      The traffic at EZA from your potential customers, though, comes from search engines.

      The people inside EZA who read your article are other marketers, webmasters and ezine/newsletter compilers. There are many of these people, fortunately, and it's for them, primarily, that article directories exist. An article directory is a depository of content for people wanting to syndicate it on their own websites. And this is where the real money is, in article marketing: from the subsequent views, traffic, clicks, opt-ins and sales your work can lead to, over the longer term, when people use EZA for its original purpose and syndicate your articles.



      No, not at all.

      Many people imagine so, including even some experienced article marketers - and they're all mistaken.

      Subsequent copies of the article, which themselves arise only through its having been published at EZA, can get large numbers of views from other people's existing, often highly targeted traffic and subscribers. It's even possible to make long-term income from articles that nobody has ever seen on Google at all. But those are articles which are well written enough to fulfil other webmasters' syndication criteria. Welcome to the less well-known but very lucrative side of article marketing.
      Have you had great success with people wanting to pick up and syndicate your content/articles, Alexa?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498567].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        Have you had great success with people wanting to pick up and syndicate your content/articles, Alexa?
        Increasingly, yes. And therefore more recently than previously.

        It took me a while, when I started, to work out that this is where the real money is.

        People are kind of "conditioned" to think of article directories as places that exist for marketers' benefits and where they can attract fast traffic and do some of their SEO. It took me a few months to ask myself what the word "directory" actually means and why they're called that! :rolleyes: :p

        I now select niches partly in accordance with my perception of the content-syndication chances, because compared with "ordinary article marketing" it's a lot of income, and in the long run it's the difference between building a growing residual income from work already done and living for the "fast traffic, fast sales, high CTR, rinse and repeat" model of article marketing, which is, of course, exactly the one that has so many people failing and dropping out. I suspect from reading some of your own work that your perceptions on this subject won't be all that different from my own, Howie?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498742].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
          Oh, for sure, Alexa....I admit though, although my articles are very long and have a high quality of substance, I haven't really been thinking about syndication (actually, your posts have been the ones that have made me see the possibility and importance of this)....

          Do you think that the likelihood of having an article syndicated is directly related to the actual 'length' of your articles, Alexa? (and, have you ever had a short article....what many IM'ers seem to swear by....get syndicated?)

          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          Increasingly, yes. And therefore more recently than previously.

          It took me a while, when I started, to work out that this is where the real money is.

          People are kind of "conditioned" to think of article directories as places that exist for marketers' benefits and where they can attract fast traffic and do some of their SEO. It took me a few months to ask myself what the word "directory" actually means and why they're called that! :rolleyes: :p

          I now select niches partly in accordance with my perception of the content-syndication chances, because compared with "ordinary article marketing" it's a lot of income, and in the long run it's the difference between building a growing residual income from work already done and living for the "fast traffic, fast sales, high CTR, rinse and repeat" model of article marketing, which is, of course, exactly the one that has so many people failing and dropping out. I suspect from reading some of your own work that your perceptions on this subject won't be all that different from my own, Howie?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498822].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Oh, for sure, Alexa....I admit though, although my articles are very long and have a high quality of substance, I haven't really been thinking about syndication
            No; but you've found a different income-model for them in which high quality and detailed information bring their rewards.

            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Do you think that the likelihood of having an article syndicated is directly related to the actual 'length' of your articles, Alexa? (and, have you ever had a short article....what many IM'ers seem to swear by....get syndicated?)
            With occasional exceptions (depending more on their amusement/entertainment value than anything else, I suspect!), yes. I think that overall there's a pretty direct correlation between length and syndication-chances. And I think I understand why, too (I don't promise to be right about this part!): because people "looking for content" (i.e. using an "article directory" for its true purpose) are always going to be more tempted by finding 1,000/1,200 words "ready-to-go" all in one place than needing to find 3 or 4 shorter things. It just makes it easy for them. in other words.

            I have actually, occasionally, had much shorter articles syndicated - jokier ones, more facetious ones, more written-only-for-entertainment ones. Not enough of them to prove anything, but I suspect that the overall quality of later traffic they bring in may not be so high. More kind of "high CTR, low sales" stuff, you know?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
    Alexa,

    A few posts back, you said this: "But those are articles which are well written enough to fulfil other webmasters' syndication criteria."

    Based on your experience (and I apologize if this seems like relentless prying...lol), but I'm 'ass-u-ming' that, as part of their "syndication criteria", webmasters ultimately want to gain the most exposure and bank for their buck for a particular piece of content, right? The thing I don't quite understand, though, is WHY they allow you to retain your own signature/resource box....if they can get a load of views to the article, wouldn't they just also use their own affiliate links, as well? Or, is the tradeoff the fact that you'll be supplying the high quality content, they'll use it and make their subscribers happy, and you'll benefit from having the resource box there?

    ....which, on another note, would one barrier to syndication actually BE your resource box? (If the webmaster doesn't like your signature, product you are promoting, etc?)

    I hope that all myade sense...lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

      Alexa,

      A few posts back, you said this: "But those are articles which are well written enough to fulfil other webmasters' syndication criteria."

      Based on your experience (and I apologize if this seems like relentless prying...lol), but I'm 'ass-u-ming' that, as part of their "syndication criteria", webmasters ultimately want to gain the most exposure and bank for their buck for a particular piece of content, right? The thing I don't quite understand, though, is WHY they allow you to retain your own signature/resource box....if they can get a load of views to the article, wouldn't they just also use their own affiliate links, as well? Or, is the tradeoff the fact that you'll be supplying the high quality content, they'll use it and make their subscribers happy, and you'll benefit from having the resource box there?

      ....which, on another note, would one barrier to syndication actually BE your resource box? (If the webmaster doesn't like your signature, product you are promoting, etc?)

      I hope that all myade sense...lol
      I can't answer for Alexa, but what I've seen is that honorable webmasters accept the trade of "free" content paid for with the inclusion of the resource box.

      Last night I read a book by Bill Platt (tpw here) that says that there are three purposes for distributing articles - getting published in newsletters, getting syndicated on websites, and direct traffic through resource box clicks and SEO benefits.

      For the first two, the resource box and the product promoted can be a big influence on whether or not a given publisher takes your article. I've done better with syndication by pointing my resource links to related resources on my sites (and going for the opt-in) than pointing directly to a sales page or squeeze page.

      My own experience also backs up another of Bill's points. All things being equal, shorter resource boxes tend to get picked up more often than long ones.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498940].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        I can't answer for Alexa, but what I've seen is that honorable webmasters accept the trade of "free" content paid for with the inclusion of the resource box.

        Last night I read a book by Bill Platt (tpw here) that says that there are three purposes for distributing articles - getting published in newsletters, getting syndicated on websites, and direct traffic through resource box clicks and SEO benefits.

        For the first two, the resource box and the product promoted can be a big influence on whether or not a given publisher takes your article. I've done better with syndication by pointing my resource links to related resources on my sites (and going for the opt-in) than pointing directly to a sales page or squeeze page.

        My own experience also backs up another of Bill's points. All things being equal, shorter resource boxes tend to get picked up more often than long ones.
        hm...so, it would seem that the less air of 'promotion' you can craft your article and resource box to have, the higher the likelihood of it being 'picked up'?

        Just so I understand this right...."syndication" essentially means that another blogger/webmaster would do a complete cut and paste of your article, post it on their blog, and expose their readers/subscribers to it?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499042].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
          There've been a few posts about article syndication in this thread, so I just wanted to chime in from a publisher's perspective.

          When I'm putting together a potential authority site, I look for a mixture of content; some self-created, some specially commissioned and some garnered from around the web.

          In my view, it benefits an authority site to include expert articles, taken from relevant directories. Take a look at some of the most respected sites in any niche and you'll see they often feature syndicated content.

          In such cases, I look for articles where the resource box points to a site owned by the author, rather than to an obvious affiliate link. My reasoning is that these automatically appear more "expert" (i.e. the author is knowledgable enough to have a dedicated site on the topic) and my site can bask in the reflected authority of that expert.

          I also like that it makes it easier for me to contact the author, if the article proves popular, and commission further bespoke content.

          I just wish it wasn't such a tedious process wading through the purely promotional articles on many directories to get to the good stuff.


          Frank
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499124].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          hm...so, it would seem that the less air of 'promotion' you can craft your article and resource box to have, the higher the likelihood of it being 'picked up'?

          Just so I understand this right...."syndication" essentially means that another blogger/webmaster would do a complete cut and paste of your article, post it on their blog, and expose their readers/subscribers to it?
          Not so much an 'air of promotion' - publishers expect you to promote something. More like the less 'air of hype' - be brief and to the point.

          "Joe Bloggs has spent the last three years going from novice to blue-chip competitor, and details how he did it on his blog at example.com. Pick up your free copy of [book title] at [url] and find out how you can do it, too."

          [Example off the top of my head - would be more targeted to the content of the article and the intended destinations.]

          I've also experienced article marketing from the publisher's point of view. Frank has said much of what I would say already, so I won't repeat it. I'll just add that, as a publisher, I tended to look for meatier, longer articles that clearly demonstrate subject mastery.

          And yes, by "syndication" I mean that the publisher would take the article intact, with resource box, and share it with visitors/subscribers. Yes, that includes the live link(s) to your site.

          That's the main reason to use restraint, both in the resource box and in any in-content links. Even if the article is good, if there are too many links or the links are too self-serving, publishers will pass it up.

          Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499168].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          Alexa,

          A few posts back, you said this: "But those are articles which are well written enough to fulfil other webmasters' syndication criteria."

          Based on your experience (and I apologize if this seems like relentless prying...lol), but I'm 'ass-u-ming' that, as part of their "syndication criteria", webmasters ultimately want to gain the most exposure and bank for their buck for a particular piece of content, right?
          Some. There are others, too. They're not all competitors, in any sense of the word.

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          The thing I don't quite understand, though, is WHY they allow you to retain your own signature/resource box....
          They have no choice. TOS of article directories. If they take my article without the resource-box, they get a DMCA notice. If they take it with the resource-box, they get a nice email thanking them and offering them additional, new, as-yet-unpublished - apart from on my own site, of course - content (if I like the look of their site and want my links on it, obviously).

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          wouldn't they just also use their own affiliate links, as well? Or, is the tradeoff the fact that you'll be supplying the high quality content, they'll use it and make their subscribers happy, and you'll benefit from having the resource box there?
          I think partly that. But they don't all have their own affiliate links: not all authority-site owners are "affiliates". Apologies for "sounding mysterious" but I can't give examples without disclosing my niches.

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          would one barrier to syndication actually BE your resource box? (If the webmaster doesn't like your signature, product you are promoting, etc?)
          I suspect so. I think you do better, overall, with something that looks like a very short resource-box. This varies a little between different article directories. At EZA, the "unsophisticated/inexperienced reader" is unaware where the article ends and the resource-box begins, which one can turn to one's advantage.

          Originally Posted by BonganiS View Post

          If your articles are of good quality and posted on good article directories, they will rank high on search engines.
          This is rather the missing the point, I'm afraid. Those of us taking this seriously are concerned for our sites to rank highly, not for the later directory copies of our articles (originally indexed on our own sites, of course) to rank highly: we don't want article directories outranking us for our own keywords! :rolleyes:

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          Alexa,

          I'm also trying to wrap my brain around something else, as well....

          Some directories/Web 2.0 sites, in their TOS/editorial guidelines, specifically state that the same article that is published to their site cannot be published elsewhere, online....whether on your own blog, or someone else's site.
          The only one I know that says this is "Buzzle", which (like many article marketers) is the one I'll never use, for exactly that reason. You have to be able to publish your work on your own site first and get it indexed there, otherwise you'll never create an authority site yourself. Buzzle is the only article directory I know of that rules itself out for article marketing by insisting on that, anyway. I never know quite what people mean by "Web 2.0" sites - sorry: I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it - I know that people use this term with a great variety of meanings, and to me it doesn't mean much at all.

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          You can't just STOP someone from syndicating an article, can you? (and, from the sound of it, it doesn't appear like you'd want to anyway, because you can incur alot of benefit from it...)....but, if they syndicate it, it sounds like you would be in direct violation of the TOS of site that doesn't allow replication of content, right?
          I'm using article directories, where this isn't a consideration.

          At EZA, for example, there is a nominal maximum number of articles which one person is allowed to re-publish in one year, but nobody takes any notice of it at all (how was that for a "sweeping generalization"?), and it's a clause that's presumably there only to prevent someone from duplicating the entire EZA site and setting up in opposition to them, re-using all their content, and to give EZA a legal remedy if that ever happened.

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          hm...so, it would seem that the less air of 'promotion' you can craft your article and resource box to have, the higher the likelihood of it being 'picked up'?
          Yes, perhaps ... at least in theory. I suspect that pretty often the reality is that if they really like your article and have reasons for wanting to share it with their readers, they'll tolerate a little bit of resource-box promotion, even though it may not quite be "ideal" for them.

          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          "syndication" essentially means that another blogger/webmaster would do a complete cut and paste of your article, post it on their blog, and expose their readers/subscribers to it?
          Indeed.

          When I'm submitting articles to directories, I usually vary one word, or one punctuation-mark, so that I can tell "where they took it from" when it gets syndicated. In practice, it's almost always EZA.

          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          I just wish it wasn't such a tedious process wading through the purely promotional articles on many directories to get to the good stuff.
          I hear you there, Frank. Well, you and I presumably have it in common - albeit from our different perspectives - that we welcome EZA's slightly stricter approach, higher standards, better editorial guidelines, and so on, and we'd both like it even more if they tightened up a lot further and cleared out a lot of the junk?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499210].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author mcmahanusa
            My apologies if this comment (question?) is somewhat at a tangent to the topic at hand. But.....since the replies herein seem to be from exceptionally professional writers, I would like to ask: Have you ever used a "serialization" approach to your articles? By this I mean taking a very long article (perhaps almost book length), breaking it up (as into chapters) and publishing one part at a time over an extended period?
            Signature

            Success is not to be pursued; it is to be attracted by the person you become - Jim Rohn

            Visit our beautiful gardens

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BonganiS
    If your articles are of good quality and posted on good article directories, they will rank high on search engines. So when people look for information by typing your keywords, they will be driven to your articles. They will then use your links found on your articles to reach either your website or blog.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498883].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
    Alexa,

    I'm also trying to wrap my brain around something else, as well....

    Some directories/Web 2.0 sites, in their TOS/editorial guidelines, specifically state that the same article that is published to their site cannot be published elsewhere, online....whether on your own blog, or someone else's site. I guess I'm just trying to grasp the difference between this and syndication....

    ....I've analyzed the growth trends of sites that DON'T allow reproduction of content, and their growth is staggering (one particular site, and I'm sure you know which I'm talking about).....but, syndication would mean that the content would be completely reproduced, and it would appear elsewhere, which would violate their TOS.....so, I'm a bit confused as to what the difference is....

    You can't just STOP someone from syndicating an article, can you? (and, from the sound of it, it doesn't appear like you'd want to anyway, because you can incur alot of benefit from it...)....but, if they syndicate it, it sounds like you would be in direct violation of the TOS of site that doesn't allow replication of content, right?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498917].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bertuseng
    The traffic to your article comes from Google if you rank well or from people browsing Ezinearticles. Mostly it will come from Google, but if you are lucky, your article will be on the "newest articles" page or maybe as a most viewed one, then you will get even more views.

    The traffic to your site will come from the people who read your article and click on the links in your article, in the resource box.

    So the best tips I can give you is to target long tail keywords with your aritlces and then build backlinks to your articles. Also make sure you have a compelling resource box with your links in.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2498931].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jennyfritter
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499833].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      Guys/Gals,

      This thread, and it's responses, have been immensly helpful for not just me, but others, as well. For as much experience as I have with some Web 2.0 Social media/content aggregation sites and directories, admittedly, I haven't put much thought into specifically tailoring my articles for potential 'syndication'.

      Alexa,

      To me, after reading many books about Social media marketing/etc, Web 2.0, indeed, seems to be a pretty blanket term encompassing a whole array of technologies/sites that allow for some degree of interaction and relationship building. I'm not sure that EZA has a forum (do they?), but, there are Web 2.0 revenue sharing sites that do have integrated forum functionality that inherently allow for the development of relationships...where users can give opinions, and feedback, while interacting with others.

      I do admit that I have yet to really use EZA to my advantage....after this thread, however, I can see that it could certainly play a profound role in my online strategies. As I've mentioned on here before, one criticism I have had of EZA revolves around the way that I believe that users should be incentivized to provide high quality content. Clearly, even with a Premium adsense publisher account, EZA is in no short demand of writers contributing content even WITHOUT sharing revenue (I believe a revenue share arrangement can be highly effective....simple or a bit of a hybrid model, etc).

      For the potential of syndication, I can definitely now see great value in using EZA. Like I said before, though, some revenue sharing sites that I use believe so strongly that replication of content elsewhere could have such a devastating outcome for the site, that they expressly forbid it in their TOS....and, even go so far as to actively check articles in order to make sure they are safeguarding not only the quality and originality of their databases, but they also do everything they can to ensure that that writing doesn't appear anywhere else online.

      The potential for syndication, at those places, seems to go completely out the window...which is unfortunate. Even still, I can't seem to wrap my mind around the fact that, EZA takes an entirely different approach (it seems) to the handling of content, than other sites I have used, yet, they appear to have similar rankings in Google, as well as, growth (which can be attributable to other mechanisms like referral incentives, etc...)....hm....It does appear like a writer would miss out on ALOT by not having the potential for 'syndication', on the same token, EZA doesn't share a dime of it's Premium Adsense account earnings with it's own users....so, I guess the most optimal approach would be to outsource (where appropriate) and use these sites in conjunction, rather than in isolation.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2499936].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by mcmahanusa View Post

        Have you ever used a "serialization" approach to your articles?
        I have, to some extent, in autoresponder series (and even then, not "book length") - not so much with articles. I see some series of numbered articles at EZA, but have imagined that few people read them in order, really - and the ones who do will come to my own site to read them anyway (which I prefer).

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        Alexa,

        To me, after reading many books about Social media marketing/etc, Web 2.0, indeed, seems to be a pretty blanket term encompassing a whole array of technologies/sites that allow for some degree of interaction and relationship building. I'm not sure that EZA has a forum (do they?)
        They do, just about, but it's perhaps best described as "semi-defunct". I'd say "take a look" but you're actually not missing anything at all, if you pretend I'd just said "no" instead, to be blunt.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        one criticism I have had of EZA revolves around the way that I believe that users should be incentivized to provide high quality content.
        I agree that EZA falls short of that mark. It's not really so relevant to their business model, I suspect, from their own perception of it, more than the "incentive" of their editorial guidelines and so on. They know that so many article marketers want to use them in preference to any other directory.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        Clearly, even with a Premium adsense publisher account, EZA is in no short demand of writers contributing content even WITHOUT sharing revenue
        Exactly so.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        some revenue sharing sites that I use believe so strongly that replication of content elsewhere could have such a devastating outcome for the site, that they expressly forbid it in their TOS....and, even go so far as to actively check articles in order to make sure they are safeguarding not only the quality and originality of their databases, but they also do everything they can to ensure that that writing doesn't appear anywhere else online.
        Yes, I understand ... this is really a very different business model from that of a simple "article directory". Articles directories (of "the EZA type") exist as content-depositories. Without that, they'd have little value to me. EZA is used that way by publishers. Others aren't (very much) and therefore have far less value to me.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        Even still, I can't seem to wrap my mind around the fact that, EZA takes an entirely different approach (it seems) to the handling of content, than other sites I have used
        Yes; they really do.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        on the same token, EZA doesn't share a dime of it's Premium Adsense account earnings with it's own users
        No, and I don't foresee that in their tea-leaves, either: they don't need to. Go figure.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        I guess the most optimal approach would be to outsource (where appropriate) and use these sites in conjunction, rather than in isolation.
        Interesting.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2500160].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
          Alexa,

          Stupid question....even with 2,000+ posts here, I still don't know how to do THIS: how do you divide up a long initial post, and quote it so many times? (like you've done with my post)

          Do you have much experience with more Web 2.0 websites, Alexa, like HubPages (You know...the one's I'm always talking about...)....the thing I don't totally "get" is what really is the difference between both 'types' of sites. There's no doubt that each offers different benefit in the functionality that they offer (resource boxes in different areas, different TOS, etc), and all monetize typically with Adsense, or a combination of complementary monetization methods...

          Besides being the standard accepted norm for so many marketers, why is EZA all the rage, when revenue sharing, Web 2.0 sites, offer both the search engine authority as well as revenue share (that EZA doesn't). Neither is really one's 'own' piece of real estate online, and both essentially act like massive storehouses of content. I guess I'm just not totally understanding what the difference is besides on site shares revenue and another doesn't. Is EZA so popular simply because it's what 'most' IMers use?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2500422].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Alexa,

            Stupid question....even with 2,000+ posts here, I still don't know how to do THIS: how do you divide up a long initial post, and quote it so many times? (like you've done with my post)
            One look tells you I'm not Alexa, but dividing a long post is pretty easy.

            If you hit the 'quote' button to make a reply, you'll notice that the quoted post has two codes, one before and one after. The one before has your screen name and the post number and the one after has a slash to make it a closing tag.

            Simply copy the opening tag and paste it in front of each block you want to reply to separately. Then copy the closing tag and paste it at the end of each block. You end up with several smaller quotations, and you can reply to them individually.

            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Do you have much experience with more Web 2.0 websites, Alexa, like HubPages (You know...the one's I'm always talking about...)....the thing I don't totally "get" is what really is the difference between both 'types' of sites. There's no doubt that each offers different benefit in the functionality that they offer (resource boxes in different areas, different TOS, etc), and all monetize typically with Adsense, or a combination of complementary monetization methods...
            Since this is addressed to Alexa, I'm leaving it here purely for demonstration purposes.

            Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

            Besides being the standard accepted norm for so many marketers, why is EZA all the rage, when revenue sharing, Web 2.0 sites, offer both the search engine authority as well as revenue share (that EZA doesn't). Neither is really one's 'own' piece of real estate online, and both essentially act like massive storehouses of content. I guess I'm just not totally understanding what the difference is besides on site shares revenue and another doesn't. Is EZA so popular simply because it's what 'most' IMers use?
            I'm guessing here that EZA enjoys the same kind of first-to-market advantage that aweber does. When Chris started EZA, newsletters were the rage, and the biggest problem was finding content for them. Along came EZA, offering a collection of articles one could use in their newsletters without paying writers or writing the articles themselves. The Adsense and other monetization came later.

            Then someone noticed that EZA articles tended to do well in search rankings, especially for 'long-tail' keywords. At the time, you could still link directly to an affiliate sales page. Putting 2 +2 together, the answer was 5 and 'bum marketing' and article marketing in general took off.

            Judging from my own stats, people still use EZA as a source of content for newsletters and autoresponder emails, as well as for blogs and web pages. I'm even seeing a small rise in activity since EZA started cracking down on the garbage that was being dumped there for backlinks.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2501999].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
              The major thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around are the two entirely different approaches to content usage and distribtion that are allowed by EZA, as opposed to other websites I use....and, how each site's ownership believes Google interprets things like strict originality and non-replication of the database. Just so long as others keep the resource box intact, it appears like anyone can use EZA content anywhere they'd like, like you said John, from newsletters to blogs, etc.

              On the other hand, I am very familiar with sites that have a very strict TOS regarding the replication of concept. My guess is that they perceive that Google will 'ding' or penalize them if their content appears anywhere else in cyberspace. I'm really proactively looking at growth trends, attempting to figure out which approach is ultimately "better" when it comes to achieving great search engine authority and favor.

              When I said that other website's frown upon this, they actually have quality control processes in place, where they also look extensively, using software, into the actual originality of an article and whether or not it appears elsewhere. On EZA, this would be the norm and encouraged.....these diametrically opposed viewpoints are what I can't seem to wrap my mind around. Which is "better"?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502029].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                The major thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around are the two entirely different approaches to content usage and distribtion that are allowed by EZA, as opposed to other websites I use....and, how each site's ownership believes Google interprets things like strict originality and non-replication of the database. Just so long as others keep the resource box intact, it appears like anyone can use EZA content anywhere they'd like, like you said John, from newsletters to blogs, etc.

                On the other hand, I am very familiar with sites that have a very strict TOS regarding the replication of concept. My guess is that they perceive that Google will 'ding' or penalize them if their content appears anywhere else in cyberspace. I'm really proactively looking at growth trends, attempting to figure out which approach is ultimately "better" when it comes to achieving great search engine authority and favor.

                When I said that other website's frown upon this, they actually have quality control processes in place, where they also look extensively, using software, into the actual originality of an article and whether or not it appears elsewhere. On EZA, this would be the norm and encouraged.....these diametrically opposed viewpoints are what I can't seem to wrap my mind around. Which is "better"?
                I think that part of what's causing confusion is that the sites in question started with different models even though they appear to serve similar functions today.

                As I said, EZA was started as a repository of content intended to be syndicated. People with blogs, websites and newsletters went there specifically to get content to fill the holes in their publications.

                In order to build the base, they encouraged writers and bloggers to offer some of their best stuff, even if it was originally published on the writer's site first.

                Sites which demand originality, or at least uniqueness, were started with ad revenue in mind from the beginning. They didn't want to compete with the original author's page, they wanted the page for themselves.

                As to which is better, I can't really help you with that. I don't post articles to sites that demand exclusivity, because in most cases I can't participate in the revenue share anyway. The ones I have checked out ask for your Adsense ID, and mine was click-bombed out of existence a couple of years ago.

                My guess is that Google and the other search engines want a hung jury on the question, as they benefit most from a diversity of content sources for their listings. So the real answer will change from time to time, swinging with what SEs believe is in their best interest.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502135].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                  John,

                  Your Adsense ID # was click-bombed through your own website, or while associated with an Adsense revenue sharing site? (I have never ever...personally....had an issue with this in my years of writing for rev share sites....). Because a writer's Adsense ID# is put into an impression rotation with the company/website's Adsense ID#, the likelihood of this occuring is so miniscule...Personally, I've never heard of anyone say their Adsense account was shut down because of this.


                  Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                  I think that part of what's causing confusion is that the sites in question started with different models even though they appear to serve similar functions today.

                  As I said, EZA was started as a repository of content intended to be syndicated. People with blogs, websites and newsletters went there specifically to get content to fill the holes in their publications.

                  In order to build the base, they encouraged writers and bloggers to offer some of their best stuff, even if it was originally published on the writer's site first.

                  Sites which demand originality, or at least uniqueness, were started with ad revenue in mind from the beginning. They didn't want to compete with the original author's page, they wanted the page for themselves.

                  As to which is better, I can't really help you with that. I don't post articles to sites that demand exclusivity, because in most cases I can't participate in the revenue share anyway. The ones I have checked out ask for your Adsense ID, and mine was click-bombed out of existence a couple of years ago.

                  My guess is that Google and the other search engines want a hung jury on the question, as they benefit most from a diversity of content sources for their listings. So the real answer will change from time to time, swinging with what SEs believe is in their best interest.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502204].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                The major thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around are the two entirely different approaches to content usage and distribtion that are allowed by EZA, as opposed to other websites I use
                This is because the other websites you use aren't article directories, per se, Howie.

                Article directories exist as content depositories for webmasters and ezine/newsletter compilers. That's what a directory is. That's the specific purpose they serve and the reason for which they were established.

                That's why EZA is called "Ezine Articles". It's a collection of freely available content for people writing Ezines (and now people making websites). Some marketers have lost sight of this and think of the EZA directory as "an ezine" (which it very obviously isn't) and some even refer to directories, collectively, as "Ezines", and they expect you to know what they're talking about, as well!

                It's only internet marketers who have come to think of article directories as something different from this, because they have found other ways of using them (not always very good ways, in fact), and now think of them in terms of "places to get backlinks from" and "places to get traffic from" (although what many article marketers are doing is actually sending their traffic to them, not getting traffic from them! :rolleyes: :p ).

                Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                it appears like anyone can use EZA content anywhere they'd like
                That's what EZA is, and that's why it exists.

                Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                On EZA, this would be the norm and encouraged
                It's more than just "the norm" and "encouraged". It's the purpose.

                (PS - I do the "quote" thing exactly as John describes above - thanks, John).
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502259].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                  Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                  John,

                  Your Adsense ID # was click-bombed through your own website, or while associated with an Adsense revenue sharing site? (I have never ever...personally....had an issue with this in my years of writing for rev share sites....). Because a writer's Adsense ID# is put into an impression rotation with the company/website's Adsense ID#, the likelihood of this occuring is so miniscule...Personally, I've never heard of anyone say their Adsense account was shut down because of this.
                  My account was click-bombed via my own site. It happened before the revenue sharing sites became popular.

                  I discovered what I thought were random scraper sites grabbing my content - all of it - and stripping my links and making MFA sites. I started reporting them and getting them removed from the index.

                  Turns out, the sites were not random. It was a syndicate, and somehow they figured out the common factor in the sites that were getting dropped.

                  So they click-bombed the site they were stealing the content from, and got my account killed for click fraud. Fortunately, there was only a couple of hundred bucks in the account when it went belly up.

                  I went through Google's appeals process, and even got a personal response from a Google rep. Seems they agreed with me that I had done nothing wrong, and that their urging to report MFA scraper sites was at least partly responsible. However, I still represented 'a significant risk to advertisers' and therefore my account would remain closed.

                  Nowadays, I'm much more careful about the windmills I go after...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502287].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                    What stops anyone from 'click-bombing' anyone's website, John? Couldn't anyone just go to anyone's website and bombard their ads with click after click?

                    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                    My account was click-bombed via my own site. It happened before the revenue sharing sites became popular.

                    I discovered what I thought were random scraper sites grabbing my content - all of it - and stripping my links and making MFA sites. I started reporting them and getting them removed from the index.

                    Turns out, the sites were not random. It was a syndicate, and somehow they figured out the common factor in the sites that were getting dropped.

                    So they click-bombed the site they were stealing the content from, and got my account killed for click fraud. Fortunately, there was only a couple of hundred bucks in the account when it went belly up.

                    I went through Google's appeals process, and even got a personal response from a Google rep. Seems they agreed with me that I had done nothing wrong, and that their urging to report MFA scraper sites was at least partly responsible. However, I still represented 'a significant risk to advertisers' and therefore my account would remain closed.

                    Nowadays, I'm much more careful about the windmills I go after...
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502616].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                      What stops anyone from 'click-bombing' anyone's website, John? Couldn't anyone just go to anyone's website and bombard their ads with click after click?
                      Nothing to stop anyone. If Google decides you are a threat to their advertisers, whether you've done anything wrong or not, your Adsense account goes bye-bye forever.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2502875].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                        Nothing to stop anyone. If Google decides you are a threat to their advertisers, whether you've done anything wrong or not, your Adsense account goes bye-bye forever.
                        So...John....they AGREED with you, but still decided you were a threat to their advertisers?

                        I've heard that this has occurred to other people, as well....but, I have never heard of a single incident of someone running into this problem with a revenue sharing site. I understand the importance of having one's own piece of real estate online, and the benefit of using Clickbank, etc....but, I'm not so sure that I would integrate Adsense on my own personal site/blog. I know people do the niche site thing, loaded with Adsense ads, but, again, how safe and reliable is the income if someone could just click-bomb your site, or worse yet, if you get very popular, they could orchestrate mass clicking....and you'd loose your adsense account....

                        When it comes to strictly adsense, I'm not so sure that I'd trust it much elsewhere outside of an adsense revenue share site...
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2503225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author H.Miller
    In my experience, most of the traffic I get to my articles comes from people sharing the article and the article being bookmarked and published on other sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2501284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Originally Posted by hugues26 View Post

    Hey warriors,

    I'm not posting a lot on warriorforum but here I've got a question about article marketing :

    When you write an article on ezinearticles for example, does the traffic come from the visitors inside ezinearticles or from google ?

    Another question : does an article have a lot of views ONLY IF it ranks well on google ?
    I got started doing article marketing, because I realized that I did not have to worry about whether MY SITE was page one Google... I could get to page one of Google with one of my articles on someone else's website... And the people who enjoyed reading my article could reach me from the pages of someone else's website...

    That is so much easier than ranking your own site for thousands of keywords... LOL

    Do realize that EzineArticles is ONLY one place where you can post your articles... A few years ago, it could easily have been said that it WAS the best place to post, but with the barrage of Google Adsense links on the page today, I don't think that EZA is the best place to post anymore... There is simply too many choices of links on the site to ensure that your link will get the click...

    Of course, I am an old-timer article marketer... I want a large audience for my articles, therefore, I want my article to get published in newsletters, so that I can address a lot of people in one shot...

    Getting Google Love and CTR from your articles on other sites is an EXTRA BONUS, which does provide real results for me, but if I can get into major newsletters, I can make money from the effort now, instead of later....
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2503451].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      Even though I haven't ventured there quite yet, I do know that some do quite well with article marketing on EZA exclusively. I do see what you are saying though....with tons of Adsense blocks, there are certainly alot of options for people to click away long before they even see your resource box links. This is a benefit of being a Premium Adsense publisher....not only can they display more adsense blocks than ordinary adsense publishers, but they can also directly negotiate the actual revenue share on those ads. I've said this a few times here, but, perhaps they should consider negotiating for a little higher revenue share on those Adsense ads, and share that extra revenue with their writers?

      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      I got started doing article marketing, because I realized that I did not have to worry about whether MY SITE was page one Google... I could get to page one of Google with one of my articles on someone else's website... And the people who enjoyed reading my article could reach me from the pages of someone else's website...

      That is so much easier than ranking your own site for thousands of keywords... LOL

      Do realize that EzineArticles is ONLY one place where you can post your articles... A few years ago, it could easily have been said that it WAS the best place to post, but with the barrage of Google Adsense links on the page today, I don't think that EZA is the best place to post anymore... There is simply too many choices of links on the site to ensure that your link will get the click...

      Of course, I am an old-timer article marketer... I want a large audience for my articles, therefore, I want my article to get published in newsletters, so that I can address a lot of people in one shot...

      Getting Google Love and CTR from your articles on other sites is an EXTRA BONUS, which does provide real results for me, but if I can get into major newsletters, I can make money from the effort now, instead of later....
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2503647].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        perhaps they should consider negotiating for a little higher revenue share on those Adsense ads, and share that extra revenue with their writers?
        They have not needed to share revenues with their writers to climb to the top of the stack thus far... And I don't figure they would need to do so going forward either...

        I know just a couple of years ago, placement on EZA could have turned an article into gold, but not so much today... Ask around... Those who had always said it was the "only place to submit" have been hinting recently that it does not carry the punch it once carried...
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2503655].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        with tons of Adsense blocks, there are certainly alot of options for people to click away long before they even see your resource box links.
        Indeed. Absolutely.

        This highlights the irony of article marketers submitting their articles directly to EZA rather than first publishing them themselves, and then using their energy, time and resources to build backlinks to EZA's site, as well! (EZA must love them, though!). It's easy to imagine that one is "getting traffic from EZA" when what one's actually doing is sending one's traffic to EZA, with the inevitable result that a proportion of it feeds on all EZA's AdSense and doesn't "return". What one's actually "getting" is what's left after that.

        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        perhaps they should consider negotiating for a little higher revenue share on those Adsense ads, and share that extra revenue with their writers?
        I hear you, as ever, but as the saying goes "I wouldn't hold your breath".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2503669].message }}

Trending Topics