What Is AutoBlogging/What Is An Autoblog?

99 replies
Okay. I know this question will have been asked a million time on this forum but......
Who will define for me what's an autoblog or what is autoblogging?

You know why I ask this? Everyone with a less than decent writing ability has given their opinion of what an autoblog is but.....I dont want your opinions...cos they are not facts. I dont mean to be rude but I have read so much positive and negative talks about autoblogging on this forum that I actually get confused. You really cannot tell which is it and which is not cos anyone that fails with it comes here and tell us that its illegal and false and all sorts of B.S...everyone has a opinion and wants to share it and most times, they are pessimistic, backward people who dont keep an open mind. If something does not work for you, shut up, learn from others in humility and correct your mistakes......

Okay, so what is autoblogging? Please bear this in mind when answering....
1. Will a blog that draws content from Unique Article Wizard be considered an autoblog?
2. Will a article directory with multiple articles updated every minute be considered an autoblog?
3. What is article syndication then?
4. If all autoblogs are banned by google like some people say, then all known article directory and syndication services should be out of market.
5. Will you also consider scraping of other peoples' content without permission autoblogging?

There are things I will like us to look at while attempting to define what an autoblog or autoblogging is. Please I want SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE to contribute and not PESSIMISTIC PEOPLE THAT KNOW ALL THINGS THAT DONT WORK. Let people that are successful please tell us what they think autoblogs and autoblogging is.....

Please please and please, I want only people that know what they are talking about to respond cos we really dont know the number of people that will eventually read this post. Thanks as you understand.

To our Success
Oke Timothy
Young Entrepreneur.
#autoblog #autoblogging #autoblogging or what #oke timothy
  • Profile picture of the author invitetheweb
    A blog you setup with a robot that uses keywords you assign to it. Simple as that. No drawn out explanation needed here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2974843].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    Will you then consider an article directory an autoblog? There has to be more clarification...thanks all the same for your response.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2975993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gtree
    It automatically create the content for blog, instead of manually writing.
    Signature

    Back On Game...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2976068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mathmo
    Anything with some degree of automation could be called autoblogging, so there is a wide range of what could be called autoblogging.

    It depends on how much you automate though as to what the end result of the website is.

    Anywhere from a blogger queuing up their original articles to be automatically posted over the coming week(s), all the way through to a "bluefart" guy who is scrapping/stealing content (words/images/video) off other sites which s/he then spins/substitutes the words to make it "unique" and posts it on a massive scale of thousands of new pages a day (along with thousands of automated backlinks being created too by scripts).

    These could both be called (arguably) "autoblogging", even though they're drastically different because they're at opposite ends of the scale.

    It is best to take the context of the author and the thread as a whole to work out which is being specifically meant.
    Signature
    Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2976238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pedobear
    Autoblog is where you use robots to fetch create contents by fetching articles from other sources and put it on your site
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2976244].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    Hmmm...well said fellow warriors. I believe anything with some sort of automation should be auto-whatever right? So why then would some say that autoblogging is evil and all sorts of untested opinions. I agree with my fellow warriors that anything that has a form of automation or the other relating to blogging should be called an auto-blog.

    Now, what do you consider ethical auto-blogging and black hat or unethical auto-blogging method?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2976604].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by pacesetter007 View Post

      Hmmm...well said fellow warriors. I believe anything with some sort of automation should be auto-whatever right? So why then would some say that autoblogging is evil and all sorts of untested opinions. I agree with my fellow warriors that anything that has a form of automation or the other relating to blogging should be called an auto-blog.

      Now, what do you consider ethical auto-blogging and black hat or unethical auto-blogging method?

      Most forms of IM have to some degree been automated at one level or another. It's very rare to find someone doing all aspects of whatever approach to IM they are involved in completely manually.

      You need to realize that most people who say auto blogging is "evil" fall into one of two groups and possibly both at the same time:

      1. They tried it and failed so in their minds it's "evil" and can't work for anyone else because they failed at it themselves.

      2. They actually have had their content "stolen" (scraped without permission and no link back to the original author).

      The people you hear regularly talking down about auto blogging only want others to see things their way and no other. I've had several run-ins with these types (there are a dedicated few on the WF) and no matter what you tell them, no matter how you try to reason with them etc etc...

      Auto Blogging is bad, illegal and doesnt work...period!


      Ethical auto blogging is typically considered doing it by the book...so to speek. What that means is that the content you have auto posted to your blogs:

      1. Comes from sources that allow this - Ezine articles is a good example.
      2. Gives the original author credit for the content - typically the original link from the article pointing back to whatever site the author intended.
      3. Does present good value to the reader - isn't just a bunch of crap content crammed together to fill space.
      4. Is relevant to the basis of the site - related content.

      Unethical bloggers use programs (like those mentioned earlier in this thread) that basically scrape related content from the web and then either post it directly to their sites with simply making small changes like rewording the title or by spinnning it a little so it appears they wrote it.

      In the end it boils down to one thing....

      There is a right way to do it and a wrong way.

      The right way can be rewarding for not only you but the reader and the original author of the content. I have had more than one reader thank me for presenting good information from several sources all in one location. I have also had a few authors thank me for sending them new readers/customers because the reader told them where they saw the original article.

      The wrong way can probably make you some fast money but there are so many issues with it (not only legally but otherwise as well) that to me it simply isn't worth the effort and I certainly don't want the black mark on my reputation.

      Hope that helps clarify some things for you.

      Good luck in IM...whatever approach you take!
      Robert
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2976815].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Elitegeek
        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        Most forms of IM have to some degree been automated at one level or another. It's very rare to find someone doing all aspects of whatever approach to IM they are involved in completely manually.

        You need to realize that most people who say auto blogging is "evil" fall into one of two groups and possibly both at the same time:

        1. They tried it and failed so in their minds it's "evil" and can't work for anyone else because they failed at it themselves.

        2. They actually have had their content "stolen" (scraped without permission and no link back to the original author).

        The people you hear regularly talking down about auto blogging only want others to see things their way and no other. I've had several run-ins with these types (there are a dedicated few on the WF) and no matter what you tell them, no matter how you try to reason with them etc etc...

        Auto Blogging is bad, illegal and doesnt work...period!


        Ethical auto blogging is typically considered doing it by the book...so to speek. What that means is that the content you have auto posted to your blogs:

        1. Comes from sources that allow this - Ezine articles is a good example.
        2. Gives the original author credit for the content - typically the original link from the article pointing back to whatever site the author intended.
        3. Does present good value to the reader - isn't just a bunch of crap content crammed together to fill space.
        4. Is relevant to the basis of the site - related content.

        Unethical bloggers use programs (like those mentioned earlier in this thread) that basically scrape related content from the web and then either post it directly to their sites with simply making small changes like rewording the title or by spinnning it a little so it appears they wrote it.

        In the end it boils down to one thing....

        There is a right way to do it and a wrong way.

        The right way can be rewarding for not only you but the reader and the original author of the content. I have had more than one reader thank me for presenting good information from several sources all in one location. I have also had a few authors thank me for sending them new readers/customers because the reader told them where they saw the original article.

        The wrong way can probably make you some fast money but there are so many issues with it (not only legally but otherwise as well) that to me it simply isn't worth the effort and I certainly don't want the black mark on my reputation.

        Hope that helps clarify some things for you.

        Good luck in IM...whatever approach you take!
        Robert
        I agree with you. Thanks robert!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2983517].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author vegasfitness
        I have had the Autoblogged plugin for some time. Originally, I thought it would help me pull in some keyword relevant RSS feeds. However, the trash that didn't get filtered out was mostly unworthy of my blog.

        Now I spend more time creating unique content. Flattering as it can be to find others have recycled my published articles, it is maddening when they strip out my links and resource box.

        Has anyone found a good white hat autoblogger?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3110140].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
          Originally Posted by vegasfitness View Post

          I have had the Autoblogged plugin for some time. Originally, I thought it would help me pull in some keyword relevant RSS feeds. However, the trash that didn't get filtered out was mostly unworthy of my blog.
          Most plugins have this problem, at least you caught it early on. This problem is fairly common with software that doesnt allow you to review the content prior to posting it.

          Now I spend more time creating unique content. Flattering as it can be to find others have recycled my published articles, it is maddening when they strip out my links and resource box.
          I add some unique content to my sites occasionally as well...I think it keeps things fresh and doesn't hurt with the SE's either

          If they are stripping out the link to your site then Id be sending them notice...I personally hate that tactic and any software that promotes it!


          Has anyone found a good white hat autoblogger?
          There are several actually...just look around and you will find them. Not all automation tools are evil
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3110959].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author vegasfitness
        One red flag with my Autoblogger plugin was that it gave the option of who to credit as "author". When we submit our unique articles to Ezine we expect that our resource box will be left intact when RSS goes out. However, I have found that not to be true.

        Several years ago when YouTube was first new, some guy in a foreign country set up a channel dedicated to giving away all my member's content FREE--as though it was his to give! YouTube put the immediate kabosh on him, pronto. Maddening to have this happen to you when you are the originator of valuable content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3110193].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
          Originally Posted by vegasfitness View Post

          One red flag with my Autoblogger plugin was that it gave the option of who to credit as "author". When we submit our unique articles to Ezine we expect that our resource box will be left intact when RSS goes out. However, I have found that not to be true.

          Several years ago when YouTube was first new, some guy in a foreign country set up a channel dedicated to giving away all my member's content FREE--as though it was his to give! YouTube put the immediate kabosh on him, pronto. Maddening to have this happen to you when you are the originator of valuable content.
          I completely agree and wish there was a better way to monitor this type of activity. Hopefully people will start to take more notice and take a stand against products that not only provide these capabilities but also advise this type of marketing.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3110963].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    Thanks Robert for that insightful revelation of what auto-blogging is. I particularly like your stand on acknowledging the original owners of this articles and not changing their work or scraping their contents. Thanks so much.

    Now, I have this question to ask, let take for instance someone auto posts an article from a source (ethical off course) and the search engine then index the article, is it possible that the autoblog ranks higher than the original article? Is it possible that an autoblog build SE reputation by getting a high PR and therefore high ranking for its keyword? These are again bogging questions I want warriors to please answer. Thanks so much.

    To our success
    Oke Timothy
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2977149].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by pacesetter007 View Post

      Thanks Robert for that insightful revelation of what auto-blogging is. I particularly like your stand on acknowledging the original owners of this articles and not changing their work or scraping their contents. Thanks so much.
      You're quite welcome!

      Now, I have this question to ask, let take for instance someone auto posts an article from a source (ethical off course) and the search engine then index the article, is it possible that the autoblog ranks higher than the original article? Is it possible that an autoblog build SE reputation by getting a high PR and therefore high ranking for its keyword? These are again bogging questions I want warriors to please answer. Thanks so much.

      To our success
      Oke Timothy
      Outranking the original source happens all the time, its not really that hard, especially if you put a little effort to backlinking.

      As far as building SE rep and high PR is concerned thats a bit different. Do a search here on the forum, there was a good thread not long ago about PR, how to build it..etc etc. However...unless your building an authority site of somekind I personally wouldn't worry too much about PR (it's a somewhat flawed system anyway to be honest and Google has even mentioned taking a closer look at it).

      Initially you should concentrate on building quality blogs that offer value to the reader, then concentrate on your backlinking and SEO. If you do those things in good niches (low competition with enough monthly searches) then you have a great head start.

      Good luck in you IM!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2977339].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by pacesetter007 View Post

    Who will define for me what's an autoblog or what is autoblogging?
    An autoblog is any blog that gets posts from somewhere else and republishes them.

    It's a tool, much like a screwdriver. Depending on the job you want to do, you might need a different kind of screwdriver, but there's some sort of screwdriver out there that works.

    Most of the people who say autoblogging "doesn't work" don't understand what they're doing or what kind of autoblog they need to do that.

    All they know is their screwdriver wouldn't do the job. So they start complaining that screwdrivers don't work, and claiming anyone who says they fixed something with a screwdriver is lying.

    Most ignorance is willful.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2977482].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Quentin
    Pretty simple really.

    It is a blog that posts automatically.

    You get a feed be it RSS or a data feed and then a plugin draws content from a source and posts it on your blog without your intervention.

    Now there are many variation that can be applied from this point however thats it in a nutshell.

    I have many autoblogs for Amazon and affiliate products. They don't sell lots but each ones does its bit and combined they produce a reasonable income.

    Most of your questions however deal with content scraping or trying to make a site work with article content that in my experience has not worked.

    Robert makes some good points.

    Here are a couple of my autoblogs so you can have a look.

    Materials Scientific and Industrial Tools

    This one I did just for fun and you never know what could happen.

    Products For The Rich And Famous.

    Quentin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2977496].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    Thanks so much for your replies, I really appreciate it. I am already taking a closer look at things and determine for myself what works and what doesnt and not let some pessimist determine that for you.

    You guys have provided so much wealth of information. Thanks so much. I think its time to do some experiment and learn and also make money for myself using this system. Thanks so much.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2977774].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Vogin
      No one has ever answered my single question:

      If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?

      While it's true that there will never be a 100% scenario, that reason alone is enough for me to stay the hell away from it & never recommend it.
      Signature

      ppcsluzby.cz/en - PPC agency


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2979456].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

        No one has ever answered my single question:

        If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?

        While it's true that there will never be a 100% scenario, that reason alone is enough for me to stay the hell away from it & never recommend it.
        First of all....you didnt post that question here until now and secondly no one can answer your question, as you state yourself there will never be a 100% scenario (at least for the foreseeable future) so your question is mute.

        What's your point? Other than you obviously don't like autoblogging and probably only came here to make that point well known to everyone in the hopes of influencing them.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2979553].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Vogin
          Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

          What's your point? Other than you obviously don't like autoblogging and probably only came here to make that point well known to everyone in the hopes of influencing them.
          Yeah, as a man of honor I consider it my duty to spread honorable behaviour.
          Signature

          ppcsluzby.cz/en - PPC agency


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981894].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
            Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

            Yeah, as a man of honor I consider it my duty to spread honorable behaviour.
            I guess you and I have different definitions when it comes to honor and honarable behavior.

            I know there are many forms of honor but the first that comes to mind is serving ones country, which I have and still do to this day. I see honorable behavior as helping others and defending those that can't defend themselves.

            I also see it as trying to offer good advice when asked. I'm sure in your way of looking at it (which is obvious by your reply) that you think you are offering good advice when you post things like that. However, I would imagine that by most observers viewpoint (as I'm not the only one who replied to your post) it comes off as being a bit of a smart a** and didn't really add anything of value to the conversation...least not what most would consider "value".

            Had you quantified that statement with some sort of personal experience or evidence to back your viewpoints then that might have been differnet, however, you didnt. You simply did a "drive by" (like most others who share your viewpoint). You ran in the thread and posted a quick few scentences to try to get your point across that auto blogging is bad (according to you) and said nothing more.

            How does that really add anything of value to the conversation?

            How is that being honorable or spreading "honorable behavior"?

            Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I will certainly listen to any viewpoint (especially if it's backed by fact or evidence) but in your case it's all about the delivery of that viewpoint...or should I say lack of appropriate delivery.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981979].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mathmo
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

        No one has ever answered my single question:

        If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?

        While it's true that there will never be a 100% scenario, that reason alone is enough for me to stay the hell away from it & never recommend it.
        As you neared that future scenario of 100% the power would massively swing towards the hands of those who are still writing the original content.

        Consider when you are almost there, and you are the 99.99999999999%ish mark.

        You'd have just ONE guy writing all the content, and what he writes would be EVERYWHERE. Imagine the massive power he would have in his hands, to spread ideas and promote whatever he wishes.

        How is this a bad thing for him the guy who creates the original content?

        Not at all, anybody here would love to be in his situation!

        As you can see, this is far far far from a doomsday scenario!
        Signature
        Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981670].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

        If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?
        If everyone did affiliate marketing, who would produce original products, where would they come from?

        If everyone outsourced, who would there be to outsource to, where would they come from?

        If everyone got jobs, who would there be to hire them, where would they come from?

        If everyone read books, who would write them, where would they come from?

        If everyone had a DEMAND for a thing, who would SUPPLY it, where would it come from?

        Go. Learn. Economics.

        I swear, if you don't have at least a rudimentary idea of how markets work, just get the hell out of this business. You can't be a marketer if you don't understand markets.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2982333].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulie888
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

        No one has ever answered my single question:

        If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?

        While it's true that there will never be a 100% scenario, that reason alone is enough for me to stay the hell away from it & never recommend it.
        Unfortunately, the real world is rarely ever as black and white as you're portraying it. There are many good information aggregator sites out there that pull interesting and valuable information from all over the internet, and they're essentially nothing more than glorified giant autoblogs. One of the biggest that I can think of is the Huffington Post.

        I know your feelings are very biased, but I think that an autoblog, IF executed properly, can be a very valuable web asset that people will actually want to visit.

        Paul
        Signature
        >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2982366].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Unruh
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

        No one has ever answered my single question:

        If everyone did autoblogging, who would write original content, where would it come from?

        While it's true that there will never be a 100% scenario, that reason alone is enough for me to stay the hell away from it & never recommend it.
        Before you commit to this decision I have a very important question for you. Do you use Google News?

        I do! I love Google News. They may not create a single piece of the content on those pages but it is of extreme value to me. It helps me find information FAST. I can then go to the original site if I wish. It is in some ways the ULTIMATE in AutoBlogging...

        What about a semi-autoblog? You create a percentage of the content yourself but you use RSS feeds and auto-posters to extract information from feeds and offer information your readers would love to see. It adds value to your blog and your own content.

        Now, I'm going to flip to the side of a content creator, because I am. I HOPE people use my content on their autoblogs. I am THRILLED when they use my content on their autoblogs. It carries links back to my sites, which if I'm doing the right backlink work will continue to outrank them, and move further and further up the heap.

        Autoblogs are neither good or bad based upon the method, only upon the implementation and purpose.
        Signature
        Brain Drained...Signature Coming Soon!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2982829].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
          Originally Posted by Barry Unruh View Post

          What about a semi-autoblog? You create a percentage of the content yourself but you use RSS feeds and auto-posters to extract information from feeds and offer information your readers would love to see. It adds value to your blog and your own content.
          And here I thought I was the creator of the term "semi" auto blogging......just kidding

          This is exactly what I do. I spend a little more time than most "auto" bloggers picking content that I think offers good value from several different sources and sprinkle in some of my own unique content.

          I've had several readers comment on the fact that they love finding multiple sources of information all in one location.

          Now, I'm going to flip to the side of a content creator, because I am. I HOPE people use my content on their autoblogs. I am THRILLED when they use my content on their autoblogs. It carries links back to my sites, which if I'm doing the right backlink work will continue to outrank them, and move further and further up the heap.
          Same as above...more than one author has thanked me for sending them new customers or readers. One even went as far as to write me a short (very well written and quite unexpected) unique article for me to post on the site that a few of his readers told him they found him from...mine.

          Autoblogs are neither good or bad based upon the method, only upon the implementation and purpose.
          I wish all the "auto" haters out there could learn to realize this. Maybe if it comes from a writer instead of the dirty "auto" blogger it will start to sink in...then again, probably not.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2982959].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Vogin
            Uh, ok, I admit I must look like a dumbass by now, which is caused by
            • my arrogance and my expectations that people understand me as quickly as I do
            • my unwillingness to properly engage in this debate

            I apologize for both of the points above and here's my point of view:


            When I hear the term "autoblog", I visualize a site where the following points apply to the majority of its content:
            • it is sucked up from RSS feeds based on targeted keywords
            • the owner doesn't owe the rights to utilize the content he or she is publishing (note the difference between autoblogging and buying => using PLR/MRR/Ghostwriting)
            • he may or may not credit the source, but that's not really the point here (although it obviously makes a big difference)

            Now, in case that my visualization of an autoblog is already wrong, then I simply have to offer a humble apology and be more careful next time when I disagree with something.

            If that's not the case though, let's move on.

            What's my problem then?

            My problem is that I strongly disagree with the co-existence of two sides online (there are more, but let's think of just the two in here):

            • content writers & buyers (regardless of the form, e.g. his/her own use, PLR packs, ghostwriting)
            • people who neither create nor buy something and instead refer to the content of the first group
            Now, I have no problem with giving references to other sources and articles, that's obviously something adding value and let's face it, an academic paper has no value at all without other sources backing it up.

            On the other hand, I find it quite disturbing to base an entire business model in simply restating what someone else already said - which is again my interpretation of autoblogging, feel free to correct it if I'm wrong.


            Say I have an autoblog and I'm publishing some information there. Every single piece of that information someone reads and finds useful gives me the credit for showing him/her what he/she was looking for - even though I had no rights at all to publish it.

            I sense here's when the "but I always credit the original sources" objection comes in - while it's true that technically you've done nothing wrong by including the source, we all know that people are lazy.

            Do you seriously think that most of them (say 99%) will move to the original site, read the article there and give the actual credit (buy, subscribe, click an ad,...) where it belongs?

            I hardly think so.



            Which is in fact the entire problem I have with autoblogging, because I see it as a way to share credit for the work where none should be shared.


            As for the "learn some economics" remark - I am stuyding University of Economics for three years, so I believe it's safe to say I know a thing or two already.

            Unfortunately, I will probably never become a good economist (at least in today's terms), because I never put profit on the top of my priorities - I am much more interested in the process how things are done than saying things like "cool, we got $1M and that's positive, regardless of how it was done".


            One final thought - I have to admit that my objection about "100% people using autoblogs" could not have been possibly interpreted as I intended it to.

            Let's try it this way:
            Why should there be room even for the very purpose of an autoblog? You want to say something someone already have? Write a 10 words commentary, give a link and you're done.
            Signature

            ppcsluzby.cz/en - PPC agency


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2983164].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
              Originally Posted by Vogin View Post

              In case that my visualization of an autoblog is already wrong, then I simply have to offer a humble apology and be more careful next time when I disagree with something.
              There are autoblogs like that, but that's not what every autoblog is, and most of the people promoting autoblogs are not telling anyone to make them like that.

              And even the type of autoblog you just described would represent a demand for original content, and after three years of economics you had damn well better know what happens when there's a rightward demand shift in the marketplace. So your question about what would happen if everyone autoblogged was an economically ignorant question, and you know it.
              Signature
              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2983421].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
              Thank you...this is a much more acceptable form of discussion/debate. If I may, I will address some of your points below...


              Originally Posted by Vogin View Post


              When I hear the term "autoblog", I visualize a site where the following points apply to the majority of its content:
              • it is sucked up from RSS feeds based on targeted keywords
              • the owner doesn't owe the rights to utilize the content he or she is publishing (note the difference between autoblogging and buying => using PLR/MRR/Ghostwriting)
              • he may or may not credit the source, but that's not really the point here (although it obviously makes a big difference)
              Now, in case that my visualization of an autoblog is already wrong, then I simply have to offer a humble apology and be more careful next time when I disagree with something.
              I would say that even if all 3 instances applied to all auto bloggers (which they don't) then whats the problem?

              1. Using RSS feeds is a VERY common practice and examples have been given (Google News for one) where it's obvious that they post/contribute quality information to both sides (reader / author) and are providing a good service to both as well...so how is that any different than the little guy using it?
              2. If you are referring to owning the rights to articles that are republished from the one site to another then once again (as long as the blogger is doing this legally) I dont see what your problem is with it. In mosst cases "auto" bloggers get this content from sources like Ezine and it clearly states in their TOS that your article can and will be republished if you choose to sumit it for posting there. You are made aware of this prior to ever submitting...if you dont want your articles re-published elsewhere then I would suggest you don't submit to those places that allow for this in their TOS. BTW...if an author EVER contacted me and requested I remove an article from my site I wouldnt even hesitate to do so. I will add...this has NEVER happened.
              3. There is a BIG difference from those that dont give the author credit and I personally agree with you on this particular instance...and I believe most auto bloggers would. If however proper credit is given (by posting the link to the original source) then I don't see an issue with this and I would imagine most wouldnt either..of course there will always be those that do.



              What's my problem then?

              My problem is that I strongly disagree with the co-existence of two sides online (there are more, but let's think of just the two in here):

              • content writers & buyers (regardless of the form, e.g. his/her own use, PLR packs, ghostwriting)
              • people who neither create nor buy something and instead refer to the content of the first group
              Now, I have no problem with giving references to other sources and articles, that's obviously something adding value and let's face it, an academic paper has no value at all without other sources backing it up.

              On the other hand, I find it quite disturbing to base an entire business model in simply restating what someone else already said - which is again my interpretation of autoblogging, feel free to correct it if I'm wrong.
              This may be where you and most auto bloggers (those that do it legally anyway) are simply going to have to disagree. You base your business model on writing original content and thats what works for you...great. Auto bloggers base thiers on republishing content and presenting it from different sources in one location. Regardless of the method it boils down to the fact that it is a personal choice and as long as it is legal...then that choice should remain with the individual. It's clear you have your opinions and beliefs and thats fine...but so do we.


              Say I have an autoblog and I'm publishing some information there. Every single piece of that information someone reads and finds useful gives me the credit for showing him/her what he/she was looking for - even though I had no rights at all to publish it.

              I sense here's when the "but I always credit the original sources" objection comes in - while it's true that technically you've done nothing wrong by including the source, we all know that people are lazy.

              Do you seriously think that most of them (say 99%) will move to the original site, read the article there and give the actual credit (buy, subscribe, click an ad,...) where it belongs?

              I hardly think so..
              Once again...you're trying to bring attention to the fact that the content wasnt created by the auto blogger. We dont debate that, however...what we do is currently legal. If you don't like that then refer to my previous suggestion - dont post your content where it is legally allowed ot be republished, especially when you know those sites allow for that in their TOS. If it really bothers you that much, just dont publish with those organizations.


              Which is in fact the entire problem I have with autoblogging, because I see it as a way to share credit for the work where none should be shared.



              I personally NEVER try to accept credit for others content, if the reader sees it that way then that is out of our control and once again I refer back to my original suggestion...

              Let's try it this way:
              Why should there be room even for the very purpose of an autoblog? You want to say something someone already have? Write a 10 words commentary, give a link and you're done.
              I say this...why shouldn't there be?

              Your telling us to write a small commentary and then give credit back to the source...how is that really different than what most auto bloggers do anyway...in the end the original source gets the credit. If your saying that simply by adding "10 words" it somehow becomes OK, then once again it sounds as though you are only trying to make things fit your point of view.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2983470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuruGazette
    As others have said very well already, auto blogging takes many forms. Just because something is automated doesn't mean it can't be original though. Most of my automated sites use my plugin with my own custom content that I wrote personally or hired someone to write.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2979676].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsunamiman
    I don't know too much about the autoblogging but I think as a marketer it is another I don't know too much about the autoblogging but I think as a marketer it is another tool for business. What I would ask here is what is the best auto blogging software out there?
    Signature

    Greg Gudson
    The\Blue Collar Networker
    www.biz4ursuccess.com
    Skype: Biz4unow

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2980626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by Tsunamiman View Post

      I don't know too much about the autoblogging but I think as a marketer it is another I don't know too much about the autoblogging but I think as a marketer it is another tool for business. What I would ask here is what is the best auto blogging software out there?
      Well....I think mine is but I might be biased

      Seriously though, thats a question that covers many different programs and systems. To answer that we would probably need for you to narrow it down a bit, what exactly are you looking for the software to do?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    @Robert, I am unable to view your youtube video cos I am on mobile. Do you care to please tell me how that info in there will benefit me or my business?

    Thanks everyone for making this thread moving. Insightful questions and answers are rolling in and I love it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981418].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by pacesetter007 View Post

      @Robert, I am unable to view your youtube video cos I am on mobile. Do you care to please tell me how that info in there will benefit me or my business?
      Sent you a PM.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981638].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
    @Robert- I couldnt click through the link in the PM and I could have replied but I can not send a PM cos of my post count. Check the link again and please get back to me. Thanks

    Interesting conversation going on here. Keep it rolling guys.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2981770].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mathmo
    You did miss the point about google news didn't you?

    And about these "autoblog" referring on readers, even to the point the authors thanked the autoblogger.

    Here is a hypothetical example, pretend this is the very early days of triathlon when only a few people are doing it and no websites exist yet on triathlons (yes, a slightly flawed example because triathlons existed a decade or two before the internet. But this is my example and I like triathlons!).

    But lots of sites exist on swimming, cycling, and running.

    Imagine what benefit this would be to the brand new triathlon community to have a website which pulled appropriate bits from all the many swimming/cycling/running sites to show at one place!!

    For instance the stuff on open water swimming from the swimming sites, the time trialing articles from the cycling sites, and the long distance road running from the running websites.

    Heck, now I think about it I bet this could be very useful even though lots of triathlon sites do already exist.


    Excuse me, I'm off....
    Signature
    Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2983365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jayzee
    I've met many people on facebook they say auto blogging is crap! All they've gained is a website with no basic setup even for a good look, before traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984010].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by Jayzee View Post

      I've met many people on facebook they say auto blogging is crap! All they've gained is a website with no basic setup even for a good look, before traffic.
      Any IM method can fail or succeed if the person applying it finds the right way to do it for them. I'm sure those that failed with it will say that is a "cop out" but it's true.

      There are a lot of people who simply can't figure out article marketing and make it work for them but does that mean that article marketing is "crap"? No, it means that some aspect of what they are doing isn't right somehow. There are too many people who use article marketing very successfully to say that article marketing doesn't work or that it's crap.

      The same can be said for every approach to IM. It boils down how the individual uses the method and applies it.

      If a method simply didn't work regardless of how it was used then that method wouldn't exist very long now would it....
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984136].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mcmahanusa
        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        Any IM method can fail or succeed if the person applying it finds the right way to do it for them. I'm sure those that failed with it will say that is a "cop out" but it's true.

        There are a lot of people who simply can't figure out article marketing and make it work for them but does that mean that article marketing is "crap"? No, it means that some aspect of what they are doing isn't right somehow. There are too many people who use article marketing very successfully to say that article marketing doesn't work or that it's crap.

        The same can be said for every approach to IM. It boils down how the individual uses the method and applies it.

        If a method simply didn't work regardless of how it was used then that method wouldn't exist very long now would it....
        I agree with you 100%. A very true statement as regards IM.

        What a pity the same thing doesn't apply to Congress.
        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[2984316].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
          Originally Posted by mcmahanusa View Post

          What a pity the same thing doesn't apply to Congress.

          If only that were possible....
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NeilC
      Originally Posted by Jayzee View Post

      I've met many people on facebook they say auto blogging is crap! All they've gained is a website with no basic setup even for a good look, before traffic.
      Then they obviously don't know what they're doing, they probably just expect to be able to install some auto blog software as is, set it and forget it, and make tons of cash.

      There are many different forms of auto blog and it's how you set it up that makes the difference.

      If you want to see a real life case study and some of the ways you can do this then you might want to take a look at my WSO in my signature below.
      Signature

      Need a fresh start or help to take your business to the next level? Click here to find out more...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984411].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Vogin
        Originally Posted by Vogin View Post


        One final thought - I have to admit that my objection about "100% people using autoblogs" could not have been possibly interpreted as I intended it to.
        I obviously withdrew that bad example.


        I am neither the master of the world nor a complete market that would have the power to reject the whole business model, so I'm forced to state that as long as it is legal and there's a demand for it, it is valid.

        It is pointless to debate further, because as someone pointed out, it depends on people instead of the employed business model.

        I still have my doubts, but who doesn't.


        After all, I value Internet as the most progressive and free media in the world, so maybe autobloggers do play their part in the progresivity and freedom.
        Signature

        ppcsluzby.cz/en - PPC agency


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984897].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rhinopower
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2984864].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mathmo
    Rsberg, rhinopower recommended it because he put his affiliate link there... :rolleyes:
    Signature
    Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2987870].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by mathmo View Post

      Rsberg, rhinopower recommended it because he put his affiliate link there... :rolleyes:
      Yeah...I know, I called him out on it in another thread but I guess that didn't make any difference to him.

      It might be different if the product he were promoting was actually one that customers were happy with, but to come in and blindly promote something (especially when so many have refunded it) is not a good idea.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2988109].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mathmo
    I don't mind too much people putting their affiliate links here if he hadn't followed this format:

    "vague comment that could've been made without reading anything in the thread" + "plz click my link & make me monies"
    Signature
    Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2988281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
      Originally Posted by mathmo View Post

      I don't mind too much people putting their affiliate links here if he hadn't followed this format:

      "vague comment that could've been made without reading anything in the thread" + "plz click my link & make me monies"
      I cant help myself from laughing. I think it got to be value first, then link but when its link first and then value, you better get into article marketing!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3075223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dspa72
    Another example of autoblog

    - Write your own original content in the for of 50 articles to post to your blog
    - Instead of losing hours to post it to your blog, use a tool to format your articles, enrich them with some image or video, and schedule them to be posted automatically on your blog.

    this is not crap, it's just automating the blogging process.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2988441].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
      Originally Posted by dspa72 View Post

      Another example of autoblog

      - Write your own original content in the for of 50 articles to post to your blog
      - Instead of losing hours to post it to your blog, use a tool to format your articles, enrich them with some image or video, and schedule them to be posted automatically on your blog.

      this is not crap, it's just automating the blogging process.
      Brilliant Mind!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113082].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Millercus25
    I've met many people on facebook they say auto blogging is crap! All they've gained is a website with no basic setup even for a good look, before traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3076568].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by Millercus25 View Post

      I've met many people on facebook they say auto blogging is crap! All they've gained is a website with no basic setup even for a good look, before traffic.

      Since you quoted Jayzee from post #36 (word for word) I will quote myself from post #37 (which was my reply to him)...in case you missed it

      Originally Posted by Rsberg

      Any IM method can fail or succeed if the person applying it finds the right way to do it for them. I'm sure those that failed with it will say that is a "cop out" but it's true.

      There are a lot of people who simply can't figure out article marketing and make it work for them but does that mean that article marketing is "crap"? No, it means that some aspect of what they are doing isn't right somehow. There are too many people who use article marketing very successfully to say that article marketing doesn't work or that it's crap.

      The same can be said for every approach to IM. It boils down how the individual uses the method and applies it.

      If a method simply didn't work regardless of how it was used then that method wouldn't exist very long now would it....
      If you're simply doing a "drive by" and don't really want any info about automation and blogging then you've succeeded, if you do want more info there are several threads here on the WF that have a lot of valuable info in them.

      Good luck,
      Robert
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3078680].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kate C
    Regular blogging is when you go to your blog and post something yourself every few days. Autoblogging is when you use software that will post to your blog at specific times. It can be customized to post on certain days as well as the number of posts to make. Some of the sofware allows you to use use articles from directories but you have to keep the signature box intact. This method works for some people and not others so do not be discouraged. Try it for yourself and develop your own opinion based on your experience.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3110973].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IntegratedS
    Auto blogging means blogging automatically. It doesn't need a blogger to make posts. Auto blogs grab its posts from internet via RSS feeds and various methods.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3112784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
    As someone who was once pretty into (and pretty good at) autoblogging, I'd like to advise you that it's largely a waste of time, with little or no long term benefit to be had. If you want to make money online with as little effort as possible, autoblogging is definitely not it. With the time and resource expenditure it takes to really get going with AB, you could instead put all the effort into building an authority site around your own name and expertise, have a list and a reputation, and be making truly EASY money.

    NOTE: Yes, you CAN make money autoblogging, but my point is that it's not really good for newbies to get into, and it takes a particular mindset to succeed at it (much like any IM discipline). But the only people that will claim it's easy and anyone can do it are most likely the people selling courses, plugins, training, etc.
    Signature

    Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
    Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113120].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
      Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

      As someone who was once pretty into (and pretty good at) autoblogging, I'd like to advise you that it's largely a waste of time, with little or no long term benefit to be had. If you want to make money online with as little effort as possible, autoblogging is definitely not it. With the time and resource expenditure it takes to really get going with AB, you could instead put all the effort into building an authority site around your own name and expertise, have a list and a reputation, and be making truly EASY money.

      NOTE: Yes, you CAN make money autoblogging, but my point is that it's not really good for newbies to get into, and it takes a particular mindset to succeed at it (much like any IM discipline). But the only people that will claim it's easy and anyone can do it are most likely the people selling courses, plugins, training, etc.
      It's interesting to me that you say you were once good at it and that it made you money yet you are telling others it's not good. You also say it has little or no long term benefit yet I know others (along with myself) that would tell you otherwise.

      I have no problem with any choice that people make as far as their approach to IM but when people like you come into threads about a particular approach to IM (any approach...not just autoblogging) and say it's not worth doing (especially when they supposedly had success with it) I begin to wonder what their reasoning is for this. It begins to seem as though they are just hating on that particular approach...which is so common here on the WF. If you had success with it and others currently have success with it then how is it that it cant be successful for someone else?

      I do agree that many people will tell others that it's easy (especially if they are promoting services or products like you mention) however, those of us who are forthcoming that do have success with it (some with products and some without) will typically be the first to tell people that it isnt as easy as many people make it out to be and requires just as much work as any other form of IM...that work is just focused differently than most other forms.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113229].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        It's interesting to me that you say you were once good at it and that it made you money yet you are telling others it's not good. You also say it has little or no long term benefit yet I know others (along with myself) that would tell you otherwise.
        I did make it clear that it was my own opinion based on my own experience, right? Question it all you like. It makes no difference to me. The reason I say it has little long-term benefit is based on what MOST people would describe as an "autoblog" which is basically just an internet trash recycler. Those kinds of sites fade fast from the serps, so you have to build and build and build, which makes it more work than other more profitable activities.

        Of course, you can take the time to make an automated GOOD blog using the same AR techniques, but with the effort you put in, again, that makes it much more work than most people selling autoblogging as a path to easy riches will let on. Even then, in the eyes of Google, an autoblog is an autoblog, and a lot of times even the good ones will get dumped from SERPs or not have pages stick long beyond when they're new.

        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        I have no problem with any choice that people make as far as their approach to IM but when people like you come into threads about a particular approach to IM (any approach...not just autoblogging) and say it's not worth doing (especially when they supposedly had success with it) I begin to wonder what their reasoning is for this.
        You're right - I should just let people continue doing something that I felt was largely a waste of my time and effort. I spent 2 years getting "good" at autoblogging, when if I'd spent the same time doing what I'm doing now, I would already be a millionaire.

        But yeah, if it's not appreciated, I can just keep that to myself and people can go right along autoblogging for pennies from AdSense (which is the most that MOST people will make from autoblogging without a MASSIVE expenditure of time on education and testing).

        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        It begins to seem as though they are just hating on that particular approach...which is so common here on the WF. If you had success with it and others currently have success with it then how is it that it cant be successful for someone else?
        I'm sure you've heard the whole "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life." - Well this is more like an addendum. Yeah, you can eat every day if you fish here, but ALL you'll do is subsist unless you become a super-jedi master at fishing in this spot. OR, you can just go fish elsewhere, where they are practically jumping out of the water into your boat.

        No hateration here, buddy.

        Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

        I do agree that many people will tell others that it's easy (especially if they are promoting services or products like you mention) however, those of us who are forthcoming that do have success with it (some with products and some without) will typically be the first to tell people that it isnt as easy as many people make it out to be and requires just as much work as any other form of IM...that work is just focused differently than most other forms.
        Are we reading the same thread? It looked like more of the former than the latter to me. Sorry if you took personal offense. You can keep autoblogging yourself buddy, I don't mean to take it away from you. Let me state it this way.

        There are 2 ways to autoblog.

        1 is to fully automate everything and go hands off. This will eventually create a worthless garbage site that will at worst, get deleted from the index, or at best, have new pages linger for a short while before dropping deep into the SERPs. In order to profit from this, you must create new blogs endlessly.

        2 is to use the autoblogging techniques to MOSTLY automate a website, but still keep quality control and editorial oversight to make sure the site stays good. This will sort of allow you to run many blogs, but not as many as the previous method.

        The problem with both of these methods is that they are, by definition, ongoing jobs. They create and endless to-do list. Maybe there are people who that idea appeals to. Personally, I want to work less and less. For me, the path to that is in learning how to create and provide value. That's given me a TENFOLD return over anything I did when autoblogging, which creates very little value for anyone. (Note I didn't say "none" - just "very little".)
        Signature

        Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
        Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113325].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
          Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

          I did make it clear that it was my own opinion based on my own experience, right? Question it all you like. It makes no difference to me. The reason I say it has little long-term benefit is based on what MOST people would describe as an "autoblog" which is basically just an internet trash recycler. Those kinds of sites fade fast from the serps, so you have to build and build and build, which makes it more work than other more profitable activities.
          This is why I and others I know are trying to educate people about other approaches with auto blogging. Yes...those trash sites don't last long and I for one am glad they don't. I agree...they are a waste of time.

          Of course, you can take the time to make an automated GOOD blog using the same AR techniques, but with the effort you put in, again, that makes it much more work than most people selling autoblogging as a path to easy riches will let on. Even then, in the eyes of Google, an autoblog is an autoblog, and a lot of times even the good ones will get dumped from SERPs or not have pages stick long beyond when they're new.
          To some extent I agree here but not completely...

          There are MANY techniques to building successful "auto" blogs. I think many of them most likely weren't employed a few years ago when auto blogging started to become very popular. Most who tried it followed the crowd and the crowd wasn't (for the most part) thinking outside the box with it...they were building average sites with the same methods and ideology which typically led to average at best success or failure on some level.

          As far as the way Google sees autoblogs...this I have to completely disagree with...sorry but it just hasn't been my experience. I have several semi auto blogs (that's what I call it) that have held high ranks in the SERPS for quite a long time. I guess this boils down to individual results based on the way different people do things differently.

          You're right - I should just let people continue doing something that I felt was largely a waste of my time and effort. I spent 2 years getting "good" at autoblogging, when if I'd spent the same time doing what I'm doing now, I would already be a millionaire.
          Once again...I said everyone is entitled to their opinions. You either missed or misread my intentions by my post. Let me try this a different way...

          It seems as though several people here on the WF always have something negative to say about one thing or another...even if they had success with it. That was my point.

          Don't get me wrong...I'm not a millionaire either, however, I do quite well and will add that auto blogging (or semi in my case) is only part of my overall IM arsenal. That doesn't mean that I will intentionally put down or discourage others from the other methods that I have either used in the past or still currently use that don't do as well for me as other methods. Just because it doesn't work well for me doesn't mean it cant for someone else.

          But yeah, if it's not appreciated, I can just keep that to myself and people can go right along autoblogging for pennies from AdSense (which is the most that MOST people will make from autoblogging without a MASSIVE expenditure of time on education and testing).
          Most do use autoblogging for Adsense...you are right but it can lead to more than "pennies" if the initial research is done properly. It's however, not the only way to make money with it. About 1/3 of my sites don't even have Adsense on them and the majority of them do fairly well for me. Not all of course but then again I don't know anyone who is 100% successful with every site they build everytime...if so that person needs to write a course and market it.

          You mention time for education and testing...don't you think any other IM approach requires this as well? If you're trying to say that auto blogging requires more than other forms then the only thing I would have to say to that is that would depend on the individual. I know autobloggers that have picked right up on it versus other forms of IM, I also know others who it has taken more time and even others who simply couldn't make it work for them...this really boils down to the individual. There are so many factors here it would be almost impossible to say one thing is better than another simply based on learning curve or time invested.



          I'm sure you've heard the whole "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life." - Well this is more like an addendum. Yeah, you can eat every day if you fish here, but ALL you'll do is subsist unless you become a super-jedi master at fishing in this spot. OR, you can just go fish elsewhere, where they are practically jumping out of the water into your boat.
          Using your example...just because you don't like to fish in the auto pool doesn't mean there isn't fish there. It's not always the pool you fish in that determines how the fish are biting, often times its the methods you use that will determine how many fish you catch.


          There are 2 ways to autoblog.

          1 is to fully automate everything and go hands off. This will eventually create a worthless garbage site that will at worst, get deleted from the index, or at best, have new pages linger for a short while before dropping deep into the SERPs. In order to profit from this, you must create new blogs endlessly.

          2 is to use the autoblogging techniques to MOSTLY automate a website, but still keep quality control and editorial oversight to make sure the site stays good. This will sort of allow you to run many blogs, but not as many as the previous method.

          The problem with both of these methods is that they are, by definition, ongoing jobs. They create and endless to-do list. Maybe there are people who that idea appeals to. Personally, I want to work less and less. For me, the path to that is in learning how to create and provide value. That's given me a TENFOLD return over anything I did when autoblogging, which creates very little value for anyone. (Note I didn't say "none" - just "very little".)
          I agree with number 1...not my cup of tea either but then again it might be for someone else so I don't totally discount it. Do I personally think it's the way to go...no but I wont say it cant work either.

          #2 is the way I approach things and I believe this method is becoming much more popular among seasoned autobloggers as well as newbies trying it for the first time.

          I don't know ANY form of IM that doesn't require some level of ongoing work/maintenance and I would suggest that someone who says they don't do any after building a site (unique or otherwise) will most likely fail.

          The amount of work involved with IM (especially for those that ONLY use totally unique content and do everything with their blogs manually) can be overwhelming at times...I'm simply saying that a lot of this work can be automated which does allow me to maintain MANY sites at the same time with what I consider a fairly low amount of work as compared to my unique content sites.

          The level of "value" with any type of blog (auto or otherwise) is determined by the blogger...not the method itself. Yes, auto blogging does lend itself to the idea that the value will be less than that of a totally unique blog, but this doesn't HAVE to be the case...it depends on the person implementing the approach and processes involved.

          I appreciate your side of things...this just may have to be one of those times where 2 people don't agree 100%.

          Wish you the best of luck with your IM!
          Robert
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113496].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            This is why I and others I know are trying to educate people about other approaches with auto blogging. Yes...those trash sites don't last long and I for one am glad they don't. I agree...they are a waste of time.
            But you would agree that 99% of the people talking about "autoblogging" are talking about that kind - the "easy" kind. Right?

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            There are MANY techniques to building successful "auto" blogs. I think many of them most likely weren't employed a few years ago when auto blogging started to become very popular. Most who tried it followed the crowd and the crowd wasn't (for the most part) thinking outside the box with it...they were building average sites with the same methods and ideology which typically led to average at best success or failure on some level.
            Yeah, and that's still true now. The only reason people want to try autoblogging as a newbie is because of the leftovers from that era. It's not just the majority of autoblogs that are that type, but the majority of training is about that type of blog as well.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            As far as the way Google sees autoblogs...this I have to completely disagree with...sorry but it just hasn't been my experience. I have several semi auto blogs (that's what I call it) that have held high ranks in the SERPS for quite a long time. I guess this boils down to individual results based on the way different people do things differently.
            Yeah, or even whether you have the fortune of being noticed by a human editor or not. Lots of factors go into it. The danger for newbies is that a lot of the training will talk about creating blog networks, and if you have a junk site connected to a "good" site and Google figures out it's all by one person, they won't spare the good site.

            But yeah, lots of factors, results may vary. But consider, all it would take is for one of your sites to get jacked over for you to see my point - Google decides.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            It seems as though several people here on the WF always have something negative to say about one thing or another...even if they had success with it. That was my point.
            I promise I only say negative things about things I have negative experiences with. The opposite case gets the opposite response from me.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            Don't get me wrong...I'm not a millionaire either, however, I do quite well and will add that auto blogging (or semi in my case) is only part of my overall IM arsenal.
            Would you recommend it for beginners? Or are there other things in your mix that would better serve them?

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            That doesn't mean that I will intentionally put down or discourage others from the other methods that I have either used in the past or still currently use that don't do as well for me as other methods. Just because it doesn't work well for me doesn't mean it cant for someone else.
            Well are you saying that well reasoned discouragement isn't a part of good advice? I said why I stopped and why I don't recommend it - that's all I can do based on my own experience. The alternative is to not say anything, but I don't believe that serves anyone.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            Most do use autoblogging for Adsense...you are right but it can lead to more than "pennies" if the initial research is done properly. It's however, not the only way to make money with it. About 1/3 of my sites don't even have Adsense on them and the majority of them do fairly well for me.
            Again, you are using yourself, which is an exceptional case, and you even say you don't even call what you do "autoblogging" so wtf are we arguing about? What you say as "most" is what I call "autoblogging" and what 99% of everyone is referring to when they say "autoblogging" - not some outside-the-box unique method you came up with after much time and experimenting.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            Not all of course but then again I don't know anyone who is 100% successful with every site they build everytime...if so that person needs to write a course and market it.
            I find the ratio of success to failure is a lot higher with other pursuits. YMMV.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            You mention time for education and testing...don't you think any other IM approach requires this as well? If you're trying to say that auto blogging requires more than other forms then the only thing I would have to say to that is that would depend on the individual.
            If you're just starting out in IM, learning autoblogging will ONLY teach you autoblogging. Doing other things will teach you general marketing, which might give you a better chance at succeed with autoblogging or anything else. It doesn't require more time or effort, it's just not a broadly useful education.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            I know autobloggers that have picked right up on it versus other forms of IM, I also know others who it has taken more time and even others who simply couldn't make it work for them...this really boils down to the individual. There are so many factors here it would be almost impossible to say one thing is better than another simply based on learning curve or time invested.
            No, it's possible. I said it.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            Using your example...just because you don't like to fish in the auto pool doesn't mean there isn't fish there. It's not always the pool you fish in that determines how the fish are biting, often times its the methods you use that will determine how many fish you catch.
            But why recommend to newbies that they go fish in a spot where they have to be creative at a level that is outside of their capability? Yeah, SOME people can make SOME kinds of semi-automated blogging work. I think that the exception there doesn't mean you shouldn't warn newbies with dollar signs in their eyes and umbrella drinks on the beach in their heads.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            I agree with number 1...not my cup of tea either but then again it might be for someone else so I don't totally discount it. Do I personally think it's the way to go...no but I wont say it cant work either.
            I totally discount it because even if it does work, it cruds up the internet and doesn't add value. I won't ever encourage people to dump in my work environment. It serves no one. Not the marketer, not the seller, not the end user.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            #2 is the way I approach things and I believe this method is becoming much more popular among seasoned autobloggers as well as newbies trying it for the first time.
            Maybe so - but you guys have a lot of work to do to change the actual MEANING of the word auto-blogging. Like you said, you don't even call what you do "autoblogging" so I can't see how it's fair to say that you represent the exception, do you?

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            I don't know ANY form of IM that doesn't require some level of ongoing work/maintenance and I would suggest that someone who says they don't do any after building a site (unique or otherwise) will most likely fail.
            If the level of work and maintenance ends up being the same as NOT automating it, then it just seems to be a foolish pursuit. And there are plenty of IM methods that require little to no maintenance once they're set up. Blogging in general - and specifically autoblogging - are not among them.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            The amount of work involved with IM (especially for those that ONLY use totally unique content and do everything with their blogs manually) can be overwhelming at times...I'm simply saying that a lot of this work can be automated which does allow me to maintain MANY sites at the same time with what I consider a fairly low amount of work as compared to my unique content sites.
            Fair enough.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            The level of "value" with any type of blog (auto or otherwise) is determined by the blogger...not the method itself. Yes, auto blogging does lend itself to the idea that the value will be less than that of a totally unique blog, but this doesn't HAVE to be the case...it depends on the person implementing the approach and processes involved.
            Again, you're talking the rare exception, and not the majority rules. When I say autoblogging sucks, you're saying that even though you agree I'm right 99% of the time, the 1% makes me wrong. I say that the 1% exception AREN'T doing what is commonly known as "autoblogging" but are doing something else - a hybrid model, if you will. You also seem to agree with that, since you only refer to what you do as semi-automated. We agree, but for your semantics.

            You can't say what you do is not autoblogging, and yet say what you do proves that autoblogging is viable.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            I appreciate your side of things...this just may have to be one of those times where 2 people don't agree 100%.
            We do agree 100% except for how you seem to insist that you prove autoblogging works. I would say that with all the exclusions you have to site, you're actually proving that the idea almost everyone understands as "autoblogging" does not work, or else you wouldn't have to qualify it so much.

            Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

            Wish you the best of luck with your IM!
            Robert
            Thanks, you too!
            Signature

            Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
            Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113750].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
              Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

              But you would agree that 99% of the people talking about "autoblogging" are talking about that kind - the "easy" kind. Right?
              Yes, and they're saying either "it's a magic button" which is a lie, or "autoblogging doesn't work" which is also a lie - because they only know about the BS "magic button" variety.

              When 99% of people are wrong, you don't throw up your hands and walk away. You try to fix it, in whatever small way you can.

              Would you recommend it for beginners? Or are there other things in your mix that would better serve them?
              I would recommend that beginners start with blogging, yes. And I would recommend they learn not only how to write a post on a blog, but to feed that blog with outsourced articles, and guest bloggers, and article directories, and PLR, and RSS feeds... you see my point.

              I think newbies should be gradually taught how to make their blog work in the long-term by leveraging the many tools available, including autoblogging, without compromising the quality or integrity of their site. Because I think that's what they really want to do, in the long run.

              Well are you saying that well reasoned discouragement isn't a part of good advice?
              It rather depends. You're not discouraging people because it doesn't work, you're discouraging people because you personally don't like it, you personally didn't get good results, and chances are most people aren't going to do it right anyway.

              If someone came in saying the same thing about IM in general, you'd probably jump up their butt and have a hissy fit. But most people aren't going to do IM right anyway, and a lot of people personally don't like it and don't get good results. They try article marketing, think it will work overnight, and discover that they really hate writing ten articles a day to get $15 in commissions after a month.

              But there are other things they could do. Ouroborous said a day or few back that article marketing was bad advice for newbies, and he's right - but it's still the advice 99% of newbies are going to get, and they're still unlikely to enjoy it or to stay with it long enough to get good results.

              Does that mean it doesn't work and they should be discouraged from it?
              Signature
              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113841].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                Yes, and they're saying either "it's a magic button" which is a lie, or "autoblogging doesn't work" which is also a lie - because they only know about the BS "magic button" variety.
                So are you saying autoblogging works, then?

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                When 99% of people are wrong, you don't throw up your hands and walk away. You try to fix it, in whatever small way you can.
                So I'm telling people my own experience with that particular time-sucking rabbit hole in an attempt tp help others avoid stepping into it, and that's seen as throwing up my hands and walking away? I'm at about 3K words on the subject so far, so please let's not refer to what I'm doing as "walking away".

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                I would recommend that beginners start with blogging, yes.
                That's not what I asked, though. I would agree that regular blogging is a much more valuable place to start.

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                And I would recommend they learn not only how to write a post on a blog, but to feed that blog with outsourced articles, and guest bloggers, and article directories, and PLR, and RSS feeds... you see my point.
                This is called good blogging, and taking on an editorial role vs. an authorial one. Still not seeing the point of how that equals "Yes, newbies, autoblogging works."

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                I think newbies should be gradually taught how to make their blog work in the long-term by leveraging the many tools available, including autoblogging, without compromising the quality or integrity of their site. Because I think that's what they really want to do, in the long run.
                I disagree - I think the majority of the people interested in "autoblogging" would have zero interest in actually blogging for reals. They are only interested in the fantasy that the terrible lazy kind of blog will make them rich with little effort. When told that it won't, they won't turn to pursuing blogging manually, they will move on to the next shiny magic button. The best I can do there is explain why that one won't work either. Eventually, some of them will just get to work, and a lot of the ones who want a magic button will continue making the WSO forum very profitable.

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                It rather depends. You're not discouraging people because it doesn't work, you're discouraging people because you personally don't like it, you personally didn't get good results, and chances are most people aren't going to do it right anyway.
                I was making a couple grand a month or better. But I was working on it all the time, doing work I didn't like, and working with stuff I wasn't interested in. You made a presumption before about what people really wanted when they pursue autoblogging. I'm making the presumption that people want the magic button since that's WHY they're asking. Since it doesn't and will not work that way, yeah, I'm discouraging them. At least what I'm saying IS actually based on experience - I'm not just talking out of my ass here (like a lot of other people with opinions as verbose as mine).

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                If someone came in saying the same thing about IM in general, you'd probably jump up their butt and have a hissy fit.
                Really? Do I come across as a hissy fitter?

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                But most people aren't going to do IM right anyway, and a lot of people personally don't like it and don't get good results. They try article marketing, think it will work overnight, and discover that they really hate writing ten articles a day to get $15 in commissions after a month.
                Agreed.

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                But there are other things they could do. Ouroborous said a day or few back that article marketing was bad advice for newbies, and he's right - but it's still the advice 99% of newbies are going to get, and they're still unlikely to enjoy it or to stay with it long enough to get good results.
                Agreed.

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                Does that mean it doesn't work and they should be discouraged from it?
                Yes, absolutely. Because the 1% who are capable of success in the first place will say "Bull****" and do it anyway, and WILL have the brains and salt to be unique and creative enough to make it work one way or another.

                The other 99% would be saved a lot of time and money and disappointment by taking my advice.
                Signature

                Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3113959].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                  Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                  So are you saying autoblogging works, then?
                  Define "works." Nothing works for everyone. Nothing works in all situations. A wrench doesn't work to drive Phillips-head screws, but that doesn't mean wrenches don't work. Your failure to make the tool do what you want is not the tool's problem.

                  So I'm telling people my own experience with that particular time-sucking rabbit hole in an attempt tp help others avoid stepping into it, and that's seen as throwing up my hands and walking away?
                  No, you're asking OTHERS to throw up their hands and walk away. You're part of the 99% running around saying either "it's a magic button" or "it doesn't work." Robert and I are not throwing up our hands and running away, because we refuse to cede the field. Disinformation is simply not acceptable.

                  That's not what I asked, though.
                  That's true. What you asked was misleading and inaccurate. You have a tendency of asking "yes or no" questions when the answer is more complicated than that. What you asked was not a real question, it was a deliberately misleading oversimplification of a complex question - designed to force those who disagree with you into either agreeing, or taking an easily-defeated position.

                  If I say "well, no, I don't recommend it for newbies," you'll say "that's all I'm saying" and pretend it's a victory.

                  If I say "yes, I recommend it for newbies," you'll say "but the newbies won't understand the subtleties of it and will do it wrong and fail becuase you are a moron."

                  Because it is not a yes or no question.

                  [good]This is called good blogging[/quote]

                  And autoblogging is a part of it. So if it is good blogging, then YES autoblogging works AS A PART OF AN OVERALL STRATEGY.

                  I disagree - I think the majority of the people interested in "autoblogging" would have zero interest in actually blogging for reals.
                  And similarly, the majority of the people interested in "internet marketing" have zero interest in actually learning about the internet or about marketing. They are only interested in the fantasy.

                  I was making a couple grand a month or better. But I was working on it all the time, doing work I didn't like, and working with stuff I wasn't interested in.
                  Some people want to work all the time, like doing the work, and are interested in that stuff. Who are you to tell those people this approach doesn't work?

                  I'm making the presumption that people want the magic button since that's WHY they're asking. Since it doesn't and will not work that way, yeah, I'm discouraging them.
                  Why are you doing it with "autoblogging doesn't work" instead of "autoblogging isn't a magic button"?

                  The other 99% would be saved a lot of time and money and disappointment by taking my advice.
                  Except they're not going to. Those 99% are going to believe autoblogging is all about pushing the magic button that makes you poop rainbows, no matter what you say. Nobody will listen to you if you just tell them "it won't work." These people are delusional. The people saying "it doesn't work" are the enemy, and the "magic button" scammers are telling them that the enemy is lying to them.

                  Here's how this unfolds to that 99% of people who want their magic button. You ready for it? Here it is.

                  "There really is a magic button, and it's called autoblogging - it will make all your dreams come true. There is nothing to be afraid of, because it is easy and takes no work and a blind monkey with Downs syndrome can do it in ten minutes with one hand tied behind its back. All of the people who say it doesn't work are lying, so they can keep you from making real money. But we've stolen those people's secrets, and we can show you how to push this magic button, and that will be a good joke on them. It's not your fault it never worked before, because you didn't have these secrets."

                  And you play right into their hands when you say "autoblogging doesn't work," because that is precisely what they told people you would say. And that 99% really wants to believe this line of crap.

                  So stop saying your lines. Go off-script. Break the pattern. Autoblogging does work, but it only works well if you work hard - and it is nothing at all like the magic button those idiots are telling you they have.

                  Do you take some issue with that position?
                  Signature
                  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114095].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Define "works."
                    Lol, really? "Makes money to adequately compensate the effort."

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Nothing works for everyone. Nothing works in all situations. A wrench doesn't work to drive Phillips-head screws, but that doesn't mean wrenches don't work. Your failure to make the tool do what you want is not the tool's problem.
                    I think it's opening a can of worms to talk about a methodology and a tool as being the same thing.

                    A non-viable method can be changed and made to work, which is what both you and Robert are describing when you talk about using "autoblogging" as a tool vs. the standalone method called "autoblogging" which is what everyone is talking about when you drop the word "autoblogging" into the conversation. This would be the equivalent of welding a philips-head onto the wrench and THEN claiming it works as a screwdriver. Well, sure it does, but you also can't still call it a "wrench" because now it's something different.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    No, you're asking OTHERS to throw up their hands and walk away.
                    Just to walk away from the idea the autoblogging "works".

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    You're part of the 99% running around saying either "it's a magic button" or "it doesn't work."
                    Well, if the method is described as a magic button (which is inherent in the very idea of autoblogging) then yeah, there are only the two choices you present. Since we seem to be agreeing that the common definition of "autoblogging" does not work without adaptation or integration with something else, then no, it doesn't work.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Robert and I are not throwing up our hands and running away, because we refuse to cede the field. Disinformation is simply not acceptable.
                    I'm saying "autoblogging doesn't work."

                    You guys are saying "this thing we do that's sort of like autoblogging but not autoblogging DOES work, therefore autoblogging works."

                    Then I'm saying "wait, what?"

                    That's about where I'm at in the conversation right now.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    That's true. What you asked was misleading and inaccurate. You have a tendency of asking "yes or no" questions when the answer is more complicated than that. What you asked was not a real question, it was a deliberately misleading oversimplification of a complex question - designed to force those who disagree with you into either agreeing, or taking an easily-defeated position.
                    I mean, you basically answered "no" - in fact, you said you recommend "blogging" for beginners, which is essentially the OPPOSITE of what "autoblogging" typically refers to. It wasn't meant to be a trap - if you're saying I shouldn't tell newbies not to bother with autoblogging, I'm asking you to tell me why the opposite is true.

                    Countering my position of "autbologging doesn't work and newbies should start elsewhere" by saying "I recommend they start with blogging" basically agrees with me, but avoids just coming right out and saying so.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    If I say "well, no, I don't recommend it for newbies," you'll say "that's all I'm saying" and pretend it's a victory.
                    Well it would be, because that is, LITERALLY, all I'm saying. Autoblogging doesn't work, and newbies shouldn't get into it as a starting point. By "autoblogging" I mean the common meaning of the method. By "work" I mean "make money as described". Agree, or disagree? I'm truly trying to keep the points as simple as possible.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    If I say "yes, I recommend it for newbies," you'll say "but the newbies won't understand the subtleties of it and will do it wrong and fail becuase you are a moron."
                    Well, yeah, I would think you were a moron if you said that without a good explanation as to why. If you have one, please let me know. But right now, this is just a supposition, because you're NOT saying "yes," but for some reason you're avoiding saying "no," and instead trying to say "yes, but no."

                    If anyone's playing sly with wordage here, it's you, with that answer. You're making a complicated concept out of a simple position on my part. I recommend beginners start with blogging, too. I just don't use that to say "autoblogging works" because the two are not even related other than there is a blog involved.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    And autoblogging is a part of it. So if it is good blogging, then YES autoblogging works AS A PART OF AN OVERALL STRATEGY.
                    But it does not work by itself, and is not a place for a beginner to start. Agree or?

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    And similarly, the majority of the people interested in "internet marketing" have zero interest in actually learning about the internet or about marketing. They are only interested in the fantasy.
                    Yeah, I try to talk them out of it, too.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Some people want to work all the time, like doing the work, and are interested in that stuff. Who are you to tell those people this approach doesn't work?
                    Autoblogging, as the method is understood and described, doesn't work as far as delivering the claimed result. Period. Anyone saying otherwise is also saying they have used it in combination with something else, and have changed it. Hence, we're actually agreeing. Who am I to say that? A deliverer of facts.

                    Work ethic doesn't even enter into it. If you're doing IM to make money, spending all your time in autoblogging is not going to do that. If you want to work continuously, you'd do a lot better spending that time on a method that WILL work in the long term. Which we are agreeing, is NOT autoblogging, as it is commonly understood.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Why are you doing it with "autoblogging doesn't work" instead of "autoblogging isn't a magic button"?
                    Because the understanding of "autoblogging" is that it IS a magic button. But it's not. By the time you get it to work at all and provide any kind of benefit, it's no longer what is understood as "autoblogging". But if it makes you feel better, that's what I'm saying. But I don't know why you would want to call what either of you are doing "autoblogging".

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Except they're not going to. Those 99% are going to believe autoblogging is all about pushing the magic button that makes you poop rainbows, no matter what you say. Nobody will listen to you if you just tell them "it won't work." These people are delusional. The people saying "it doesn't work" are the enemy, and the "magic button" scammers are telling them that the enemy is lying to them.
                    I don't feel obligated to do any more than share the wisdom of my experience, and I think I fairly label it as such. I'm not trying to rescue anyone, I'm just saying "hey, I stepped in that hole, I don't recommend it."

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Here's how this unfolds to that 99% of people who want their magic button. You ready for it? Here it is.
                    HOLY **** I AM SO READY FOR IT!!!!!

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    "There really is a magic button, and it's called autoblogging - it will make all your dreams come true. There is nothing to be afraid of, because it is easy and takes no work and a blind monkey with Downs syndrome can do it in ten minutes with one hand tied behind its back. All of the people who say it doesn't work are lying, so they can keep you from making real money. But we've stolen those people's secrets, and we can show you how to push this magic button, and that will be a good joke on them. It's not your fault it never worked before, because you didn't have these secrets."
                    Yeah, that's good copy right there.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    And you play right into their hands when you say "autoblogging doesn't work," because that is precisely what they told people you would say. And that 99% really wants to believe this line of crap.
                    I don't play into anyone's hands. Now you're saying I can't say "autoblogging sucks and newbies shouldn't do it" because I'm somehow aiding an unnamed villain? Am I taking crazy pills? WTF are we even talking about anymore?

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    So stop saying your lines. Go off-script. Break the pattern. Autoblogging does work, but it only works well if you work hard - and it is nothing at all like the magic button those idiots are telling you they have.
                    That's a lot of work for little reward. Kind of like autoblogging.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Do you take some issue with that position?
                    No, not at all. We largely agree except apparently when it comes to the definition of "autoblogging" and "works".
                    Signature

                    Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                    Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114253].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                      Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                      Lol, really? "Makes money to adequately compensate the effort."
                      That still doesn't mean anything objective, because we don't know what someone considers "adequate" and we don't know how much "effort" is involved.

                      Since we seem to be agreeing that the common definition of "autoblogging" does not work without adaptation or integration with something else, then no, it doesn't work.
                      Actually, my position is that the common definition is wrong.

                      It is like saying "all dogs are chihuahuas." If all dogs are chihuahuas, then dogs are not good guards. But German shepherds are good guards. You're basically claiming "the common definition is that German shepherds aren't dogs; only chihuahuas are dogs, so dogs are not good guards."

                      But the common definition is wrong. There are other dogs than chihuahuas. Complaining that my dog is not a chihuahua is not a valid argument.

                      You guys are saying "this thing we do that's sort of like autoblogging but not autoblogging DOES work, therefore autoblogging works."
                      No, we're saying that what we do is also autoblogging, and it works.

                      if you're saying I shouldn't tell newbies not to bother with autoblogging, I'm asking you to tell me why the opposite is true.
                      Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because it's wrong to say they shouldn't doesn't mean they should. Binary thinking is dangerous.

                      By "autoblogging" I mean the common meaning of the method.
                      Most ignorance is willful. If by dog you mean a chihuahua, that does not make you right about dogs being bad guards. It just makes you wrong twice.

                      You're making a complicated concept out of a simple position on my part.
                      It is not a complicated concept at all. Autoblogging is more than you think it is. Insisting that it's not is wrong. That is a very simple concept.

                      But it does not work by itself
                      Nothing works by itself.

                      Because the understanding of "autoblogging" is that it IS a magic button.
                      If autoblogging is a magic button, and magic buttons do not work, then either autoblogging does not work... OR autoblogging is not a magic button.

                      I keep saying it's not a magic button, and you keep saying "but the premise is that autoblogging is a magic button."

                      Yes. The premise is incorrect. That is a valid rational inference. Either the logic is incorrect, or the premises are flawed. Since the logic is correct, one or both of the premises is flawed: either autoblogging is not a magic button, or some magic buttons work. I cannot say whether the latter is true, but the former certainly is.

                      I don't play into anyone's hands. Now you're saying I can't say "autoblogging sucks and newbies shouldn't do it" because I'm somehow aiding an unnamed villain?
                      No. I'm saying it's counterproductive, and if you want your position to matter, you should stop it. If you keep doing it, you will do no good, and are instead likely to do damage. If you don't care, that's your own problem.

                      That's a lot of work for little reward.
                      That's your opinion. Think about it.

                      Choice A: Write something from scratch.

                      Choice B: Review and approve posts from ten RSS feeds.

                      There are plenty of people who hate choice A every bit as much as you hate choice B, and there's just plain no denying that answering ten true-or-false questions is easier than writing an article. That's less work for the same result.

                      We largely agree except apparently when it comes to the definition of "autoblogging"
                      I defined autoblogging on the first page of this thread. Go read it.

                      If you're using a different definition, then it is wrong. You are welcome to go around being wrong if you really want to, but don't pretend that is somehow my fault.
                      Signature
                      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114522].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        That still doesn't mean anything objective, because we don't know what someone considers "adequate" and we don't know how much "effort" is involved.
                        I still think that after trying it, most people would say that it doesn't regardless of where their particular sliders might be set.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Actually, my position is that the common definition is wrong.
                        Lol, OK. So when I say "autoblogging" I mean "what mostly everyone calls autoblogging" but when you say "autoblogging" you mean "Caliban's own personal definition of what autoblogging is" - which is fine, but explains why this argument has gone where it has. As I suspected, we're talking about two entirely different things, but you insist on calling yours the same word as a different thing, and it's making me confused.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        It is like saying "all dogs are chihuahuas." If all dogs are chihuahuas, then dogs are not good guards. But German shepherds are good guards. You're basically claiming "the common definition is that German shepherds aren't dogs; only chihuahuas are dogs, so dogs are not good guards."
                        Yes, I find using the actual commonly understood meanings of words usually aids in discussion, rather than having my own made up one.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        But the common definition is wrong. There are other dogs than chihuahuas. Complaining that my dog is not a chihuahua is not a valid argument.
                        I'm afraid you've lost me. It's probably my fault.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        No, we're saying that what we do is also autoblogging, and it works.
                        Yeah, that's what you're SAYING, but what you MEAN is that you use RSS reposting for a portion of what you do on your blog. That doesn't make what you're doing "autoblogging" by anyone's definition but your own.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because it's wrong to say they shouldn't doesn't mean they should. Binary thinking is dangerous.
                        So I'm saying they shouldn't - if you're not saying they should, then what is it you're saying?

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Most ignorance is willful. If by dog you mean a chihuahua, that does not make you right about dogs being bad guards. It just makes you wrong twice.
                        Still not getting the dog analogy.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        It is not a complicated concept at all. Autoblogging is more than you think it is. Insisting that it's not is wrong. That is a very simple concept.
                        It IS simple. You apparently call any blog that re-posts any content as an "autoblog". The only thing I call "autoblogging" is attempting to create a fully automated blog that ONLY consists of reposted content. That's the concept the word "autoblogging" was created to describe. What you're describing is just syndication and is something that bloggers already did manually and it predates the concept of "autoblogging" as a "make money" method.

                        If you want to call what you're doing autoblogging and your website an autoblog or whatever, go to town. You're the one that wants the word to mean something else. Take everything I ever said about autoblogging in light of my own definition and you'll find we don't disagree.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Nothing works by itself.
                        That's the primary promise of what most people know as "autoblogging".

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        If autoblogging is a magic button, and magic buttons do not work, then either autoblogging does not work... OR autoblogging is not a magic button.

                        I keep saying it's not a magic button, and you keep saying "but the premise is that autoblogging is a magic button."
                        Yeah, but the only way your statement that it's not a magic button can make any sense is when you provide your own non-standard definition.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        No. I'm saying it's counterproductive, and if you want your position to matter, you should stop it. If you keep doing it, you will do no good, and are instead likely to do damage. If you don't care, that's your own problem.
                        I feel a responsibility to offer my true opinion. I don't feel a responsibility to play in some sort of jousting match with alleged frauds to protect their potential victims from harm. It's not a problem for me at all, actually.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        That's your opinion. Think about it.

                        Choice A: Write something from scratch.

                        Choice B: Review and approve posts from ten RSS feeds.

                        There are plenty of people who hate choice A every bit as much as you hate choice B, and there's just plain no denying that answering ten true-or-false questions is easier than writing an article. That's less work for the same result.
                        That whole "review and approve" bit is not part of what I mean when I talk about autoblogs, and I'm not going to change my definition to yours because that would make it hard to talk to anyone but you. I agree, your scenario above is a great way for a blogger in editorial control to provide content without becoming a bottleneck as the sole author.

                        If this is what you want to call "autoblogging" or "purple orangutan" or whatever, yes, we agree that this works and is valuable to learn to do as part of a complete balanced blogging strategy. It's simply not what I've ever meant when I've been talking about autoblogging (which you already know).

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        I defined autoblogging on the first page of this thread. Go read it.
                        Normally, when people ask you to define things, you tell them what most people mean by the phrase, not provide your own variant definition because you think the actual one is wrong. But again, it explains why we seem to still be arguing over words when we agree on mechanics. Only one of us here is making up our own definitions though.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        If you're using a different definition, then it is wrong. You are welcome to go around being wrong if you really want to, but don't pretend that is somehow my fault.
                        Yes, I will continue to use the actual definition rather than the variant one you made up to use yourself. I promise not to blame this lifelong habit on you.
                        Signature

                        Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                        Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114768].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                          Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                          I still think that after trying it, most people would say that it doesn't regardless of where their particular sliders might be set.
                          If by "it" you mean "some stupid magic button technique that never works because none of them do," then we agree.

                          But autoblogging is not a stupid magic button technique. It is something different. When people build a magic button technique AROUND it, the problem is not with autoblogging. It is with the magic button technique.

                          You are blaming the wrong ingredients for the failure of the recipe.

                          "This grape jelly and pork chop sandwich tastes terrible! Bread doesn't work!"

                          So when I say "autoblogging" I mean "what mostly everyone calls autoblogging"
                          And when I say it, I mean "what successful autobloggers call autoblogging."

                          See, the problem is that mostly everyone has tried autoblogging and failed because they did it wrong. And you don't ask people who can't do something to explain it to you. That would be stupid.

                          What you're describing is just syndication and is something that bloggers already did manually and it predates the concept of "autoblogging" as a "make money" method.
                          That's because autoblogging IS NOT a "make money" method. It is a "get content" method. The "auto" part is where you don't do it manually. And syndication is very much what autoblogging has ALWAYS been about.

                          Take everything I ever said about autoblogging in light of my own definition and you'll find we don't disagree.
                          Except your definition is wrong. If you pretend the word "apple" means "potato," then you will find that we don't disagree on "apples grow under the ground" either.

                          Except the word apple DOESN'T mean potato, even if the French word for it is pom de terre and "pom" means "apple."

                          Now, it could be argued that to the French, a potato is a kind of apple. But you can't argue that this means if I own an apple orchard, I must also grow potatoes.

                          I, on the other hand, can most certainly argue that French people are weird and so is their language.

                          Yeah, but the only way your statement that it's not a magic button can make any sense is when you provide your own non-standard definition.
                          The question is whether the standard will be defined by the people who CAN'T make it work, or the people who CAN. And in most industries, you pretty much want the people who can make it work explaining the standards.

                          I feel a responsibility to offer my true opinion.
                          And you can offer it in either a way that will work, or a way that will not.

                          The choice is yours, but if you feel some sort of responsibility, maybe you should try to do something that works.

                          That whole "review and approve" bit is not part of what I mean when I talk about autoblogs
                          Signature
                          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114894].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            If by "it" you mean "some stupid magic button technique that never works because none of them do," then we agree.
                            Hooray!

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            But autoblogging is not a stupid magic button technique. It is something different. When people build a magic button technique AROUND it, the problem is not with autoblogging. It is with the magic button technique.
                            Semantics at this point. I explained what "this" I meant when I said "this doesn't work" so you can agree or disagree with that or not even address it. We don't need to argue anymore at all about what words mean or whether they have correct meaning or whatever.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            You are blaming the wrong ingredients for the failure of the recipe.

                            "This grape jelly and pork chop sandwich tastes terrible! Bread doesn't work!"
                            I don't understand how this lovely analogy applies though. I will now just say it as specifically as I can: "creating a blog with the intent that it is 100% reposted content and fully automated is not going to be financially rewarding enough to be worth the effort it takes to build and operate".

                            Agree or?

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            And when I say it, I mean "what successful autobloggers call autoblogging."
                            OOoooo SNAP!

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            See, the problem is that mostly everyone has tried autoblogging and failed because they did it wrong. And you don't ask people who can't do something to explain it to you. That would be stupid.
                            I am translating what you said above as "The problem is that mostly everyone has tried syndicated content and failed is because they did it by itself with no editorial control. They were using it as the only ingredient rather than as part of a balanced blog strategy, which is the right way to use syndicated content."

                            Am I understanding you correctly? If so, we agree.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            That's because autoblogging IS NOT a "make money" method.
                            It was when originally presented, and that's still the presiding impression that lingers. I didn't just make it up, this forum is full of examples of "autoblogging" meaning the method I'm referring to.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            It is a "get content" method. The "auto" part is where you don't do it manually. And syndication is very much what autoblogging has ALWAYS been about.
                            You take the technique once called "autoblogging" and use it as a "get content" method as part of a larger blogging strategy which includes other content getting methods as well.

                            Did I restate that correctly?

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            Except your definition is wrong. If you pretend the word "apple" means "potato," then you will find that we don't disagree on "apples grow under the ground" either.
                            It's not MY definition, man. It's the one the word actually HAS. In common parlance, and all that. You said THE definition is wrong, which is your prerogative I suppose. You're the one who changed the definition to suit your own usage.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            Except the word apple DOESN'T mean potato, even if the French word for it is pom de terre and "pom" means "apple."

                            Now, it could be argued that to the French, a potato is a kind of apple. But you can't argue that this means if I own an apple orchard, I must also grow potatoes.
                            You're very clever. It's quite charming.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            I, on the other hand, can most certainly argue that French people are weird and so is their language.
                            Your mother was a goat, and your father smelled of elderberries.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            The question is whether the standard will be defined by the people who CAN'T make it work, or the people who CAN. And in most industries, you pretty much want the people who can make it work explaining the standards.
                            Well, look at it from a marketing standpoint. Obviously, the phrase "autoblogging" has some negative connotation - you can't argue I came by it dishonestly. If what you're doing takes the "good" of that methodology and adds it to a more well rounded whole strategy, then probably call it something else. Because I promise you a lot of your potential prospects are going to have the same definition of "autoblogging" as I do.

                            Plus, it's not even that good of a branding word anymore for what you're describing anyway. Just my opinion.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            I don't fail at anything though, because I actually DO what you describe, I just don't call it "autoblogging" because it's not. If you're approving stuff, it's no longer got any "auto" going on. I made "autoblogging" work the same way you did, I just stopped using the old name because it's no longer apt. Words already mean things, so I leave them where they are.

                            YMOV.
                            Signature

                            Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                            Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115018].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                              Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                              We don't need to argue anymore at all about what words mean or whether they have correct meaning or whatever.
                              Colin, Robert and I are in this thread about "What Is Autoblogging?" to tell people the accurate meaning of the word.

                              Because that is the purpose of the thread.

                              I don't understand how this lovely analogy applies though.
                              You're saying it didn't work because it was autoblogging, but it actually didn't work because you had unreasonable expectations. It's not the bread that failed, it's the contents of the bread. The bread is a reasonably minor element of the sandwich.

                              Am I understanding you correctly? If so, we agree.
                              Not on the fundamental and crucial point of "What Is Autoblogging?" which (again) is the purpose of the thread.

                              You take the technique once called "autoblogging" and use it as a "get content" method
                              Autoblogging has ALWAYS been a method of getting content without having to search for it manually.

                              It has NEVER been a method of making money without having to do any work.

                              This is not a redefinition. It is an insistence that the popular perversion of autoblogging is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong.

                              If you're approving stuff, it's no longer got any "auto" going on.
                              Sure it does. You just don't think it's enough. But if you look at the state of the art in these fields, there's only so much you can reasonably automate.
                              Signature
                              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115156].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                Colin, Robert and I are in this thread about "What Is Autoblogging?" to tell people the accurate meaning of the word.

                                Because that is the purpose of the thread.
                                Yeah, I get it. Still not going to argue about it - I explained what I meant by the word and I understand what you meant by it.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                You're saying it didn't work because it was autoblogging, but it actually didn't work because you had unreasonable expectations. It's not the bread that failed, it's the contents of the bread. The bread is a reasonably minor element of the sandwich.
                                Autoblogging is what the method was called when I started with it, and it didn't work because it makes terrible low quality websites as described. My expectations were set by the way it was described. I didn't bring my own expectations to the table, I went with what was available to work from at the time. What bread has to do with it, I have no idea.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                Not on the fundamental and crucial point of "What Is Autoblogging?" which (again) is the purpose of the thread.
                                Well it didn't say you had to change my mind, I'm fine with us disagreeing. My definition works for me, and if you want to officially redifine it, I'll update my usage accordingly when I get the memo.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                Autoblogging has ALWAYS been a method of getting content without having to search for it manually.

                                It has NEVER been a method of making money without having to do any work.
                                This is a pretty historically inaccurate statement, as far as the concept of "autoblogging" and how it's developed over time in the IM niche. I mean, dig around in the forum's history - this is exactly what Autoblogging was all about and it DID work for a while as described until it became just became another spamming techinque that the search engines would de-index you for.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                This is not a redefinition. It is an insistence that the popular perversion of autoblogging is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong.
                                OK buddy, good luck with that one. I have better things to do than crusade over something so silly and irrelevant.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                Sure it does. You just don't think it's enough.
                                Not enough to be called "auto" when it's not. Still saves time, though.

                                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                                But if you look at the state of the art in these fields, there's only so much you can reasonably automate.
                                Yeah, it's like, semi-automated at best. Which is why I don't call it autoblogging anymore, but we covered that.
                                Signature

                                Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                                Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115305].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                                  Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                                  OK buddy, good luck with that one. I have better things to do than crusade over something so silly and irrelevant.
                                  The evidence suggests otherwise.
                                  Signature
                                  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115401].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                  Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                  I wish all the "auto" haters out there could learn to realize this. Maybe if it comes from a writer instead of the dirty "auto" blogger it will start to sink in...then again, probably not.
                  Probably not, but what the heck...

                  One of the cornerstones of my article marketing practices is syndication. Sometimes that means someone manually finding my articles and posting them to their sites. More times, though, it means the article site's RSS feed broadcast the article and my keywords matched the requirements of someone using the feed.

                  The ultimate comes when someone values my stuff enough to add my personal author feed to their blogs.

                  I've also dabbled on the other side of the proverbial tracks.

                  Having read here about some pretty decent writers having success submitting articles through UAW, I got the bright idea to install the UAW plugin on one of my aggregator sites and tap into that pool of quality writers.

                  Maybe my keywords weren't specific enough or something, but the ugly truth was that I got more digital road apples than gems. Badly written, badly spun, factually challenged and mostly posted to the wrong categories. I was rejecting 95%+ of the articles I received. Thank goodness I had the foresight to have them posted as drafts rather than going live automatically.

                  Then, as a test, I decided to loosen my standards a little. The result was a few hundred pages added to the site over a couple of months. I was still rejecting a lot of garbage.

                  Out of the 300+ articles I posted, exactly one got any traffic worth talking about, and he got very little out of it as the bounce rate was ridiculous.

                  I disabled the autoposter plugin. After another few months, I deleted it altogether and removed all 300+ test postings.

                  The experience left a bad taste in my mouth.

                  That doesn't mean I've given up on using content from a variety of sources on some of my content sites. It just means I need better tools and more practice to get them working.

                  Anyway, from a site owner's standpoint, I think you don't blame the tools, you blame the craftsman.

                  From a writer's standpoint (and an article marketer's), I love GOOD autoblogs. Most of them just don't look like what most people think of when they hear "autoblog"...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114128].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                    Maybe my keywords weren't specific enough or something, but the ugly truth was that I got more digital road apples than gems. Badly written, badly spun, factually challenged and mostly posted to the wrong categories.
                    I've really never had any success in my tests of RSS feeds from directories or categories or keywords. What I've found to produce good, reliable sources of content is category feeds from manually-selected blogs... but that doesn't lend itself well to feeding hordes of blogs, because you need hordes of category feeds from hordes of manually-selected blogs.

                    Most people don't want an autoblog in the sense that the writing is automatic. They want an autoblog in the sense that the blogging is automatic. They want the blog to automatically find the content sources, pick the feeds, grab the posts, and put them out there in front of the audience. But you can't have that.

                    What you can have is a blog which doesn't need you to write articles every day. You'll need to go out and find enough category feeds that you'll receive several daily posts, from which at least one will be approved, and you'll still have to visit your blog daily to approve posts. And if you want an audience, people who come back again and again, you'll have to get some original content somewhere. But even on the days you just don't feel like posting, you'll get content on your blog every single day.

                    That's a whole hell of a lot easier than writing every post yourself.

                    But if you want to deliver quality to your readers, you'll still have to go in and manually approve posts that meet your standards. And if you want reliable sources of quality posts, you'll have to go out and manually locate feeds that meet your standards. There's no way around that, and your tradeoff is pretty clear when you start thinking it's too much work: either you don't care how good the articles are, or you don't care how many articles you reject every day.

                    Most people think about an autoblog the way they think about an autoresponder. It's more accurate to think of it like an automatic transmission. It does away with an annoying task, but you still have to drive.
                    Signature
                    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114258].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
              Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

              But you would agree that 99% of the people talking about "autoblogging" are talking about that kind - the "easy" kind. Right?
              Im not sure it's 99% anymore, especially with all of the different tools available today and the different approaches being taught by those that have had success with it. There are a few very successful "auto" bloggers here on the WF that offer courses teaching their approach...I haven't purchased all of them but have spoken with most of the creators about their courses and (along with me) they are trying to teach people a better way to approach it.



              Yeah, and that's still true now. The only reason people want to try autoblogging as a newbie is because of the leftovers from that era. It's not just the majority of autoblogs that are that type, but the majority of training is about that type of blog as well.
              I don't think so, maybe at one time but not any more. There are at least 3 or 4 threads/courses her on the WF that have helped a lot of people that advocate a different approach to what is typically known as "auto blogging", this is why I say I think the meaning of it is starting to change...hopefully along with that the perception as well.

              A lot of your reply revolves around how people in general view auto blogging and to some extent I agree but I also think a lot of that perception is beginning to change so I wont answer all of your replies...


              Would you recommend it for beginners? Or are there other things in your mix that would better serve them?
              Would I recommend auto blogging as it is typically know....no
              Would I recommend it as I believe it is starting to evolve into...certainly

              The reason I say I would recommend what I think it is evolving into (even to newbies) is because it really is (if you think about it) only an extension of what most successful bloggers are doing with totally unique content sites. Without taking forever to explain it, what it boils down to is approaching blogging with quality content in mind and taking advantage of differnet forms of automation to make many of the tasks involved easier/faster which can allow someone to manage multiple sites just as easlily as those that only work on one or two sites manually.

              Again, you are using yourself, which is an exceptional case, and you even say you don't even call what you do "autoblogging" so wtf are we arguing about?
              I'm not really "arguing"... simply saying that if it's done correctly that it can offer value to the reader and is a viable form of IM, not only for the short term but long term as well.

              What you say as "most" is what I call "autoblogging" and what 99% of everyone is referring to when they say "autoblogging" - not some outside-the-box unique method you came up with after much time and experimenting.
              As I said earlier...that is the case now but I do believe that is starting to change which is evident by the successful courses that are being promoted which are leading (even newbies) to success with it.

              As far as the amount of time involved in coming up with the method is concerned, it really didn't take that long. It was a matter of seeing why most fail with it and changing those factors that seemed to be the problem. Yes it did take some experimenting but you'd be fooling yourself to think that ANY form of IM doesn't require a fair amount of that along with a regular dose or work...especially when you consider that one approach may work for me and not for you...even if I teach you step by step how I do it. That same instruction might work just fine for the next person. We all know IM is about finding what works for you and building on that. This principle is what has led to many successful marketers that haven't always followed the masses even though they have found success with the same basic concept that others have but simply tweeked it to suit themselves.



              If you're just starting out in IM, learning autoblogging will ONLY teach you autoblogging. .
              Not true...at least not from my experience. No matter what form of IM you undertake there is ALWAYS outside things you have to learn to be successful with that form of IM. Several of the different forms of IM feed off of one another and lead to learning about the other as well. Much of IM is intertwined in one way or another...for example:

              When I set up one of my blogs I have to do several things that aren't directly related to autoblogging... link building (just like anyone else), article marketing, off page SEO, Affiliate Marketing, list building...this list goes on and on so in fact I am building my knowledge base on more than just auto blogging.


              But why recommend to newbies that they go fish in a spot where they have to be creative at a level that is outside of their capability? Yeah, SOME people can make SOME kinds of semi-automated blogging work. I think that the exception there doesn't mean you shouldn't warn newbies with dollar signs in their eyes and umbrella drinks on the beach in their heads.
              You have to have a certain amount of creativity in ANY approach to IM if you want to be successful, sure some require more than others but it's not like there is a cookie cutter method that works 100% of the time for 100% of those that try it. If there were, no other form would exist.

              Newbies with $$$ in their eyes and visions of umbrella drinks on the beach will be drawn to just about ANY form of IM if it's being touted as easy to do and full of financial promise...I'm sure you can agree this doesn't just fall on the shoulders of autoblogging...not even close.



              If the level of work and maintenance ends up being the same as NOT automating it, then it just seems to be a foolish pursuit. And there are plenty of IM methods that require little to no maintenance once they're set up. Blogging in general - and specifically autoblogging - are not among them.
              My level of work/maintenance isn't the same as not automating it...not even close.

              Blogging in general and autoblogging do require maintenance but the level of that maintenance can be GREATLY reduced with the use of automation and just a few minutes of attention to detail and quality content.


              You can't say what you do is not autoblogging, and yet say what you do proves that autoblogging is viable.
              I never said what I do is "auto blogging" (especially as its commonly known)...in fact, I said it was "semi autoblogging". What I said was that if autoblogging is done correctly (which once again I see that definition starting to evolve) then it can be viable.

              We do agree 100% except for how you seem to insist that you prove autoblogging works. I would say that with all the exclusions you have to site, you're actually proving that the idea almost everyone understands as "autoblogging" does not work, or else you wouldn't have to qualify it so much.
              I never said autoblogging works...what I said was that it CAN work if someone makes it work for them and finds what it takes to do that.

              My biggest problem with autoblogging haters or those that try to discredit it as a whole (or any variation of it) is that most (not all but most) try to claim one way or another that it simply cant work no matter what someone does and that's the part that I take issue with.

              Is what I do (or many others I know who are successful with it) really what is commonly known as autoblogging...probably not, but then again part of "qualifying" it is the fact that it is related to auto blogging (art least in some ways) and in reality is just an extension of it. Therefore to some extent it is "autoblogging"...even though I would rather think of it otherwise. It's kind of like calling a Ford Mustang a sports car when most would see something like a Corvette as a sports car instead (no offense to you Ford lovers, LOL). Are they both sports cars...sure but one is obviously most likely to get more votes as to which fits the definition best.

              Robert
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114037].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Im not sure it's 99% anymore, especially with all of the different tools available today and the different approaches being taught by those that have had success with it.
                OK, so what percentage would you feel comfortable with? It's still an overwhelming majority, no?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                There are a few very successful "auto" bloggers here on the WF that offer courses teaching their approach...I haven't purchased all of them but have spoken with most of the creators about their courses and (along with me) they are trying to teach people a better way to approach it.
                As you say, there are a FEW. As in, the MINORITY. And by "a better way" to approach it, I'm betting that 100% of the time that involves A. Changing what we commonly call "autoblogging" and/or doing other things in addition to what we call "autoblogging".

                So far, we still agree.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                I don't think so, maybe at one time but not any more. There are at least 3 or 4 threads/courses her on the WF that have helped a lot of people that advocate a different approach to what is typically known as "auto blogging", this is why I say I think the meaning of it is starting to change...hopefully along with that the perception as well.
                3 or 4 threads is a staggeringly bad signal-to-noise ratio on this particular forum. You guys are clearly fighting an uphill battle, but the battle IS NOT to prove autoblogging works, but rather to prove that it DOESN'T because you have to change it into something else to get it to work.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                A lot of your reply revolves around how people in general view auto blogging and to some extent I agree but I also think a lot of that perception is beginning to change so I wont answer all of your replies...
                I mean, forgive me for using consensus understanding of a word's meaning as the basis of discussing it, lol.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Would I recommend auto blogging as it is typically know....no
                Me neither.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Would I recommend it as I believe it is starting to evolve into...certainly
                But we also agree that this new thing is NOT "autoblogging" right?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                The reason I say I would recommend what I think it is evolving into (even to newbies) is because it really is (if you think about it) only an extension of what most successful bloggers are doing with totally unique content sites. Without taking forever to explain it, what it boils down to is approaching blogging with quality content in mind and taking advantage of differnet forms of automation to make many of the tasks involved easier/faster which can allow someone to manage multiple sites just as easlily as those that only work on one or two sites manually.
                That's just called "blogging" - incorporating automation into your normal blogging workflow does not make it "autoblogging".

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                I'm not really "arguing"... simply saying that if it's done correctly that it can offer value to the reader and is a viable form of IM, not only for the short term but long term as well.
                See here's the issue. You say it "works" if done "correctly" - what I'm saying is that by "correctly" you mean doing it so differently, it is no longer what someone means when they say "autoblogging". To me, that is technically doing "autoblogging" INCORRECTLY, because you're doing something different. If you have to change it to get it to work, by DEFINITION, it doesn't work.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                As I said earlier...that is the case now but I do believe that is starting to change which is evident by the successful courses that are being promoted which are leading (even newbies) to success with it.
                Good for them.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                As far as the amount of time involved in coming up with the method is concerned, it really didn't take that long. It was a matter of seeing why most fail with it and changing those factors that seemed to be the problem.
                Is that really a newbie's best starting point though?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Yes it did take some experimenting but you'd be fooling yourself to think that ANY form of IM doesn't require a fair amount of that along with a regular dose or work...especially when you consider that one approach may work for me and not for you...even if I teach you step by step how I do it.
                I'm not sure how your agreeing with my point that "autoblogging" can only succeed through experimentation and massive effort means that I said that any other form of IM doesn't. That doesn't even enter into it. What I said was that the same amount of effort can be rewarded much greater when applied to other tasks. Considering that autoblogging REQUIRES modification to work AT ALL, you're already sort of working at a deficit if you choose that as a starting point.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                That same instruction might work just fine for the next person. We all know IM is about finding what works for you and building on that. This principle is what has led to many successful marketers that haven't always followed the masses even though they have found success with the same basic concept that others have but simply tweeked it to suit themselves.
                There's a pretty wide gulf between "tweaking it to suit yourself" vs. "bending over backwards to make it work as described in the first place AT ALL"...

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Not true...at least not from my experience. No matter what form of IM you undertake there is ALWAYS outside things you have to learn to be successful with that form of IM. Several of the different forms of IM feed off of one another and lead to learning about the other as well. Much of IM is intertwined in one way or another...for example:

                When I set up one of my blogs I have to do several things that aren't directly related to autoblogging... link building (just like anyone else), article marketing, off page SEO, Affiliate Marketing, list building...this list goes on and on so in fact I am building my knowledge base on more than just auto blogging.
                None of those are part of autoblogging - you had to learn those BECAUSE autoblogging didn't work on its own. You could have left out the autoblogging part and made a lot more progress with that effort spent on those other avenues, I'd bet. That's just IMHO.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                You have to have a certain amount of creativity in ANY approach to IM if you want to be successful, sure some require more than others but it's not like there is a cookie cutter method that works 100% of the time for 100% of those that try it. If there were, no other form would exist.
                Who said anything like that? I never said ANY method needed to work 100% of the time for it to be worthwhile. But you know, if 99% of the people who try it are going to fail because it doesn't actually WORK the way it's understood to, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that's somethin people shouldn't bother with.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Newbies with $$$ in their eyes and visions of umbrella drinks on the beach will be drawn to just about ANY form of IM if it's being touted as easy to do and full of financial promise...I'm sure you can agree this doesn't just fall on the shoulders of autoblogging...not even close.
                Yeah, but since the thread was kind of about autoblogging, I thought I'd sort of keep my criticisms focused on that particular method. I'm not playing favorites. I think article marketing sucks for newbies, too. That's a whole different thread.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                My level of work/maintenance isn't the same as not automating it...not even close.
                Good for you. How long did that take?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Blogging in general and autoblogging do require maintenance but the level of that maintenance can be GREATLY reduced with the use of automation and just a few minutes of attention to detail and quality content.
                And the use of automation and attention to detail require EXPERIENCE which is what a newbie DOESN'T have.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                I never said what I do is "auto blogging" (especially as its commonly known)...in fact, I said it was "semi autoblogging". What I said was that if autoblogging is done correctly (which once again I see that definition starting to evolve) then it can be viable.
                It's really hard to have a debate when you think the meanings of words evolve to refer to different things during the same conversation.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                I never said autoblogging works...what I said was that it CAN work if someone makes it work for them and finds what it takes to do that.
                So what are you arguing with me about then? What you're saying is that autoblogging will only work for someone who is willing to work with it so closely that they change it to match their situation. To me, that is the exact same thing as saying it doesn't work.

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                My biggest problem with autoblogging haters or those that try to discredit it as a whole (or any variation of it) is that most (not all but most) try to claim one way or another that it simply cant work no matter what someone does and that's the part that I take issue with.
                Did I say that?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                Is what I do (or many others I know who are successful with it) really what is commonly known as autoblogging...probably not, but then again part of "qualifying" it is the fact that it is related to auto blogging (art least in some ways) and in reality is just an extension of it. Therefore to some extent it is "autoblogging"...even though I would rather think of it otherwise.
                So why did you even disagree with me in the first place?

                Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                It's kind of like calling a Ford Mustang a sports car when most would see something like a Corvette as a sports car instead (no offense to you Ford lovers, LOL). Are they both sports cars...sure but one is obviously most likely to get more votes as to which fits the definition best.
                I don't really understand this example. They are both sports cars.
                Signature

                Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114389].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
                  Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

                  OK, so what percentage would you feel comfortable with? It's still an overwhelming majority, no?
                  Overwhelming majority...probably but that is rapidly changing and would change faster if those out there (like you) would let go of the past and learn that things do evolve and have the possibility to grow and change over time.



                  As you say, there are a FEW. As in, the MINORITY. And by "a better way" to approach it, I'm betting that 100% of the time that involves A. Changing what we commonly call "autoblogging" and/or doing other things in addition to what we call "autoblogging".

                  So far, we still agree.
                  What you refer to as autoblogging...yes we agree, adding things or changing what is popularly known as autoblogging...yes we agree but otherwise we don't.

                  You seem stuck on the fact that it isn't autoblogging if 100% of it isn't automated. I'm sorry but I disagree...unless you use a system that creates the actual blog itself does that also mean it's no longer automated? Or is that semantics again?

                  3 or 4 threads is a staggeringly bad signal-to-noise ratio on this particular forum. You guys are clearly fighting an uphill battle, but the battle IS NOT to prove autoblogging works, but rather to prove that it DOESN'T because you have to change it into something else to get it to work.
                  Actually no it's not, especially when those 3 or 4 threads/services have received such rave reviews by those participating in them. When 500+ people rave about something in one thread I don't think that is easily dismissed...but maybe you do.

                  But we also agree that this new thing is NOT "autoblogging" right?
                  No..we don't. It isn't autoblogging by your definition because it isn't 100% automated but that doesn't mean it's not autoblogging or an extension of it.

                  As I said, things evolve, things change...just because a child grows up into an adult doesn't mean they are no longer human, it just means they grew up. Part of that child is will always be a part of the adult it has matured into.


                  That's just called "blogging" - incorporating automation into your normal blogging workflow does not make it "autoblogging".
                  Sorry but not really...

                  By the pure definition of the word blogging that is automated becomes autoblogging...

                  Normal/standard blogging is typically thought of as something done by someone who writes their own content, uses very little automation (only enough to help speed some things up) and directly interacts (on a regular basis) with their readers.

                  Even though my version of autoblogging isn't 100% automated it's pretty damn close and I don't directly interact with my readers. I do occasionally write my own content but the % of unique content to republished/automated content is very low, probably 5/95...maybe 10/90 on a few blogs and those are more for experimenting than anything else.



                  See here's the issue. You say it "works" if done "correctly" - what I'm saying is that by "correctly" you mean doing it so differently, it is no longer what someone means when they say "autoblogging". To me, that is technically doing "autoblogging" INCORRECTLY, because you're doing something different. If you have to change it to get it to work, by DEFINITION, it doesn't work.
                  Talk about semantics... comon man, seriously?

                  By correctly I mean in a way that makes me money on a regular basis that I can be proud of and that I feel offers value to the reader and internet as a whole....that's what I mean by correctly which is also why I feel it is successful as a method. Just because it doesn't fit the entire standard definition of what most refer to as autoblogging doesn't mean it isn't autoblogging. I would say less than 5% of the tasks I do and time I spend with my blogs (in this approach to IM) is not automated....how is that not autoblogging?


                  Is that really a newbie's best starting point though?
                  Once again..this would depend on the person. Is learning to drive a manual car better for a newbie than an automatic...six of one, half a dozen of another.

                  Who is to say what method is the best starting point for any newbie? Certainly not me and I doubt you either.



                  I'm not sure how your agreeing with my point that "autoblogging" can only succeed through experimentation and massive effort means that I said that any other form of IM doesn't. That doesn't even enter into it.
                  Actually it does factor in...if you are going to compare it to other forms and say it's not a good place for someone to start IM then it does factor in.

                  And I don't agree with your statement about "Massive" efforts either. What you choose to call massive I call about 5 or 10 minutes worth of work.

                  What I said was that the same amount of effort can be rewarded much greater when applied to other tasks. Considering that autoblogging REQUIRES modification to work AT ALL, you're already sort of working at a deficit if you choose that as a starting point.
                  You are acting like the amount of work with autoblogging or even my version of it is "Massive"...it simply isn't, regardless of which definition you choose to attack.

                  Even my version (which I admit is more labor intensive) is still EXTREMELY quick and easy. I can build a blog from scratch (including uploading WP, loading and setting plugins, input the title/subtitle, putting in keywords and tags...etc etc), fill it with quality content (enough to drip feed for months) and promote it by building backlinks, submitting articles, bookmarking etc etc in less than an hour in most cases. Sometimes faster depending on the niche and quality of the content that's readily available (reviewing the content for quality takes most of that hour). Could you do that with a regular blog? I highly doubt it! The time it takes the average blogger to write enough content to fill a site for 4 months alone would boggle the mind by comparison...in that amount of time I could build a small army of blogs if I so choose...and promote them with a few clicks...automation is my friend!



                  There's a pretty wide gulf between "tweaking it to suit yourself" vs. "bending over backwards to make it work as described in the first place AT ALL"...
                  Now your simply exaggerating in an attempt to prove your point. I certainly wouldn't call how I've adapted what is typically known as autoblogging to what I do... "bending over backwards". I've literally only changed one or two crucial steps in the standard process that is known as autoblogging and those changes only add a minimal amount of time to blog creation yet make all the difference in the world as far as the quality of the blog and its performance.

                  Sorry but I don't see that as bending over backwards.

                  None of those are part of autoblogging - you had to learn those BECAUSE autoblogging didn't work on its own. You could have left out the autoblogging part and made a lot more progress with that effort spent on those other avenues, I'd bet. That's just IMHO.
                  You are right to an extent but where you are wrong is in making the assumption that they aren't needed for autoblogging...or any other form of IM for that matter. Even autoblogging (as you like to remind me of the definition) still requires those activities, just because it doesn't work without them doesn't mean it doesn't work as a whole or approach to IM.

                  Does writing articles work without having something to promote in them or a site to promote with them? Sure you'd get readers and probably develop a following over time but if you never promote a product or service to your readers whats the point unless you're simply doing it as a hobby?

                  Who said anything like that? I never said ANY method needed to work 100% of the time for it to be worthwhile. But you know, if 99% of the people who try it are going to fail because it doesn't actually WORK the way it's understood to, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that's somethin people shouldn't bother with.
                  Sorry but once again I don't agree and can only say that your example of failure could fit any form of IM if that approach of IM isnt done correctly. This is a bad argument on your side...look around the forum, how many people do you see struggeling to make it in IM? TONS...there are countless threads with people talking about failing and according to you they must all be failing because they tried autoblogging.

                  ANY form of IM can fail if you don't figure out how to make it work for you.

                  Yeah, but since the thread was kind of about autoblogging, I thought I'd sort of keep my criticisms focused on that particular method. I'm not playing favorites. I think article marketing sucks for newbies, too. That's a whole different thread.
                  Whole different topic..yeah probably but it's still a good comparison.


                  And the use of automation and attention to detail require EXPERIENCE which is what a newbie DOESN'T have.
                  Not true at all, not even close! Automation tools for the most part are VERY EASY to use...newbie or not. Most that are worth a damn are fill in the blank or push button, does someone really need "experience" to do that? Attention to detail doesn't require experience either, it's a trait that is learned as one learns a task, you can develop it and in most cases it's not that hard to do...especially if the automation tool helps you along the way (which some do this as well).

                  It's really hard to have a debate when you think the meanings of words evolve to refer to different things during the same conversation.
                  I'm not changing the meaning...what I am saying is that the common meaning today is different than it was 4 years ago or even 2 years ago. I believe the meaning or understanding of that meaning is still changing today and will continue to do so.

                  This is happening because there are those of us that have had success with it that are teaching others (newbies and pros alike) the things to change to the original approach that will greatly increase the rate of success.


                  So what are you arguing with me about then? What you're saying is that autoblogging will only work for someone who is willing to work with it so closely that they change it to match their situation. To me, that is the exact same thing as saying it doesn't work.
                  What your missing is that the changes people are making to it to make it work for them are probably different for every person...

                  If there was 1 steadfast change that every single autoblogger who failed with it implemented and that change made it work then you'd probably have a more affective argument but that jsut isn't the case. I have friends who are successful with it that do things I just don't get...does that mean it doesn't work...no, just means that I don't get it...that's all.

                  Did I say that?
                  Not entirely but pretty close...you didn't say it "can't work" but you did say:

                  I'd like to advise you that it's largely a waste of time, with little or no long term benefit to be had.
                  I'd say that comes dangerously close to trying to discredit it as a whole...wouldn't you?

                  I don't really understand this example. They are both sports cars.
                  My point exactly....they are BOTH sports cars...

                  You must have missed where I said if many people were given the opportunity to vote they would say that the more applicable example would be the Corvette..yet as you say...they are both sports cars.

                  I would like to add one crucial part...they are both sports cars, just different versions or types of a sports car

                  This is how I view my version of autoblogging...maybe it's not the most widely viewed or accepted definition but it is still blogging that is automated non the less.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115495].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    The evidence suggests otherwise.
                    U Jelly?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Overwhelming majority...probably but that is rapidly changing and would change faster if those out there (like you) would let go of the past and learn that things do evolve and have the possibility to grow and change over time.
                    Lol.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    You seem stuck on the fact that it isn't autoblogging if 100% of it isn't automated.
                    Well if you get to qualify what you mean by autoblogging, how come I can't? It's still a semantic argument at this point.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Actually no it's not, especially when those 3 or 4 threads/services have received such rave reviews by those participating in them. When 500+ people rave about something in one thread I don't think that is easily dismissed...but maybe you do.
                    Considering what I do for a living, yes, I don't really count a massive social response as proof of fact, just proof of effective crowd control. I've done it here, on this forum, in a very large thread about - SURPRISE - autoblogging. But that was some time ago, under a pen-name, and I don't want to change the subject. But that was back when I was autoblogging, and I changed my mind about it. I wish I'd spent my time doing something else.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    It isn't autoblogging by your definition because it isn't 100% automated but that doesn't mean it's not autoblogging or an extension of it.
                    Counterpoint: Yes it does.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    As I said, things evolve, things change...just because a child grows up into an adult doesn't mean they are no longer human, it just means they grew up. Part of that child is will always be a part of the adult it has matured into.
                    Yeah, but it's not still a child anymore, either. It's a different thing with a different name. That helps people avoid confusion.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    By the pure definition of the word blogging that is automated becomes autoblogging...
                    Yes, agree.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Normal/standard blogging is typically thought of as something done by someone who writes their own content, uses very little automation (only enough to help speed some things up) and directly interacts (on a regular basis) with their readers.
                    Yeah, that's usually what people think of when they talk about normal bloggers. And when people talk about "autoblogging" they normally mean "crappy spam blogs designed to run on full auto and you make a bunch and move on, etc. etc." Same difference. Just because you do it different doesn't reclaim the very definition of the method.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Even though my version of autoblogging isn't 100% automated it's pretty damn close and I don't directly interact with my readers. I do occasionally write my own content but the % of unique content to republished/automated content is very low, probably 5/95...maybe 10/90 on a few blogs and those are more for experimenting than anything else.
                    Good for you? You should call your method "Robertblogging" - it would be much better for branding, and will avoid confusion with everyone else's version of "autoblogging".

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Just because it doesn't fit the entire standard definition of what most refer to as autoblogging doesn't mean it isn't autoblogging.
                    Sorry, maybe it's because I'm a writer I get all bent out of shape about how words mean things. Still, I described specifically what I meant when I said it wouldn't work, so unless you're arguing that the traditional, existing method of autoblogging either works, or is something newbies should try, we don't disagree. You can call what you do "Flibbertigibbet" for all I care. I don't feel the need to "redefine" the term "autoblogging" over it.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    I would say less than 5% of the tasks I do and time I spend with my blogs (in this approach to IM) is not automated....how is that not autoblogging?
                    Because of the 5% part. An automatic transmission that only requires you to shift gears manually 5% of the time isn't still an automatic transmission. Granted, it's not full manual either, but WHO CARES? WE ALREADY AGREE.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Once again..this would depend on the person. Is learning to drive a manual car better for a newbie than an automatic...six of one, half a dozen of another.
                    Bad example. Yes, it's always better to learn on a manual.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Who is to say what method is the best starting point for any newbie? Certainly not me and I doubt you either.
                    I mean, I certainly feel qualified to have an opinion on the matter or else I wouldn't still be talking about it.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    And I don't agree with your statement about "Massive" efforts either. What you choose to call massive I call about 5 or 10 minutes worth of work.
                    How long did it take you to arrive at that process which now only takes 5 or 10 minutes to repeat?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    You are acting like the amount of work with autoblogging or even my version of it is "Massive"...it simply isn't, regardless of which definition you choose to attack.
                    You should make more blogs then if you have so much free time.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Even my version (which I admit is more labor intensive) is still EXTREMELY quick and easy. I can build a blog from scratch (including uploading WP, loading and setting plugins, input the title/subtitle, putting in keywords and tags...etc etc), fill it with quality content (enough to drip feed for months) and promote it by building backlinks, submitting articles, bookmarking etc etc in less than an hour in most cases. Sometimes faster depending on the niche and quality of the content that's readily available (reviewing the content for quality takes most of that hour).
                    Sounds awesome. You should sell your method, because it's different enough from "autoblogging" as most people understand it so as to be its own thing. Seriously, "Robertblogging" - think about it.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Could you do that with a regular blog? I highly doubt it! The time it takes the average blogger to write enough content to fill a site for 4 months alone would boggle the mind by comparison...in that amount of time I could build a small army of blogs if I so choose...and promote them with a few clicks...automation is my friend!
                    Why have you not so chosen?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Now your simply exaggerating in an attempt to prove your point.
                    Yeah, I use all kinds of tricks like that.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    I certainly wouldn't call how I've adapted what is typically known as autoblogging to what I do... "bending over backwards". I've literally only changed one or two crucial steps in the standard process that is known as autoblogging and those changes only add a minimal amount of time to blog creation yet make all the difference in the world as far as the quality of the blog and its performance.

                    Sorry but I don't see that as bending over backwards.
                    See, reads like sales copy already. Say it with me: Robertblogging.....

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    You are right to an extent but where you are wrong is in making the assumption that they aren't needed for autoblogging...or any other form of IM for that matter. Even autoblogging (as you like to remind me of the definition) still requires those activities, just because it doesn't work without them doesn't mean it doesn't work as a whole or approach to IM.
                    This reminds me of those fancy shoes that allegedly help you lose weight by walking, and the more you walk in these special shoes, the better shape you get. Whoa, magic shoes! And again, you can't take what I said about "autoblogging" and argue how it doesn't apply to what you call "autoblogging" - we all get it - we are talking about different things. That thing you are calling autoblogging follows a whole different set of methods than what I call autoblogging.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    This is a bad argument on your side...look around the forum, how many people do you see struggeling to make it in IM? TONS...there are countless threads with people talking about failing and according to you they must all be failing because they tried autoblogging.
                    Say what? Are you sure I said that?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    ANY form of IM can fail if you don't figure out how to make it work for you.
                    Also it will fail if it just doesn't work as promised and you are not inclined to jury rig it or mess with it until it becomes a unique thing you invented yourself (called Robertblogging).

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Not true at all, not even close! Automation tools for the most part are VERY EASY to use...newbie or not. Most that are worth a damn are fill in the blank or push button, does someone really need "experience" to do that?
                    Probably wouldn't hurt to know what will work better in the blanks than every other person using the software, no?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    Attention to detail doesn't require experience either, it's a trait that is learned as one learns a task, you can develop it and in most cases it's not that hard to do...especially if the automation tool helps you along the way (which some do this as well).
                    Knowing what details need attention is entirely about being experienced in what you're doing. If you don't even read blogs or understand what they are or what they do, you're not really going to be good with autoblogging however it is you describe it. They won't know what to fill it with, will they?

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    I'm not changing the meaning...what I am saying is that the common meaning today is different than it was 4 years ago or even 2 years ago. I believe the meaning or understanding of that meaning is still changing today and will continue to do so.
                    OK, whatever, the meaning changed on its own, or you changed it, who cares. My point is, I'm using the old one, and my comments stem from that.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    This is happening because there are those of us that have had success with it that are teaching others (newbies and pros alike) the things to change to the original approach that will greatly increase the rate of success.
                    Go get em, tiger!

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    What your missing is that the changes people are making to it to make it work for them are probably different for every person...
                    Yeah, and if you all want to keep calling the different variations "autoblogging" it will continue to be confusing.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    I'd say that comes dangerously close to trying to discredit it as a whole...wouldn't you?
                    Not since I subsquently tried to make it very clear what I mean when I say "autoblogging" - that thing you do, I don't call that autoblogging, so there's no need for you to take it personally or feel like I'm dismissing what you do. Robertblogging sounds awesome.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    You must have missed where I said if many people were given the opportunity to vote they would say that the more applicable example would be the Corvette..yet as you say...they are both sports cars.
                    No, I didn't miss it, I just don't get it. Like if you showed me a 747 and a biplane and asked me which one is an airplane, they are just both airplanes. One is not more of an airplane than the other.

                    Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                    This is how I view my version of autoblogging...maybe it's not the most widely viewed or accepted definition but it is still blogging that is automated non the less.
                    You've done a wonderful job explaining it. I still think that what I've called "autoblogging" sucks and no one should do it. Even though I think what you describe is good, I don't think it's necessarily a great route for newbies. I think you underestimate your own experience in designing your process.

                    But that's a whole different discussion.
                    Signature

                    Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                    Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3115761].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fritzseo
    I have tried/purchased almost every auto blog plugin on the market and used them on many blogs;some work better than others. There are plugins to keep se from finding these plugins;which is very important. If anyone wants my my plugin reviews for autoplugins just let me know.
    Signature
    www.localmarketingexperts.co
    charleston,sc;cincinnati,oh
    www.googlerom.co
    1/866/714/1110
    843/847/1558
    Fritz Thorp
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3114303].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
    This is obviously getting nowhere which is evident by the fact that you're now becoming more of a smart *** with your responses, even to the point of being childish which proves nothing and helps no one.

    It's a complete waste of time trying to explain something to someone who can only see things from their own point of view regardless of how other points of view are explained. I didn't expect to change your mind only hoped to open it a bit but that too seems a waste of time.

    Best of luck with your IM
    Robert
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3116166].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
      Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

      This is obviously getting nowhere which is evident by the fact that you're now becoming more of a smart *** with your responses, even to the point of being childish which proves nothing and helps no one.
      There's nowhere to go - we already agree on mechanics, just not semantics and nomenclature, which is really not a big deal anyway. That's all I was trying to explain. There's no need for you to tell me what YOU call autoblogging or not because you've already explained it well. I think I've explained that what you're talking about and what I'm saying won't work are two separate things.

      Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

      It's a complete waste of time trying to explain something to someone who can only see things from their own point of view regardless of how other points of view are explained. I didn't expect to change your mind only hoped to open it a bit but that too seems a waste of time.
      Open my mind to what? We totally agree except for what you want to call your thing you do. That seems to be a largely unimportant detail at this point. I've tried multiple times to show how we're really just saying the exact same thing, but we're getting stuck on a word. I'm done with that part of the conversation because we've bounced it back and forth multiple times.

      Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe, who cares? I don't feel like there's any remaining failure to communicate. We can both agree to have differing definitions of autoblogging, right? We all agree that what I call autoblogging doesn't work, and what you call autoblogging does work and is a good idea.

      What's the problem?
      Signature

      Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
      Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3116486].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

        we already agree on mechanics, just not semantics and nomenclature, which is really not a big deal anyway.
        Colin, this thread is about nomenclature.

        That's why Robert and I are here: to correct the popular misconception about the nomenclature.

        So repeating over and over again that the popular opinion doesn't match ours... is pretty much what we're on about in the first place.

        I honestly do not understand WTF you think you are doing here. You're arguing points that don't matter to you, and are really not a big deal, and you have better things to worry about than something so trivial.

        Then go away.

        If it doesn't matter to you, leave it to the people who care.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3116806].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          Colin, this thread is about nomenclature.

          That's why Robert and I are here: to correct the popular misconception about the nomenclature.
          Yeah, I get it.

          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          So repeating over and over again that the popular opinion doesn't match ours... is pretty much what we're on about in the first place.
          Dude, all I have been trying to say is that the comment I originally made referred to a certain definition of what autoblogging is. I explained that definition. You guys keep taking what I said - "autoblogging doesn't work" - and arguing against it because what YOU guys call "autoblogging" DOES work.

          We've established that we were never talking about the same thing. We ALL AGREE that what I call "autoblogging" does NOT work and what you call "autoblogging" does.

          I don't need to have my definition of autoblogging changed - nor am I asking you to change yours. I just wanted to explain my comment in the proper context which has been outrageously difficult for some reason that's beyond me.

          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          I honestly do not understand WTF you think you are doing here. You're arguing points that don't matter to you, and are really not a big deal, and you have better things to worry about than something so trivial.
          I stopped arguing anything at all ages ago. You guys just keep re-explaining that what YOU mean by autoblogging is different and new and wonderful and works. Awesome. What I mean by autoblogging is still ****ty and doesn't work. We're both right.

          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          Then go away.
          I keep trying to, but you guys keep talking more about it. There's nothing of substance to debate anymore about who means what with what word. Maybe if I;d been clearer about what i meant by "autoblogging" in my first post, we could have avoided all this, but I thought that in lieu of specifying a new one, the default definition would be fine to make my point.

          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          If it doesn't matter to you, leave it to the people who care.
          All that matters to me is that I make myself understood, and that I clearly understand you. We disagree over what a word means - afaic, we've worked past that to reach an understanding, which I *think* is agreement. I'm satisfied with the discussion.

          It's not that I don't care - it's that if either of you wants to continue the discussion further with me by saying "Yeah, but we think autoblogging should mean a different thing" won't work because I don't really have a dog in that fight. I don't care about changing what the word means.

          I DID care about advising people against chasing a method that I think is crap, just as I would when talking to people about making mini-sites to get rich off adsense. Sorry for giving a **** and using the wrong word. Please forgive me.
          Signature

          Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
          Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3117002].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Colin Theriot View Post

            You guys keep taking what I said - "autoblogging doesn't work" - and arguing against it because what YOU guys call "autoblogging" DOES work.
            Well, you keep saying you make lots of money copywriting, and copywriting doesn't make you any money. You don't get paid from the copywrite office when you register your copywrite. That's just stupid. You strut around here thinking you're so cool copywriting seven launches, and all you did was fill out some government forms.

            What? That's what most people think copywriting is.

            I mean, how many times do they ask about it in the copywriting forum? "How do I copywrite my book? How do I copywrite my articles? How do I stop pirates from stealing my copywrite?"

            That must be all it means! They can't ALL be stupid, ignorant, uneducated morons, can they? POPULAR OPINION IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3117416].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              What? That's what most people think copywriting is.
              If I was still participating in this argument, I'd point out that confusion over a homophone is not the same as confusion as we had. (Which is over, by the way, so as said, no need to continue the semantic side of the argument.)

              But yes, I do get the copyright/copywrite thing a lot.
              Signature

              Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
              Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3118579].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Carol666
              Hi Colin.

              How dare you say that autoblogging doesn't work!

              You were the one who got me into it in the first place. Your method helped me to make a decent (full time) income online which I am still doing today.

              When I first started autoblogging I added the RSS plugins to blogs that I had already started. So all my blogs had some original content. Now by your definition these are not autoblogs because they don't consist entirely of scraped content. But apart from that I followed your method exactly so I would define them as autoblogs.

              The blogs started becoming popular and a few pages started ranking in the search engines. I built more blogs but noticed that the ones with original content were performing better than the new ones with entirely scraped content. So I remade the newer blogs with outsourced articles. Adding the Rss plugins later.

              But over time things change, plugins (wp-omatic) break, new plugins come out and you have to adapt. I am still autoblogging but now my content is around 80% unique because it performs better in the search engines.

              You would probably no longer call it autoblogging, but I do. My 150 or so original articles per year are posted automaticaly by Cartys autoblogging software. I have two to three items per week posted from the Amazon Zon plugin automaticaly. The only thing I manually check is articles fom the UAW plugin.

              So Colin, please do not tell people that autoblogging does not work. I am proof that it does.


              P.S. I liked it better when your name was Keith. Then autoblogging was the best thing since sliced bread. Please change your name back. You were a lot less argumentative then
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3119051].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Rsberg
                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                Hi Colin.

                How dare you say that autoblogging doesn't work!

                You were the one who got me into it in the first place. Your method helped me to make a decent (full time) income online which I am still doing today.

                When I first started autoblogging I added the RSS plugins to blogs that I had already started. So all my blogs had some original content. Now by your definition these are not autoblogs because they don't consist entirely of scraped content. But apart from that I followed your method exactly so I would define them as autoblogs.

                The blogs started becoming popular and a few pages started ranking in the search engines. I built more blogs but noticed that the ones with original content were performing better than the new ones with entirely scraped content. So I remade the newer blogs with outsourced articles. Adding the Rss plugins later.

                But over time things change, plugins (wp-omatic) break, new plugins come out and you have to adapt. I am still autoblogging but now my content is around 80% unique because it performs better in the search engines.

                You would probably no longer call it autoblogging, but I do. My 150 or so original articles per year are posted automaticaly by Cartys autoblogging software. I have two to three items per week posted from the Amazon Zon plugin automaticaly. The only thing I manually check is articles fom the UAW plugin.

                So Colin, please do not tell people that autoblogging does not work. I am proof that it does.


                P.S. I liked it better when your name was Keith. Then autoblogging was the best thing since sliced bread. Please change your name back. You were a lot less argumentative then
                All I can say to this is....WOW, very enlightening!

                Glad to see someone else is having success with whatever it is they define as autoblogging...congrats Carol!

                I think we should talk sometime Carol, always interested in talking to other autobloggers who have found success with it.

                Robert
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3119099].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Alson
                  Originally Posted by Rsberg View Post

                  All I can say to this is....WOW, very enlightening!

                  Glad to see someone else is having success with whatever it is they define as autoblogging...congrats Carol!

                  I think we should talk sometime Carol, always interested in talking to other autobloggers who have found success with it.

                  Robert
                  hello RSBerg , if i would like to do autoblogging would you be able to point me in the right directions , my primary purpose is to earn through advertisments.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5155155].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Colin Theriot
                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                You were the one who got me into it in the first place. Your method helped me to make a decent (full time) income online which I am still doing today.
                Wow, can I use that as a testimonial? That's awesome Carol, congrats!

                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                Now by your definition these are not autoblogs because they don't consist entirely of scraped content. But apart from that I followed your method exactly so I would define them as autoblogs.
                Yeah, I wouldn't call them autoblogs, by definition.

                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                The blogs started becoming popular and a few pages started ranking in the search engines. I built more blogs but noticed that the ones with original content were performing better than the new ones with entirely scraped content.
                That's what I noticed too - which is what led me to the conclusion that "autoblogging" as I define it, doesn't work. If you switch to using original content, I don't think that's autoblogging, just plain old blogging. But it's just semantics. The result is what counts, right?

                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                You would probably no longer call it autoblogging, but I do.
                Fair enough.

                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                So Colin, please do not tell people that autoblogging does not work. I am proof that it does.
                See, I just think you're selling yourself short - you're not autoblogging. You're doing your own thing that YOU invented. Carolblogging, lol. It doesn't sound like you have anything left of my original setup but the concept, and to be honest, I didn't invent the concept, I just played with it a long while. You did too, so give yourself a little credit.

                You tried autoblogging, it didn't work, so you changed it to your own thing, now it does. But you can keep calling it autoblogging if you want and feel free to keep giving me credit for your success. I'll take it even though it ain't mine.

                Originally Posted by Carol666 View Post

                P.S. I liked it better when your name was Keith. Then autoblogging was the best thing since sliced bread. Please change your name back. You were a lot less argumentative then
                Keith was a pen name. At the time I was still exclusively a ghost writer and I didn't want my employers to think I was trying to ride on their name on the side. But it was still me, just a different name and picture. This is my real name though, so I won't be changing it back.

                Also, that thread had like 600 replies - are you SURE I wasn't EXACTLY as argumentative as this?
                Signature

                Fair warning: It's possible I'm arguing with you because I have nothing better to do.
                Join my free copywriting group on Facebook: http://CultOfCopy.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3119196].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Tony Marriott
                  I've right through this thread and it seems the very thing the op asked (not to muddy the waters) is exactly what is happening here. The same result as always, where those that do, support auto blogging and those that don't or can't attack it.

                  Again each answers the original question (see title) in away that suits there predetermined views. Or maybe the original question needs rephrasing?

                  In my view, and it seems others if you pick the bones out of the arguments, there are really at least 2 types of autoblog

                  1. A blog that automatically scrapes content from other sites, and even removes the links from that content, and has no unique content is a BAD autoblog.
                  2. A blog that automatically post content , that leaves any links in place and credits original authors, and has substatially unique content is a GOOD autoblog.

                  By good and bad I mean both ethical and financial. Googles opinions are of course their own.

                  Saying scenario 2 is not autoblogging just muddies the water and does nothing to help answer the original question.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3190817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jushuaburnham
    Autobloggging is basically hands free - autoblogs typically use a feed puller to automatically post content on timed basis.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3116892].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Summer1
    I myself own autoblogs and they are not banned from Google, not sure if its not yet happening, but i own one of them almost a year now.

    Autoblogs scraps other website's feed. IT means, it gives backlinks to that site, because it gives a link bank to the original article. The best way to build autoblog is using wprobot because other autoblog plugins can only posting feed, which is lacked of content, in my opinion.

    With wprobot you can mix the template in one article, so it gets rich content, eventhough not unique if you dont spin it.

    Scrapping from article directories can be done with wprobot too, but dont forget to link back to the original article source.

    I will report back when my autoblogs are banned LOL
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3190835].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pacesetter007
      Originally Posted by Summer1 View Post

      I myself own autoblogs and they are not banned from Google, not sure if its not yet happening, but i own one of them almost a year now.

      Autoblogs scraps other website's feed. IT means, it gives backlinks to that site, because it gives a link bank to the original article. The best way to build autoblog is using wprobot because other autoblog plugins can only posting feed, which is lacked of content, in my opinion.

      With wprobot you can mix the template in one article, so it gets rich content, eventhough not unique if you dont spin it.

      Scrapping from article directories can be done with wprobot too, but dont forget to link back to the original article source.

      I will report back when my autoblogs are banned LOL
      How to do get your wpROBOT to mix content? If I use the article directory template, I get unformated articles with ratings and very ugly style. I'm sure I'm really missing something so please help!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3601171].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        This is actually quite interesting.

        The comment before Pacesetter reignited it was on the 16th of January.

        What's interesting is all the algorithm changes that have taken place since then.

        So how are people using autoblogs, that commented in it's favour over 2 months ago, faring now the changes have taken place?
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3601240].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Summer1
        Originally Posted by pacesetter007 View Post

        How to do get your wpROBOT to mix content? If I use the article directory template, I get unformated articles with ratings and very ugly style. I'm sure I'm really missing something so please help!

        It is on the template settings, you should ask wprobot forum if it is not clear, they are very helpful.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3619733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author goodmast3r
    Does content you get from CJ API is autoblog?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3601901].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jessicaemily
    A blog whose content updated itself is known as Autoblog it can be either articles or ads or programmes or videos. The content is rewritten by some automated scripts to make it copyscape passed. Though the best to use as video autoblogs, easy to rank and also no issue of copyright violations too . But now if you want to learn you have to pour a lot into it before starting a one which actually work.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6490230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KyleStarkey
    Finally found the answers i was looking for thanks Rsberg
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6637307].message }}

Trending Topics