What Is AutoBlogging/What Is An Autoblog?

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

Why are you doing it with "autoblogging doesn't work" instead of "autoblogging isn't a magic button"?

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?

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"...

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.



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?

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.

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.


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.



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?


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.



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.

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!



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.

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?

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.

Whole different topic..yeah probably but it's still a good comparison.


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).

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.


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.

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

I'd say that comes dangerously close to trying to discredit it as a whole...wouldn't you?

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.

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.

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.