Question to article marketers I think you will like this one

i can agree on that!

i can agree on that one too

the worst is wen im looking around for something in my niche to rewrite and i start to skim through those articles that are like why did you write this
and they have one view and were written months ago

This is very general... but:
-a good title to pull in curious readers

-a "voice" & idea throughout that matches & reinforces the thoughts they had when they came to your article in the first place and makes them feel like they've "really landed on something here"

- it keeps them engaged & reading through the end

- and then a resource box that either hits their hot buttons or makes them salivate for more.

Bam! ... awesome article.

Sure, they don't always go that way, and it's easier said than done... but that's how I imagine an awesome article.

Well, it depends what you mean by "high quality", doesn't it?

As an article marketer, I define "high quality" as meaning "produces plenty of income for me".

The articles that produce plenty of income for me are the ones that get most widely syndicated, of course. So, for me, the parameters of "high quality" are the same four parameters as for syndication. So high quality articles are (i) long, (ii) entertaining, (iii) controversial and (iv) iconoclastic. If every article I ever write fulfils those four parameters, my business will keep growing nicely.

It's as simple as that.

That sounds like me many years ago, my grammar used to be rubbish (I would use your when I should have used you're for example) but I always knew how to get my point across.

I've got my act together recently though, although I do copy and paste what I write into Microsoft Word beforehand to see if any errors are identified.

Indeed. What a visit to the "most viewed" section bears out is which authors have sent cheap/free traffic/clicks to their articles to try to get them on the "most viewed" list, for the backlink it provides. They tend, collectively, to be rather poor quality articles - surprise surprise. :rolleyes:

Depending on my mood, it either irritates or amuses me whenever (as rather often!) I see threads started here by people recommending that article marketers ought to be trying to copy the techniques of the articles on those "most viewed" lists, presumably imagining that in some sense they're likely to be "successful" articles (which is nonsense, of course).

Very sad but true

I don't agree with this.

I agree just with the first part: about the income your article produces.

But the income an article produces is far, far higher if it gets widely syndicated in front of targeted traffic on high quality sites. There's just no comparison at all.

That simply doesn't happen with bad content.

Marketers who are not experiencing syndication (I mean targeted syndication, not just in article directories!) are mostly unaware even of the potential income from article marketing, let alone its reality.

You're effectively comparing the results of one article with the results of many, because quality breeds and multiplies and brings increasing future income. Some are too busy "writing for clicks" and "rinsing and repeating" to be aware of it.

Just a suggestion for you, Mark: it's very, very worthwhile, for SEO purposes, to have your major keyword at the start of the title.

"House Training Your Dog Overnight - The Three Secrets" would be much better than "The Three Secrets of House Training your Dog Overnight"; Teaching Your Bird to Talk in Six Guaranteed Steps" would be much better than "Six Steps Guaranteed to Teach Your Bird To Talk".

Chris Knight, the owner of Ezine Articles, explains this very well in EZA's Editorial Guidelines, where he gives this example of a bad title:

"Top 9 Ways to Acquire Fractional Jet Ownership".

Whereas this would undoubtedly be ideal for someone wanting to rank highly for the keyword "Top 9 Ways", the much better realistic title example he suggests instead is:

"Fractional Jet Ownership - 9 Strategies to Help You Acquire Your Private Jet".

I've certainly found this very helpful advice.

Title: make it compelling

Main Keyword: Use it in title and 2 to 3 times in article.

LSI Keywords: Use 4 or 5 related keywords.

Resource box: Make them want to click on it.

Above all make your content readable, useful, informative, argumentative and a pleasure to read.

Pete

Without doubt, it's the Article Title... or as I prefer to call it the....Article Headline.

If you have and interesting and compelling headline to your articletitle, it will catch people's eye every time as they scan the page, and entice them to want to read it

And that all that counts to start with.

It's not so much about the underlying informational basis of an article having to be completely original; it's more about finding a way to make the delivery or presentation of it unique and more interesting than everyone else.

Look at all these TV-manufactured pop bands. Are they really so unique? If someone was to play a new record of each of theirs without telling you who it was by, would you really be able to distinguish between them? Probably not.

But visually, on a "superficial" level, you maybe could. They're dressed/styled differently, have different dance routines, and all the rest. It's not what arguably should matter, in an ideal world, but realistically it's what counts and makes all the difference.

You'd hope, think and expect that to matter less than if they were to be truly unique, but obviously, it doesn't - they're making good money for the record companies. They're different enough to be "new" and interesting, but not so fundamentally original and pioneering in their sound/music that they'll sell their material off its own merits, even if they had facial warts, greasy matted hair and looked like a pig's arse (hey wait - did I just describe Motorhead? ).

It'd be good to be truly unique in all aspects, I think, but it's often not that easy. Unless you're working on the fringes of pioneering research, all you can really do is rehash or consolidate all that's been said before, but try to deliver it in such a way as to make it more interesting and superficially attractive. Done well, that may give people the impression that what you're saying is in fact original - even if it's not.

If you've got something truly and groundbreakingly innovative to say, then it probably doesn't matter so much how you present it - the fact it's new, exciting and pioneering will make it hot. But if not, it's old news, and it's your job to spice it up and get people to take notice anyway. This is when the style of presentation and delivery matters more.