To spin or not to spin?

I agree with Barry 110%!

Well thought out, engaging articles get published in ezines and on websites, providing a much better backlink return on your time investment. By all means, get Bill Platt's free ebook on Article Marketing, you can find Bill here: TPW.

After you've read that, you may want to look into Bill's WSO, "... Articles in 20 minutes or less." He reveals one method that will help you create several articles on the same topic without having to repeat or spin anything. There's more, but that one really stuck with me, perhaps because I need to write more, but I'm not willing to spin it.

-Anita

I've been spinning but after reading this I think I'll give it a skip. The one thing I will continue to spin though is the resource box, especially the anchor text. That one is a given I'd say.

Actually that's not true at all. By definition, the problem with Supplemental Pages is a lack of pagerank. So you'd always want a page that's in the Main Index as opposed to the Supplemental Index. If it's in the S.I., then you have a problem. Back when the SI was visible, a number of SEO's found that pages that were in the SI were not being crawled fully. So there' a good chance your wouldn't even count because it wasn't seen.

Here's what Matt Cutts says on his blog:

It certainly does help.

I'm just trying to ascertain how you're doing things. So, if I'm right you'll submit 1500 versions of the same article to every directory?

That's a lot of backlinks, do you do this gradually or over a short period?

Do any of your articles get syndicated or isn't that something you aim for?

Do excuse me, I'm just picking your brain .

This outlines the features of your company's software, and of the service you provide - but what about the benefits (to the customer) of using the service?

I'm not in the business of collecting or publishing mass quantities of articles for the sake of it: I'm in the business of making money. Now tell me why I should spin, why I need to spin, and how I'll make more money by spinning articles than not spinning them.

In other words, the fact I can pay you to squeeze 1500 "unique", readable articles from one seed article still doesn't answer the question of why I'd want you to do that, and what I'd stand to gain from it.

But I'd sure like to be convinced. :p

There you go calling your point of view "common sense".

That infers that I don't possess that myself, because I disagree with you.

Just to address your point, I googled your domain name. You are #1 -- no surprise.

Google shows 17,800,000 results for content hurricane. I dug through those results as far as I could dig. On page 53 of the search results, there are only two listings left.

That means that 522 pages are in the main index, and 17,799,478 pages are in the supplemental listings.

Those 17.799 million pages may not be in the supplemental listings "because they are duplicate", but they are still there.

The point is that original content will not prevent you from having your pages invisible in Google.



I have no issue with submitting original content to your own website.

I only insist that on my own website, that original content will be written to drive sales, not to baffle my readers with how many ways I can describe the same concept.

1. Your pages will not be in the supplemental listings because they are duplicate. But there is a strong chance that your pages may end up in the supplemental (invisible) anyway.

If your page lands in the invisible-land, it does not matter how it got there -- it is still invisible.

2. Back links are back links are back links. Yes, for the most part.

Back links that get their own inbound links offer more value, than those without back links. And no one but a marketer will link to crappy content.

The way you describe it, the only purpose of a back link is to influence the SERPs.

I tend to believe that if the back link resides on a page that humans will see, that back link could also deliver prospects to your website.

As I see it, the only difference in our opinions is the value of a back link.

You advertise its only value as being something that will influence the SERPs.

I advertise it as something that could influence the SERPs and bring real prospects to your website.

I prefer to believe you have a product to sell... And your answers reflect what you need people to believe in order for them to buy your product.

I admit that I have stuff to sell too, and my opinion would not change if I did not sell the same products or services.

A difference in opinion and goals does not make you right or wrong, and it does not make me right or wrong. Our differences only reflect how things apply to our own circumstances.

I am happy to let the viewing audience see your drivel and my drivel, and make a educated decision about whose article marketing model they want to believe in and whose opinion they want to trust.



I see this comment as a leap from my original statement. It seems that maybe you are trying to deflect the conversation in a new direction... One in which you hope will encourage me to attack everyone's most sacred cow... LOL

EZA is full of people who do article marketing using your model and mine. Some of the content there is good. A lot of the content there is pure crap.

Regardless of the quality of that content, any article placed in EZA with the hopes of having unique content there are being silly, because EZA's purpose is to syndicate the content posted on their site.

Junk content does not get syndicated.

Good content can be syndicated into websites that serve millions of visitors per month.

There are 4 distinct benefits for article marketing:

1. Eyeballs for branding and traffic.
2. Back links to influence the search engines.
3. Good ranking on the articles to drive more eyeballs to the article.
4. Syndication to other websites for more branding and more traffic and more back links.

The question is whether people are going to write content at a level that ensures that the articles will have an impact beyond Google.

To have an impact beyond Google, you really need to have your content syndicated.

What about this Alexa, is this a lie too?

Or maybe you just chose to ignore that part. Remember, you refused to answer that question three times when I asked you. Now here is your beloved DireStraits, giving exactly the answer that YOU didn't want to give. Is he wrong or is he right?

(Sorry - Mr Straits had to go for a hair-cut! )

AJ,

I appreciate what you're saying, but none of it negates the fact that what you're referring to as a "penalty" isn't really a penalty.

"Duplicated content" as defined in the wording on your site, does not carry a penalty. It carries limitations, in the sense that non-unique content will seldom be able to rank and harness much (if any) search-traffic from Google, due to being filtered out into the supplemental index.

But how is that a penalty, exactly? It's not having a negative effect on your rankings if you never stood much (if any) chance of ranking in the main index to begin with. You can't penalise something that doesn't exist.

What Google does is filter out non-unique content.

Filter - not punish.

And that means non-unique content spread across multiple sites carries certain limitations in relation to what you can achieve with it, from an SEO standpoint.

Limitations - not a penalty ... not a punishment.

You don't lose anything by it, because you didn't gain from it to begin with.

Your rankings don't "suffer" (your words), because you didn't rank to begin with.

Non-unique doesn't have a negative effect - it just doesn't have much of a positive effect, from the perspective of enabling you to rank in (and harness traffic from) the search-engines.

And that is the difference.

There is nothing wrong with marketing a spinning product/service for (and only for) its legitimate benefits/uses.

Promoting it on the basis of a "penalty" that doesn't exist and "negative effects" that never occur is not a legitimate, honest way of doing business.

That is the only issue, here.

Absolutely, Paul. Absolutely.