Google Suggests NOT Article Marketing

I thought it was rather a strange little snippet. Matt Cutts disparages the entire concept of "article marketing" by citing the "copies, mirrors and duplicates" of articles that end up on other websites.

Leaving aside the fact that many, if not most, of those engaged in article marketing do so for the traffic and perceived backlink benefits of having the actual article on the directory (despite the original purpose of article directories), what MC refers to is actually called syndication. As such, it's part of the process encompassed by the current Google love-phrase "content curation".

Selecting prime, relevant content from a variety of sources, including article directories, for inclusion in an authority site is a practice encouraged by Google and is popular with visitors.

There seems to be a mixed message here. Or maybe it's just a cheap shot at the directories.


Craig, that's a great point. EZA, for instance, could really differentiate themselves (and justify their author-upgrades) by being more pro-active on behalf of their better contributors and contacting a selection of webmasters with relevant articles.


Frank

I agree with the dude partially.

Some articles are just regurgitated over and over again.

Ill type a search term into google because im genuinely seeking an answer to a question i have and you get some BS article ranked position 1 in the results, you think 'yep this must be it, here is the answer to why my baby girl is pooping green stuff again' i click the result and all i get is some article where the writer has basically stolen his answer from other websites, its not even gramatically correct and its flooded with links to a $49 ebook about baby food!

Yet on the other hand i have read some really good quality articles that where obviously used for both seo and affiliate marketing but did give me the information i was seeking.

And i would not be so quick to assume Google is suggesting this.

That video was of some guy who either works for google or is affiliated in some way and thats his personal opinion. If google really looked down on these articles then why are so many ranking really well?

Because it's not your turn yet...

And if they didn't, heads would roll at the Big G.

Their shareholders expect a return on their investment, and if the current management cannot do it, the board of directors will bring in other people who can do it.

By the way, GOOG closed at 568.00 per share today. :p

Well, yes—obviously. They are a business after all.

On the whole, though, they're still providing a (mostly) fantastic service, totally free to the end-user. And one can blast the quality of their SERPs if one wishes, but what they provide—even during the times when their rankings are at their lowest quality for a long time—is still something of value to the end-user. It might take them a little longer of sieving through results to find stuff, but the fact that they do in the end (where it would've been impossible or taken far longer without them or other search-engines) means Google still works as a tool, and provides a service of value.

Can the same thing be said of those marketers who not only sell tripe, but write tripe articles to sell it, then invariably engage in article-spinning and the like on top of that? Where is the value in any of what they do?

That's the difference: Google provide some value to countless people every single day; low-quality article directory marketers, who promote junk products, don't provide value to anyone at any time.

What makes me laugh is those people you sometimes see here—low-quality "article directory marketers", SEO'ers and so on—making comments like "Google are shooting themselves in the foot; they don't exist without us!!" It implies that those individuals—who may, by their own admission, have been "helping Google milk that cow"—expect to receive some kind of gesture of lifelong loyalty and appreciation for their efforts by way of everlasting traffic.

Which is absurd because of the very fact that Google is in it for the money.

It means that if they can ride off the back off your crappy spam content and make a few bucks, they will—and they'll get away with it. And if the time comes that they're starting to see their public image slipping, or they're losing users and advertisers to the other search-engines, then they'll take action to clear up some of the same mess they knowingly let build up. And they won't thank you for that time you spent together when your relationship was "mutually beneficial", because they don't care. They will leave you choking in the dust.

All I'm saying (to these people) is: just because you think you're playing along with Google's attempts to cash in, don't expect that that'll mean you'll receive any favours or security from them in the long-term; as soon as assuming a passive stance ceases to be an option for them any longer, and the consequences begin to catch up with them, Google will drop your ass quicker than a rave-goer does an ecstasy pill and sleeps with your girlfriend.

Which is why it pays to think long-term, about building a business asset, and about providing value to others. Not about gaming the system for a quick buck, through any means necessary. Maybe Google can, but they own, run and are the system. We, on the other hand, cannot.

I hope all this google crap and article market stuff is dead stuff continues.

It is getting rid of some of my competitors. lurrrvly!!!

So yes article market is dead, and google knows what it is talking about

Exactly!

As long as these article directories are INDEXED by Google, I will continue to write quality articles and submit them, regardless of the quality of other articles at the same directories.

When Google really disapproves of a practice, mass deindexing happens.

Totally agree with this ^

It seems that not a lot of people know the difference between "Article Directory Marketing" and "Article Marketing".

If you ARE "Article Marketing" as oppose to the method rehashed over and over again "Article Directory Marketing" you will welcome the changes to Google!

Main Point:

Alexa is bang on!

It PAYS to the know the difference!

Just my 2 pence.

Chris

Google is the KING of the search engines, and should be shown some respect for its actions.

Google spokesman says in the video '...typically the sites that re-publish these articles are not the highest quality sites'. On that basis, I wonder why anyone who is in any way serious bothers with Ezine Articles and the like.

When you look at the content on the likes of Ezine Articles, it is largely a joke. I figuring, true professionals would have seen the content and avoid it to prevent soiling their reputation. It is better to seek out high quality publishers in the first place and skip Ezine Articles altogether.

As we say here in Yorkshire, "s'like floggin' a soddin' dead 'oss".

... "with rubbish SPUN articles" ...

That post was made in 2011.

I just subscribed to a course. I think they are sincere to promote creating quality content.

But they also promote spinning the content!

I keep on thinking, why don't they just teach how to write quality content that would have high chances of getting syndicated all over the world, rather than teach crappy "techniques" that sound like "just try them all and your luck to see what works", if there's any reason at all for that "technique" to work!

I advocate testing methods, and finding those that work for you.

But such (expensive) courses can be very dangerous especially to beginners. They give money a bad name. And sure know how to waste your time.