Original vs. Spun Articles? When to use which?

I used "the best spinner".

Always. :rolleyes:

Because there's a really large group of people online with a direct financial incentive to perpetuate and propagate these "urban myths of internet marketing". Someone far more skeptical than I might even observe that selling shovels in the gold rush (whether they can actually dig, or not) is a much easier and steadier living than being a prospector.

It's not "going away" any time soon. :p

If you can write an original article for about 45 minutes and why having s spun article? Original article is 100% approved from article directories such as ezinearticle. Just be the author

Indeed ... I'm wondering whether he's a typo for "At lArge", because they decided to give him time off for good behavior, or something? :confused:

Your humanitarian lexis are muscularly cherished, Paul, nevertheless satisfy avoid from touching one dauntlessly.

BAHAHAHAHA! Very well played, sir.

Thanks for the clarifications about EZA. I have decided that I am ONLY interested in techniques going forward that are POST panda friendly. I'm hearing too many horror stories and they are growing!

It's barely 3 weeks since you started it. Not too much of an excavation.

Very wise. Few people who are really making a living from article marketing would do that in any other order.

An article directory is a depository of freely available content for people to re-publish. That's why there are articles directories. That's the function they fulfil. That's what they're there for. That's why people use them. Etc. etc. If you don't want people taking your articles, then don't put them in a directory.

There's no point in putting them there for traffic, you know? When someone puts one of your articles' keywords into a search engine and finds your article in the SERP's, you don't want them finding a directory copy (we all lose most of that traffic); you want them finding the copy on your own site (we don't lose any of that traffic: it has arrived, by definition, when people click. No article directory in-between. No AdSense distractions etc. etc.).

And there's certainly no point in putting them there for backlinks, either: article directory backlinks are non-context-relevant, PR-0 backlinks, and (as the authors of the standard, respected, accredited SEO textbooks were saying even before the Panda update) you'll typically need something between 50,000 and 100,000 of them to confer the link-juice equivalent to one backlink from a relevant authority site.

People who are still "using article directories for backlinks" are living on another planet (and not usually "making a living" there!).

So, the purpose of putting your articles in directories is (or should be) for people to syndicate them. There's certainly very little other benefit.

If, by "stealing", you mean "re-publishing without the resource-box", this is a trivial issue. All you need is 2 pre-written emails, and you fill in the blanks and send them out as/when needed. One says, basically, "Thanks for re-publishing my article <title> from <source>. It appears that, contrary to the terms of service of <source site> you, or your webmaster, omitted to include my resource-box with the article. Here's a copy of it (below). I'd be really grateful if you'd be kind enough to add that on, in clickable link form, within 3 days, please. Thank you in advance etc. etc." The second one is a just a standard DMCA, which you send them (with a copy to their registrar, their host, and Google) 7 days later if your resource-box hasn't been added on. The whole thing takes 2 minutes to do - hardly a problem at all.

Yes - sometimes people with sites that rank higher than yours will syndicate your work. The backlink you get from them can be worth tens of thousands of "article directory backlinks", and think of all that pre-targeted traffic (which you haven't had to target, yourself) visiting your site and opting in to your list: this is what we're doing article marketing for. As long as you always have all your articles published and indexed on your own site before you ever submit them anywhere else, this will be pretty rare, anyway: it will normally be your site's copy that appears in the SERP's, and the syndicated copy will typically be indexed in Google's "supplemental index", where it belongs, and where the backlink still counts for you, just the same as if it were in the "main index".

There will come a day, for all article marketers, when you'll find one of your articles re-published without your resource-box. Just bear in mind, when that happens, that the best outcome is to get your resource-box added to it. Getting the illicit material removed (though trivially easily done) is only the second-best outcome.

These details are not "problems" and they need occupy almost none of your working life.