Top 50 article directories to focus on. Which of the less known you use and have success with?

by iva 33 replies
Came across this list of top article directories based on traffic. There are few, I haven't even heard about (for example: examiner, suite101). Which ones you used and had success with.
Here is a link to the site:
List Of Top 50 Article Directories By Traffic, PageRank

Here is the list:

URL /Alexa Rating /No Follow
1.knol.google.com1NF!
2.ehow.com153NF!
3.squidoo.com198
4.ezinearticles.com257
5.hubpages.com286
6.examiner.com784NF!
7.articlesbase.com888NF!
8.technorati.com1,063
9.seekingalpha.com1,214NF!
10.associatedcontent.com1,444NF!
11.buzzle.com1,581
12.suite101.com1,816
13.gather.com2,247
14.goarticles.com2,397
15.brighthub.com2,662
16.selfgrowth.com3,609
17.helium.com3,634NF!
18.ezinemark.com3,701
19.pubarticles.com4,012
20.thefreelibrary.com4,415
21.articlesnatch.com4,468NF!
22.ideamarketers.com4,588
23.infobarrel.com4,734
24.articlealley.com4,804NF!
25.sooperarticles.com5,011
26.amazines.com5,550
27.bukisa.com5,775NF!
28.selfseo.com5,941
29.triond.com6,319
30.articledashboard.com $7,253
31.web-source.net7,261
32.articlerich.com8,124
33.isnare.com8,177
34.articleclick.com9,072
35.articlecity.com9,430
36.submityourarticle.com/articles/ $11,074
37.articlesfactory.com11,180
38.articleblast.com12,010
39.articlecompilation.com12,356
40.articletrader.com12,613
41.upublish.info12,940
42.xomba.com13,363NF!
43.EvanCarmichael.com13,524
44.biggerpockets.com/articles13,772NF!
45.articleslash.net13,796
46.searchwarp.com13,928NF!
47.articlecube.com14,185
48.thewhir.com/find/articlecentral15,749
49.snipsly.com15,815
50.site-reference.com16,096
NF! - this site uses nofollow tag in author's resource box.
$ - payment required to submit articles.

#main internet marketing discussion forum #article #directories #focus #success #top
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author PLRExpress
    For me, I only use article directories so that publishers can find my content and syndicate it by publishing it on their own websites and blogs. I do this to mainly get backlinks (and SMALL amounts of traffic).

    Many of those that are listed above are not actually article directories and so the content cannot be syndicated. For example, Knol, Squidoo, Suite101 (and more) don't allow content syndication so publishers will not pick up my articles.

    I tend to find that syndication is the best way of article marketing these days so all of the other sites that aren't article directories don't have much use to me.

    If you're wondering which article directories that I have the most success with - ezinearticles and isnare tend to do well for me. For syndication, that is.

    As for some of the others though, they're not actually article directories.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980812].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Here we go again ...

      Funny: it seems like only yesterday that this list was discussed here in such detail. Oh ... wait a minute: it WAS only yesterday - in this thread.

      Many of the sites on that list are not article directories at all. (And that's very significant and important - not just a semantic/pedantic point at all!).

      Furthermore, the page ranks mentioned on it are very misleading indeed: they're the (not too relevant!) page ranks of those sites' own home pages, but that isn't where your articles are published, of course. So it's all pretty meaningless, I'm afraid.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980902].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iva
        Didn't realize that this list has been discussed already. Thanks for pointing it out, Alexa. I agree, the title is a bit misleading: those sites are not just article directories. I also took time to remove PR from the list, because it is meaningless. I guess, what I liked about this list was an Alexa rank, as an indication of a potential exposure of your content. I was not implying to to use this list strictly for article marketing. Again, sorry for the misleading title, didn't mean to offend seasonal article marketers.
        Still, in addition to Ezinearticles - what directories are pretty good for syndication?

        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Here we go again ...

        Funny: it seems like only yesterday that this list was discussed here in such detail. Oh ... wait a minute: it WAS only yesterday - in this thread.

        Many of the sites on that list are not article directories at all. (And that's very significant and important - not just a semantic/pedantic point at all!).

        Furthermore, the page ranks mentioned on it are very misleading indeed: they're the (not too relevant!) page ranks of those sites' own home pages, but that isn't where your articles are published, of course. So it's all pretty meaningless, I'm afraid.
        Signature
        Send me a PM if you have any questions.

        "Ask simple questions to get simple answers"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982039].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by iva View Post

          Didn't realize that this list has been discussed already. Thanks for pointing it out, Alexa. I agree, the title is a bit misleading: those sites are not just article directories. I also took time to remove PR from the list, because it is meaningless. I guess, what I liked about this list was an Alexa rank, as an indication of a potential exposure of your content.
          I'm afraid it just isn't an indication of the potential exposure of your content. Unless, possibly, you're in the internet marketing market itself ... and even then not to much of an extent. All these "Alexa" figures monitor (and not very reliably) is the visitors to a site who have the Alexa toolbar installed on their computers. And those people are mostly internet marketers. Not customers!

          I can see it (just about, arguably) having some value to someone selling a website in the internet marketing niche, or to someone selling advertising on such a website who expects that prospective purchasers might be interested, but for anyone else, you can really forget it.

          Originally Posted by iva View Post

          Still, in addition to Ezinearticles - what directories are pretty good for syndication?
          None at all. It seems to be the only one good for syndication.

          My "number of times syndicated" is now well into five figures, across a range of eight different niches, and I've possibly had an article passively syndicated about twice from directories other than EZA, so it's at least 99.9% of the value.

          It's just "the one all the publishers have heard of" so it's where they go to look for content to syndicate.

          I do still submit most of my own articles to either GoArticles or ArticleBase too, on a niche by niche basis, but don't ask me why, because I don't get anything back from it. (I suppose if EZA disappears tomorrow it might be a useful thing to have done?).

          I've seen Warriors saying, occasionally, that they've had one syndicated from either GoArticle or ArticlesBase ... so I persist ... but I suspect, really, that these are people not submitting to EZA. So maybe the reason they manage to get one syndicated from AB or GA (when I don't) is that some thorough publishers will look at EZA first and then still look at GA and/or AB after that in addition. So someone with an article in both will get the EZA copy syndicated but someone not in EZA might manage to get syndicated from AB or GA. Just a theory based on the fact that I can tell where mine have been syndicated from because I change a punctuation-mark in each copy - usually substituting a semi-colon for a comma - so I can later identify the source, after syndication!

          But really, unless you find an article directory specific to your niche (which would be great, of course, because it would make it a context-relevant backlink in its own right, without even being syndicated at all), it's terribly difficult to justify submitting anywhere other than EZA.

          There's clearly no point for traffic or for backlinks, and if you're not going to get syndicated either ... :rolleyes:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984069].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            It seems to be the only one good for syndication.
            I agree with Alexa 99% of the time, but this isn't one of those times :p I've gotten a bunch of my articles syndicated through Go Articles, Articles Base, and Amazines (not to mention through the American Chronicle, which is more of an online magazine rather than a traditional article directory, but the process is still very much the same). I've had a couple of articles published on Site Pro News (and similar sites) that have gotten syndicated dozens of times over, so there is more to syndication than EZA

            Like Alexa mentioned, there's nothing to lose by submitting your articles to more than just one place (except maybe for a few minutes of your time). You may discover that you get great results from another directory. However, just make sure you're dealing with one of the big names. These "off-brand" article directories don't get much traffic, so there isn't much of a chance for your articles syndicated on them.

            That's why I don't think that article "blasters" and "mass-submitters" are worth the time or money. Sure, they send your article to 1,000's of different article directories, but most of them get no traffic - so they're of no value to you.
            Signature
            Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984663].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cru
              Originally Posted by NicoleBeckett View Post

              I agree with Alexa 99% of the time, but this isn't one of those times :p I've gotten a bunch of my articles syndicated through Go Articles, Articles Base, and Amazines (not to mention through the American Chronicle, which is more of an online magazine rather than a traditional article directory, but the process is still very much the same). I've had a couple of articles published on Site Pro News (and similar sites) that have gotten syndicated dozens of times over, so there is more to syndication than EZA

              Like Alexa mentioned, there's nothing to lose by submitting your articles to more than just one place (except maybe for a few minutes of your time). You may discover that you get great results from another directory. However, just make sure you're dealing with one of the big names. These "off-brand" article directories don't get much traffic, so there isn't much of a chance for your articles syndicated on them.

              That's why I don't think that article "blasters" and "mass-submitters" are worth the time or money. Sure, they send your article to 1,000's of different article directories, but most of them get no traffic - so they're of no value to you.
              Backlinks?

              I think most people who are blasting to thousands of directories aren't looking to get traffic from said articles or even hope that they get syndicated (that would just be a nice bonus)... what they are looking to do is build backlinks to their money site.

              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Here we go again ...

              Funny: it seems like only yesterday that this list was discussed here in such detail. Oh ... wait a minute: it WAS only yesterday - in this thread.

              Many of the sites on that list are not article directories at all. (And that's very significant and important - not just a semantic/pedantic point at all!).

              Furthermore, the page ranks mentioned on it are very misleading indeed: they're the (not too relevant!) page ranks of those sites' own home pages, but that isn't where your articles are published, of course. So it's all pretty meaningless, I'm afraid.
              My understanding is that for backlinking purposes you still get more juice from having a 0PR article on an article directory with a higher PR homepage than you would having a 0PR article on a lower PR homepage (I just re-read this sentence, and it is a handful, but I think it makes sense)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984754].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
                Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                Backlinks?

                I think most people who are blasting to thousands of directories aren't looking to get traffic from said articles or even hope that they get syndicated (that would just be a nice bonus)... what they are looking to do is build backlinks to their money site.
                If you want a bunch of PR0 links (that will likely take you weeks or months to even get credit for, because those no-name article directories don't get crawled v ery frequently), then, by all means, go for it To me, those links aren't worth the money you have to spend on "blasters" (most of which don't come cheap).

                From a backlinks perspective, you're far better off counting on syndication than "blasters". After all, when your articles get syndicated, they're very likely going to wind up on pages that have a much higher PR than 0. Through syndication, you're getting links and eyeballs - and, to me, it doesn't get any better than that.
                Signature
                Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984854].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author iva
                  Originally Posted by NicoleBeckett View Post

                  If you want a bunch of PR0 links (that will likely take you weeks or months to even get credit for, because those no-name article directories don't get crawled v ery frequently), then, by all means, go for it To me, those links aren't worth the money you have to spend on "blasters" (most of which don't come cheap).

                  From a backlinks perspective, you're far better off counting on syndication than "blasters". After all, when your articles get syndicated, they're very likely going to wind up on pages that have a much higher PR than 0. Through syndication, you're getting links and eyeballs - and, to me, it doesn't get any better than that.
                  Great point, Nicole. Do you only hope for "passive" syndication or do you "actively" approach potential syndicators, as well?
                  Signature
                  Send me a PM if you have any questions.

                  "Ask simple questions to get simple answers"
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984911].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author NicoleBeckett
                    Originally Posted by iva View Post

                    Do you only hope for "passive" syndication or do you "actively" approach potential syndicators, as well?
                    I confess, I should be more active with it. Unfortunately, I tend to devote more time to my client's writing than my own stuff

                    At the very least, I'll Tweet each article I publish (whether it's on my own site or one of the directories). I usually also submit each one to Sphinn and BizSugar to help get some added exposure. From there, I don't do a whole lot else, and I still wind up seeing my articles syndicated all over the place.

                    There are some Warriors who are far more meticulous in their syndication efforts... Hopefully one of them will chime in as to exactly what they do!
                    Signature
                    Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986211].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                I think most people who are blasting to thousands of directories aren't looking to get traffic from said articles or even hope that they get syndicated (that would just be a nice bonus)... what they are looking to do is build backlinks to their money site.
                That's very much my impression, too.

                Which just augments the irony, because you can't realistically do that: it's a system that just doesn't work any more.

                The only people still really pretending it still does are those selling services that do it for paying customers, whose living is so clearly at stake.

                The authors of all the standard SEO textbooks were explaining in some detail, even a year before the Panda update devalued the article directories so much, why one would typically needs something between 50,000 and 100,000 of those backlinks to confer the link-juice equivalent to that from one backlink on a relevant authority-site.

                That's why, when you look at over 100 threads here with such titles as "Is Article Marketing Dead" and "Article Marketing Doesn't Work Any More", the one thing they all have in common is that they've been started off by people whose information is several years out of date, who have been mass-submitting to huge numbers of article directories and can't quite understand why they're getting no apparent SEO benefit from it.

                Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                My understanding is that for backlinking purposes you still get more juice from having a 0PR article on an article directory with a higher PR homepage than you would having a 0PR article on a lower PR homepage (I just re-read this sentence, and it is a handful, but I think it makes sense)
                It makes complete sense, and it may even technically be true ... but to people wanting SEO benefits I'm afraid it's simply no longer relevant: in numerical terms, it's kind of similar to comparing "scoring 1.0 points or 1.2 points" in a game in which your opponents are all scoring 4,000 or 4,500 points - it's just not worth talking about, any more.

                Article directories were never there to be used for their own backlinks, anyway. That's never been their function or their purpose at all.

                As explained in so many of the posts linked to above, this is "article directory marketing", which was a latecomer to the world of article marketing anyway, and its entire raison d'etre has no longer held any validity for a long time, now. It was a kind of "temporary blip on the map". And according to Google, the further developments in SEO are going to weigh still more against it (we can only hope).
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984866].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Cru
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  That's very much my impression, too.

                  Which just augments the irony, because you can't realistically do that: it's a system that just doesn't work any more.

                  The only people still really pretending it still does are those selling services that do it for paying customers, whose living is so clearly at stake.

                  The authors of all the standard SEO textbooks were explaining in some detail, even a year before the Panda update devalued the article directories so much, why one would typically needs something between 50,000 and 100,000 of those backlinks to confer the link-juice equivalent to that from one backlink on a relevant authority-site.

                  That's why, when you look at over 100 threads here with such titles as "Is Article Marketing Dead" and "Article Marketing Doesn't Work Any More", the one thing they all have in common is that they've been started off by people whose information is several years out of date, who have been mass-submitting to huge numbers of article directories and can't quite understand why they're getting no apparent SEO benefit from it.



                  It makes complete sense, and it may even technically be true ... but to people wanting SEO benefits I'm afraid it's simply no longer relevant: in numerical terms, it's kind of similar to comparing "scoring 1.0 points or 1.2 points" in a game in which your opponents are all scoring 4,000 or 4,500 points - it's just not worth talking about, any more.

                  Article directories were never there to be used for their own backlinks, anyway. That's never been their function or their purpose at all.

                  As explained in so many of the posts linked to above, this is "article directory marketing", which was a latecomer to the world of article marketing anyway, and its entire raison d'etre has no longer held any validity for a long time, now. It was a kind of "temporary blip on the map". And according to Google, the further developments in SEO are going to weigh still more against it (we can only hope).
                  I would be interested in reading further on this. I personally believe this method still holds value as I see so many article directories listed as top backlinks when I research competitors in the niches I target. Could you post a few links detailing what you've read?

                  Thanks, I appreciate it.

                  Edit: I was thinking about this a little bit more, and I guess the usefulness of generating backlinks in such a manner is all dependent on the quality of competition for your keyword. You don't have to have the best links in the world, they just have to be better than the number one ranked site for that keyword. If all they have are these "useless" backlinks, I just have to have more of those "useless" backlinks to be able to compete.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984903].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by iva View Post

                    Do you submit exactly the same articles (just with a punctuation mark difference) to three different directories?
                    I do now, yes.

                    (I don't get anything back from two of them, to be honest, but I do it anyway "just in case").

                    I've been doing that for over a year, now. Before that, for well over a year I submited them all to eight or nine different directories, but that really was a waste of effort for me.

                    And before that - before I learned better - I mass submitted to over 1,000 directories, using software, believing that it "must" have some SEO value to me. (Nobody is born knowing how to do this stuff!).

                    Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                    I would be interested in reading further on this.
                    Then these threads, following, are just for you ...

                    There's no point in using article directories for their own traffic or their own backlinks. That's not their purpose, and it's an unproductive attempted use of them. As explained in this post.

                    Using article directories for backlinks is a fallacy, as explained here. And here.

                    If they interest you, these few recent threads are worth a read-through, to appreciate the current position with article marketing (actually including "how to use article directories").

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...explained.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-question.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ifference.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...mith-myob.html

                    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...e-wonders.html


                    Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                    Many directories want to have original content.
                    Sorry if I sound heavy-handed about it but sometimes it becomes mildly annoying correcting so much plain factual misinformation, though I still like to do so, for the sake of clarity: that assertion is completely wrong.

                    Article directories do not require previously unpublished content.


                    Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                    I personally believe this method still holds value as I see so many article directories listed as top backlinks when I research competitors in the niches I target.
                    And you think that the fact that your competitors have sites with article directory backlinks somehow shows that it's a method that "still hold value"?

                    Why do you think that?

                    To me, it suggests either that they're pretty old sites with pretty old backlinks (that's easily enough discovered, of course) or that they don't know what they're doing (that's really often the case, you know? Many marketers attended the Urban Myth School of backlinking, and they typically still imagine that backlinking is about "numbers of backlinks" and so on).

                    When I'm investigating niches, and find potential competitors whose SEO appears to be dependent on huge numbers of article directory backlinks and nothing more relevant than that, I'm straight in there, with confidence in the knowledge that my SEO, from just a little bit of syndication and a few relevant backlinks, even without doing any backlinking myself, will easily overtake theirs. 10 or 15 relevant backlinks from decent sites are worth far more than a few thousands (or tens of thousands) of article directory backlinks. No comparison at all.

                    Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                    I guess the usefulness of generating backlinks in such a manner is all dependent on the quality of competition for your keyword. You don't have to have the best links in the world, they just have to be better than the number one ranked site for that keyword. If all they have are these "useless" backlinks, I just have to have more of those "useless" backlinks to be able to compete.
                    Oh dear me ... you really are absolutely determined to take a "quantitative approach" to backlinking, aren't you?! :p

                    I can only offer you the suggestion that reading through the threads listed above, and many others like them here, may be really helpful to you.

                    I also found this bookthis book very helpful (there's a new edition out soon), but there are also 10 or 20 other similar, equally well-known books giving much more detailed explanations of what I've outlined above. It's not inaccessible information, this stuff, and not difficult to learn ... but it does require an acceptance of the fact (and it really is a fact) that many marketers' assumptions about "article marketing and SEO" are pretty fundamentally flawed ones, and perhaps especially in locations in which some discussion participants have interests (either stated or concealed) in the promotion of "mass submission" and "spinning" services.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985401].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Cru
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      I do now, yes.

                      (I don't get anything back from two of them, to be honest, but I do it anyway "just in case").

                      I've been doing that for over a year, now. Before that, for well over a year I submited them all to eight or nine different directories, but that really was a waste of effort for me.

                      And before that - before I learned better - I mass submitted to over 1,000 directories, using software, believing that it "must" have some SEO value to me. (Nobody is born knowing how to do this stuff!).



                      Then these threads, following, are just for you ...

                      There's no point in using article directories for their own traffic or their own backlinks. That's not their purpose, and it's an unproductive attempted use of them. As explained in this post.

                      Using article directories for backlinks is a fallacy, as explained here. And here.

                      If they interest you, these few recent threads are worth a read-through, to appreciate the current position with article marketing (actually including "how to use article directories").

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...explained.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-question.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ifference.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...mith-myob.html

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...e-wonders.html




                      Sorry if I sound heavy-handed about it but sometimes it becomes mildly annoying correcting so much plain factual misinformation, though I still like to do so, for the sake of clarity: that assertion is completely wrong.

                      Article directories do not require previously unpublished content.




                      And you think that the fact that your competitors have sites with article directory backlinks somehow shows that it's a method that "still hold value"?

                      Why do you think that?

                      To me, it suggests either that they're pretty old sites with pretty old backlinks (that's easily enough discovered, of course) or that they don't know what they're doing (that's really often the case, you know? Many marketers attended the Urban Myth School of backlinking, and they typically still imagine that backlinking is about "numbers of backlinks" and so on).

                      When I'm investigating niches, and find potential competitors whose SEO appears to be dependent on huge numbers of article directory backlinks and nothing more relevant than that, I'm straight in there, with confidence in the knowledge that my SEO, from just a little bit of syndication and a few relevant backlinks, even without doing any backlinking myself, will easily overtake theirs. 10 or 15 relevant backlinks from decent sites are worth far more than a few thousands (or tens of thousands) of article directory backlinks. No comparison at all.



                      Oh dear me ... you really are absolutely determined to take a "quantitative approach" to backlinking, aren't you?! :p

                      I can only offer you the suggestion that reading through the threads listed above, and many others like them here, may be really helpful to you.

                      I also found this book very helpful (there's a new edition out soon), but there are also 10 or 20 other similar, equally well-known books giving much more detailed explanations of what I've outlined above. It's not inaccessible information, this stuff, and not difficult to learn ... but it does require an acceptance of the fact (and it really is a fact) that many marketers' assumptions about "article marketing and SEO" are pretty fundamentally flawed ones, and perhaps especially in locations in which some discussion participants have interests (either stated or concealed) in the promotion of "mass submission" and "spinning" services.
                      My comment on original content was in relation to if you are submitting to many different directories. My understanding is that some require that you only submit to their directory if you'd like to get the content on their site, I do understand that you can (and should) post the content to your website first (and make sure it is indexed). But maybe I am wrong and you can put the same article out to 1000's of directories.


                      All of the links you listed don't offer any type of quantitative proof (admittedly, I skimmed only the first 5 or 6)

                      I guess what I am looking for are the actual facts that you keep talking about. All of the threads you link to don't show results of actual testing, it all seems anecdotal. Many of the threads you have provided are the same people spouting the same "50,000-100,000 article backlinks to equal one quality backlink" without any empirical evidence to back it up... Admittedly I did not buy the SEO for dummies book you linked to, but I figure you would have another source for the claims you are making other than what people have said on a forum.

                      My conclusion about backlinking is still valid based on the data that I have. You don't have to have the best SEO site in the world to get number one for a keyword, you just have to be better than the guy that is currently at number one.

                      Do you have actual data, or a link to a site, in which they have done split testing and came up with quantitative data that shows the 1:100,000 (or even 1:50,000) ratio you keep talking about? I would be interested in seeing it.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986442].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                        Do you have actual data, or a link to a site, in which they have done split testing and came up with quantitative data that shows the 1:100,000 (or even 1:50,000) ratio you keep talking about?
                        No, not off-hand (I don't even quite know how that would be done). There's quite a long and detailed explanation of the principle in "SEO For Dummies", which matches what I've read in many other textbooks, but even there I suspect not quantitative proof, sorry.

                        If you start from the premise that some/most of Google's and Matt Cutts' information about "link-juice" being primarily attributed to relevance, and look at what the Panda update has done to article directories (by their own owners' widespread admissions) it doesn't seem even remotely surprising, though. From my own perspective, it's what I've always been told by people here whose views on SEO I trust and have previously found correct, and it's also a complete match for all my own experience (like so many others, I did spend a very long time doing mass article directory submission, myself, without ever getting any measurable or realistic SEO benefits from it), and what so many others have told me about theirs, too. But I certainly won't try to "convince" you if you prefer to ignore it.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986527].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Cru
                          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                          No, not off-hand (I don't even quite know how that would be done). There's quite a long and detailed explanation of the principle in "SEO For Dummies", which matches what I've read in many other textbooks, but even there I suspect not quantitative proof, sorry.

                          If you start from the premise that some/most of Google's and Matt Cutts' information about "link-juice" being primarily attributed to relevance, and look at what the Panda update has done to article directories (by their own owners' widespread admissions) it doesn't seem even remotely surprising, though. From my own perspective, it's what I've always been told by people here whose views on SEO I trust and have previously found correct, and it's also a complete match for all my own experience (like so many others, I did spend a very long time doing mass article directory submission, myself, without ever getting any measurable or realistic SEO benefits from it), and what so many others have told me about theirs, too. But I certainly won't try to "convince" you if you prefer to ignore it.
                          Fair enough. Testing would be easy. Let's say you had a keyword such as buy gold now. You purchase two EMD (exact match domains). One could be buy-goldnow.c0m and the second could be buygold-now.c0m. With one you create one high quality article submitted with your method using the anchor text "Buy Gold Now", and the second you create 100,000 backlinks blasting article directories with the same anchor text of "Buy Gold Now", and see which one ranks higher after 3 months. Or you could slowly blast the articles out and see how many backlinks it takes to overtake the one article method (if you're like me and are skeptical of the 50,000 to 100,000 amount).

                          I guess a pet peeve of mine is when something is stated as "Fact" and there is no research that can be pointed to, to back it up...
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986801].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
                        Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                        My comment on original content was in relation to if you are submitting to many different directories. My understanding is that some require that you only submit to their directory if you'd like to get the content on their site,
                        Please post a link to the submission guidelines for any directory that actually says that.

                        with the exception of Buzzle (which no marketers use these days because you can't even get a link from them anymore!) Article directories are happy to accept previously published content - as long as you own it.

                        Here is what Ezine Articles has to say:

                        All content that is published on EzineArticles must be 100% exclusively owned by you. The content that is submitted CAN be published elsewhere, but must share the same author name everywhere it is published. If you published your article elsewhere and did not include your name, we will not publish your article on our platform. It is important that you own your content no matter where you publish it.
                        From: EzineArticles.com - All Editorial Guidelines
                        Signature

                        I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986718].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Cru
                          Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

                          Please post a link to the submission guidelines for any directory that actually says that.

                          with the exception of Buzzle (which no marketers use these days because you can't even get a link from them anymore!) Article directories are happy to accept previously published content - as long as you own it.

                          Here is what Ezine Articles has to say:



                          From: EzineArticles.com - All Editorial Guidelines
                          Thank you for only quoting half of the paragraph. I said what my understanding was, and you've even stated this, that some require that content to not be published elsewhere. I don't understand what is incorrect about my statement.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986758].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
                            Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                            Thank you for only quoting half of the paragraph. I said what my understanding was, and you've even stated this, that some require that content to not be published elsewhere. I don't understand what is incorrect about my statement.
                            OK if it will make you feel better here is the "whole paragraph"

                            Original:
                            • All content that is published on EzineArticles must be 100% exclusively owned by you. The content that is submitted CAN be published elsewhere, but must share the same author name everywhere it is published. If you published your article elsewhere and did not include your name, we will not publish your article on our platform. It is important that you own your content no matter where you publish it.
                            • Hiring a ghostwriter is acceptable. Proceed with caution and only hire someone you trust. It is still your responsibility to ensure your article content meets the guidelines so be sure to add quality control measures to every article. If they don't pass, fire your ghostwriter.
                            • If you work for an author as an employee or contractor submitting the article, please submit the article as if it was from the original author including his or her email address and name.
                            I still doesn't make what you said correct.

                            When you say:

                            My understanding is that some require that you only submit to their directory if you'd like to get the content on their site
                            and they say

                            The content that is submitted CAN be published elsewhere
                            If you can't see that those two things are opposite, then I don't know what else to say.
                            Signature

                            I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986855].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Cru
                              Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

                              OK if it will make you feel better here is the "whole paragraph"



                              I still doesn't make what you said correct.

                              When you say:



                              and they say



                              If you can't see that those two things are opposite, then I don't know what else to say.
                              Sigh... we are getting into semantics here. What I meant was that some article directories require that you don't publish your article to any other directory but it is ok if it is published on other websites around the net... IE. Post to your site first, and then put it into that one directory.

                              Here is the link you requested: Join Us!

                              This article directory requires unique content, meaning it can't be content that is available elsewhere.

                              When you write on this site, you are still the owner of your work. If you so wish you may remove your own work from this website and post it in a new location at any time. You can also use this website to showcase your work, and even find new business
                              By the way, I meant that when you quoted me, you only quoted half of my paragraph, not half of the ezine paragraph.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986969].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                        My understanding is that some require that you only submit to their directory if you'd like to get the content on their site
                        Then your understanding is mistaken, Cru.

                        Article directories do not require previously unpublished content. This would make no sense of their business model at all.

                        Up until the Panda update of early 2011, there was one called "Buzzle", which did require that the content be submitted only to them. This didn't save them from being massacred, on the traffic front, by the Panda update, and after it they promptly changed their business model and are now no longer an article directory, per se, at all. They allow no external links at all (not even in a "resource-box").

                        Originally Posted by Cru View Post

                        I don't understand what is incorrect about my statement.
                        This surprises me. What's incorrect about it is that it just isn't true.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986769].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author iva
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            I'm afraid it just isn't an indication of the potential exposure of your content. Unless, possibly, you're in the internet marketing market itself ... and even then not to much of an extent. All these "Alexa" figures monitor (and not very reliably) is the visitors to a site who have the Alexa toolbar installed on their computers. And those people are mostly internet marketers. Not customers!

            I can see it (just about, arguably) having some value to someone selling a website in the internet marketing niche, or to someone selling advertising on such a website who expects that prospective purchasers might be interested, but for anyone else, you can really forget it.
            I always thought that Alexa ranking is calculated from both Alexa toolbar users and many additional sources. Help
            So I am not sure that it is only relevant for Internet marketers.

            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            None at all. It seems to be the only one good for syndication.

            My "number of times syndicated" is now well into five figures, across a range of eight different niches, and I've possibly had an article passively syndicated about twice from directories other than EZA, so it's at least 99.9% of the value.

            It's just "the one all the publishers have heard of" so it's where they go to look for content to syndicate.

            I do still submit most of my own articles to either GoArticles or ArticleBase too, on a niche by niche basis, but don't ask me why, because I don't get anything back from it. (I suppose if EZA disappears tomorrow it might be a useful thing to have done?).

            I've seen Warriors saying, occasionally, that they've had one syndicated from either GoArticle or ArticlesBase ... so I persist ... but I suspect, really, that these are people not submitting to EZA. So maybe the reason they manage to get one syndicated from AB or GA (when I don't) is that some thorough publishers will look at EZA first and then still look at GA and/or AB after that in addition. So someone with an article in both will get the EZA copy syndicated but someone not in EZA might manage to get syndicated from AB or GA. Just a theory based on the fact that I can tell where mine have been syndicated from because I change a punctuation-mark in each copy - usually substituting a semi-colon for a comma - so I can later identify the source, after syndication!

            But really, unless you find an article directory specific to your niche (which would be great, of course, because it would make it a context-relevant backlink in its own right, without even being syndicated at all), it's terribly difficult to justify submitting anywhere other than EZA.

            There's clearly no point for traffic or for backlinks, and if you're not going to get syndicated either ... :rolleyes:
            Do you submit exactly the same articles (just with a punctuation mark difference) to three different directories?
            Signature
            Send me a PM if you have any questions.

            "Ask simple questions to get simple answers"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984827].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cru
              Originally Posted by iva View Post

              I always thought that Alexa ranking is calculated from both Alexa toolbar users and many additional sources. Help
              So I am not sure that it is only relevant for Internet marketers.


              Do you submit exactly the same articles (just with a punctuation mark difference) to three different directories?
              Either spin it (if you're in a rush, quality will be low) or rewrite the article manually yourself. Many directories want to have original content.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984853].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cru
        @laptopwarmonmylap

        These are some pretty harsh accusations and completely off topic. Whether or not it is true I don't really think it has a place on these forums... we are just having a friendly conversation about differing opinions here.

        Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

        Alexa and other article syndicators don't worry about rankings. They get traffic directly from the sites that syndicate their articles.

        So yes, you could blast tens of thousands of links at a site with a super competitive keyword and maybe get it ranking a little higher. On the other hand you might get deindexed.

        If you rely on referral traffic from syndicated articles, Google can deindex you all they wan't and you're still getting highly targeted traffic.

        If Alexa can write approximately one high quality article per week and get tons of traffic from that one article, don't you think that is a much better way for her to use her time than trying to get her articles blasted out to thousands of low quality sites just for backlinks?
        Fair enough. I agree that for super competitive keywords this is probably the best method.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986989].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bruce NewMedia
    Referring to the article directories (and many on the list are not article directories) I'll bet you could add them all up and still get more results from Ezine Articles.
    _____
    Bruce
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980940].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tdbasha
    Ditto Bruce.
    Most of those site are, a waste of time (to say the least).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980978].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WebPen
    Articles work pretty well...

    but unless you're getting them syndicated, don't expect amazing results.

    Press releases are the same, but I have better luck with them even if they aren't syndicated.

    If you have to use directories- EZA is still king, but there are a few other good ones too like Articlesbase
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982616].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author supershoesclub
    I do use articlebase ,goarticles and sooperarticles for article submission.I think they are easy to use and bring me good backlinks from other republishers.
    Signature
    http://www.tomorrowbags.com
    ----Choose your favorite fashion .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982984].message }}
  • Don't forget about Big Web Daily. They check for duplicate content on the back end though and won't post dups. It's still in beta, but i use it for my clients articles and it's always in the top 10 as a referrer.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984846].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danr62
    Alexa and other article syndicators don't worry about rankings. They get traffic directly from the sites that syndicate their articles.

    So yes, you could blast tens of thousands of links at a site with a super competitive keyword and maybe get it ranking a little higher. On the other hand you might get deindexed.

    If you rely on referral traffic from syndicated articles, Google can deindex you all they wan't and you're still getting highly targeted traffic.

    If Alexa can write approximately one high quality article per week and get tons of traffic from that one article, don't you think that is a much better way for her to use her time than trying to get her articles blasted out to thousands of low quality sites just for backlinks?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4986873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
    OK Cru, I see where the confusion arises.

    This is freelance, infobarrel, hubpages, squidoo and various others aren't really article directories - they are revenue share sites.

    They often appear the same to outsiders - but they are not.

    Article directories were created so that people who need content can go there and find something suitable that they are free to use as long as the author resource box is also used.

    Revenue share sites are there for the adsense and amazon earnings - which they share with the people who fill them with content. These sites won't allow syndication, so people who need content can't look there. They also typically start rejecting articles, removing articles and banning authors when they see that you are actually using them for links to your money sites.

    I hope that makes it clearer.
    Signature

    I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987070].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Ah, Infobarrel and HubPages and Squidoo, and places like this ... yes, granted: they all have their own terms of service and some of them won't accept content that's previously been published elsewhere. But these are not article directories. At all.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987085].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cru
      Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

      OK Cru, I see where the confusion arises.

      This is freelance, infobarrel, hubpages, squidoo and various others aren't really article directories - they are revenue share sites.

      They often appear the same to outsiders - but they are not.

      Article directories were created so that people who need content can go there and find something suitable that they are free to use as long as the author resource box is also used.

      Revenue share sites are there for the adsense and amazon earnings - which they share with the people who fill them with content. These sites won't allow syndication, so people who need content can't look there. They also typically start rejecting articles, removing articles and banning authors when they see that you are actually using them for links to your money sites.

      I hope that makes it clearer.
      Thanks, that does clear up all of my confusion
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987112].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
        Originally Posted by Cru View Post

        Thanks, that does clear up all of my confusion
        Thank you for having a reasonable discussion.
        Signature

        I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987385].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics