50 Manual article submit or 1200 robot

This is not correct. Websites don't have Page Rank - PAGES have Page Rank. Whatever directory you submit an article to, it will be published on a page without any page rank at all. Subsequently, after (if ever) it gets indexed by Google, it will given a PR-0 (zero) page rank.

EDIT: Sorry, Alexa - I think we were both responding at the same time.

Do you ever read the reponses to your own posts, Webkingseo? :confused:

Every time you say this, people are explaining to you why it isn't so at all, because directories are websites, and websites don't have "page rank" - only pages have page rank ... and whatever the page rank of the article directory's own home page, your articles in it will go on their own newly-formed PR-0 pages, just as they would on your website, or my website, or anyone's website. However, the point is that the sites of which those pages - bearing your backlinks - are part, are non-context-relevant to your specific niche, so that makes the directory's own home-page page-rank rather "academic".

And in any case, the lower the page ranks of your article directory copies, the less risk there is of your customers finding those in preference to the copies originally published and indexed on your own site, where you want the traffic. So submitting to higher-PR pages in directories would actually be pretty counter-productive, wouldn't it, even if you could do it (which you can't anyway!)?

But you seem somehow to ignore all of this, and just keep giving people the same mistaken and inaccurate advice, over and over again, in threads about article marketing ... :confused:

Actually I usually give 25% just as an example, just because it's a convenient, round number which I always guess is typical of the people reading my posts! The point of the CTR number, however, is its reciprocal.

If you have a 25% CTR, then your're losing 75% of your traffic.

If you have a 10% CTR, then you're losing 90% of your traffic.

And so on.

Trying to attract customers from article directories is a really fundamental misunderstanding about article marketing.

And it's why, when you look at all the "highest traffic" entries in article directories, the articles are almost invariably not very well-written, certainly not widely published, and actually not earning their authors much money. Typically, these are authors with a "high quantity approach" - they have huge numbers of articles, but certainly not huge incomes. In article marketing, a "quantitative approach" is usually about as successful as the same approach is in the field of SEO, i.e. not much use at all! These are not people whose understanding of "article marketing" is a valuable one for us.

They do indeed.

Well, I'm "writing articles for traffic". That's what article marketing is: it's getting well-written content in front of highly targeted traffic.

But not in article directories! Those are there for potential publisher traffic, not for potential customer traffic. No serious article marketer wants their customers going to an article directory.

Unfortunately, many people have found it easier to make money selling "article marketing guidebooks" than they ever did by doing article marketing, and when you read their "guidebooks", it shows, because what they're actually talking about is simply attempts to use article directories for their own traffic and/or their own backlinks, which (to put it very politely indeed) is somewhat ill-advised.

I don't, either, I'm afraid ... it's not a niche I know anything about (and I haven't got the shoes for it, really) ...

You can try to estimate this by searching inside those directories (well, mostly in EZA, perhaps?), finding the relevant articles, and then pasting little bits of them, ten words at a time between inverted commas, into Google to see if they've also been reproduced elsewhere, and so on?

Maybe so, yes ... I just don't know, sorry. You need some advice from someone who knows something about the niche and where its "buying traffic" (as opposed to just its "traffic" ) typically comes from - and that isn't me.