Google search can be quite a good way of finding them, but you need to get a bit inventive/imaginative with the search-terms, to find blogs/sites relevant to your niche, rather than revenue-sharing, content-buying and content promotion sites.

This is a brilliant source of ezine publishers who are looking for content: Directory of Ezines (not cheap, I'm afraid, but worth every penny).

This is a great source of explanations/suggestions for syndicating articles: Turn Words Into Traffic (low cost, very good value).

And in this post (and in many others) Paul Uhl offers suggestions on syndication which work very successfully for him.

But note that, to achieve syndication, your article must first be written for syndication).

Oh dear, that was a disappointing and unfortunate start. In a recent post on my blog, I suggested the following search criteria:

• [niche keyword phrase] +"write for us"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"submit"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"author guidelines"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"writer guidelines"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"article submission"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"submit content"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"submit an article"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"author submission"
• [niche keyword phrase] +"article submission guidelines"

Also, another excellent idea put forward by another Warrior recently, suggests that you locate some good articles in your niche, probably published on Ezine articles, select a sentence from within those articles, enclose it in quotation marks, and do a search on Google.

This should return any webmasters who have picked it up and published it on their own sites, although it won't help locate any ezines which are totally distributed by email.

Contact those webmasters and offer them a sample of your own work for syndication.

A final solution, and one which most professional syndicators uses, is to buy a lifetime subscription to Charlie Pages' Directory of Ezines. (not an affiliate link).

Here is a link to some lists of Ezines. I've no idea how accurate these lists are, but it could be a good starting point.

Please don't do this, Canyon!

First, it makes a complete nonsense of the thread and makes it quite impossible for anyone else to follow, and benefit from it at all; secondly, it makes us all look pretty silly, because all the answers/references/lists of information we've provided for you in answer to your question now look as if they're answering a completely different question from what you actually asked (or at least as if we've missed the main point about which you were asking). :p

Sorry to go on about it, but forum "netiquette" is that you don't materially change things to which there have already been replies - and certainly not replace one post with another: it's just as easy to post your new question as it is to announce that you've now removed your earlier one and replaced it with something ...

canyon, Annie gave you some good search strings to try. If you start finding too many "content buying sites" and others that only want previously unpublished content, you could try adding +"powered by Wordpress" (in quotes) to your queries. This will restrict the search to sites built with WP and still displaying the footer notice.

You can also try adding +"Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com", which will pick up articles copy/pasted from EZA. As was mentioned above, you know these sites use syndicated material.

The more the better - there cannot be too many. Set up a list and try to slightly personalize each inquiry email you send.

That's your call, but it's not something I would do. For the best results you need to convey a more personalized approach.

It's definitely not what I'd do, myself. You can't gain anything from doing it that way (apart from a little bit of time, arguably) but it's easy to see several potential disadvantages. Especially "loss of individuality", as Annie mentions.

They have the right to decline to publish your material for any number of reasons.

... this certainly could be one of them.

I know I do...

Links out are like an endorsement of the site being linked, so links to questionable sites are undesirable. Exactly what constitutes an "undesirable" link destination will vary from webmaster to webmaster.

[DELETED]