Article Syndication Now Frowned Upon by Google?

100 replies
I've just got into Article Syndication and well this is a response I got from a potential Outlet that I contacted:

"Sorry, I'm only interested in 100% original content. If you have any articles that will not be spun on other sites, please let me know.

FYI, with the latest Google updates, article syndication is now frowned upon. While it used to be a great way to get lots of backlinks, Google is starting to penalize sites for this. As an example of this, the articles I posted from Ezine barely show up in search and get very few hits, even though original articles with similar content get tons of hits. Definitely something happened with google there, I suspect. Just a heads up for you."

Are they deluded? OR Is what they say true?
#article #frowned #google #syndication
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    Article Syndication Now Frowned Upon by Google?
    This is nonsense.

    Article directory marketing is certainly frowned upon by Google, though. One only has to look at Google's various websites and blogs, and some of Matt Cutts videos, to know that. He says so expressly.

    But remember. also, that plenty of people don't even understand the difference between the two (we see that, even here, nearly every day, don't we?).

    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    I've just got into Article Syndication and well this is a response I got from a potential Outlet that I contacted:

    "Sorry, I'm only interested in 100% original content. If you have any articles that will not be spun on other sites, please let me know.
    "Spun"?! Well, nobody with a respectable site wants to publish content that's been spun, or might be spun, certainly, but I sense this isn't the point, here, really?

    Whoever said that is obviously confused between "original" and "unique", aren't they? He presumably intended to say that he wanted only "unique content", in other words, he didn't want to publish content that has been previously published elsewhere.

    Well, there are some people who think that. I just take the view that I don't need them, myself, when that occasionally happens. I'm certainly not normally going to try and start educating them about it.

    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    FYI, with the latest Google updates, article syndication is now frowned upon. While it used to be a great way to get lots of backlinks, Google is starting to penalize sites for this.
    This is completely wrong, of course.

    But bear in mind that there are people "out there" who don't understand the difference between duplicate content and syndicated content, who aren't at all aware of the lengths Google goes to in order to clarify that they like syndicated content, who don't understand the difference between "original" and "unique", whose understanding of the whole subject is based on misinformation which came, originally, from the Urban Myth School of Internet Marketing and has been lovingly regurgitated by countless people struggling with what they imagine to be "article marketing".

    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    the articles I posted from Ezine barely show up in search and get very few hits
    Mine also, luckily.

    He doesn't realise that that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

    That was the outcome of the collective Panda updates of 2011 and early 2012, and is a huge plus for article marketers. It means we can submit a copy of our articles (after syndicating them elsewhere) to EZA to try to attract further publishers (who search inside EZA), without any danger of that copy ranking well or being discovered by our potential customer traffic (who search from search engines).

    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    Are they deluded? OR Is what they say true?
    Nooooooo ... don't worry at all: your correspondent there has no idea what he's talking about.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274258].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lukedidit
    Bullsh*t

    If this is true, then we can kiss goodbye to a majority of the worlds biggest news reporting sites.

    Syndication has been around since print was invented, and will be around for a long time into the future too.

    What Google does not want is badly spun duplicate content churning up the results.

    EDIT: I see Alexa jumped on this one quick, I knew she would be here to right the wrongs!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274265].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JEasy
      Originally Posted by lukedidit View Post

      Bullsh*t

      If this is true, then we can kiss goodbye to a majority of the worlds biggest news reporting sites.

      Syndication has been around since print was invented, and will be around for a long time into the future too.

      What Google does not want is badly spun duplicate content churning up the results.

      EDIT: I see Alexa jumped on this one quick, I knew she would be here to right the wrongs!
      You seem to somehow be under the impression that the same rules apply to you as they apply the "biggest news reporting sites". Unfortunately, they don't. Site owners know the deal. They look at their site rankings everyday. Google is shutting the little guy down. That's the way it is.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276172].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    Well your responses have cleared that one up. That's what I thought anyway just wanted a little clarity.

    I'll leave him and move on.

    Alexa, is there a knack to finding people who DON'T have this obsession with unique content. I've emailed about 25 about their site and then posted an article at the end of the email for them to use. The ones who replied (ALL OF THEM) asked "Is it unique?"

    When I reply. NO. I get a "Sorry, not interested" response.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      Alexa, is there a knack to finding people who DON'T have this obsession with unique content. I've emailed about 25 about their site and then posted an article at the end of the email for them to use. The ones who replied (ALL OF THEM) asked "Is it unique?"

      When I reply. NO. I get a "Sorry, not interested" response.
      You're struggling with a niche that's something to do with internet marketing itself, or making money online, or something similar aren't you? (No need to answer! Only rhetorical - and I'm only guessing, of course!). Unfortunately those are the webmasters who tend to be full of this stuff from the Urban Myth School of Internet Marketing. :p

      You'll also find this happens a lot less with ezines than with websites (and the traffic you get from ezines can sometimes be a lot more targeted and more responsive, too).

      How are you finding the sites whose webmasters you're approaching, who are all saying "unique content" to you? Are they all people who are "already set up to take guest posts"? (That can produce results like this, also, sometimes).

      By the way, there's a big discussion of this subject, right here: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post6226558

      I'll repeat here what I said in that thread, also: I've been doing this successfully for over three years, in a range of eight different and unrelated niches, without ever once having supplied previously unpublished content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274332].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        You're struggling with a niche that's something to do with internet marketing itself, or making money online, or something similar aren't you? (No need to answer! Only rhetorical - and I'm only guessing, of course!). Unfortunately those are the webmasters who tend to be full of this stuff from the Urban Myth School of Internet Marketing. :p

        You'll also find this happens a lot less with ezines than with websites (and the traffic you get from ezines can sometimes be a lot more targeted and more responsive, too).

        How are you finding the sites whose webmasters you're approaching, who are all saying "unique content" to you? Are they all people who are "already set up to take guest posts"? (That can produce results like this, also, sometimes).

        By the way, there's a big discussion of this subject, right here: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post6222939
        Let me make one point: I HATE THE IM/MMO NICHE!

        Now I've cleared that up, I won't go into details but my niche is a subniche to Gardening. So something like... Lawn Care (but it's not that).

        I've just been searching, using Google to find Gardening blogs, websites with newsletters and so on.

        I have contacted a few who ask for guest posts so I'll avoid them from now on.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274352].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      is there a knack to finding people who DON'T have this obsession with unique content. I've emailed about 25 about their site and then posted an article at the end of the email for them to use. The ones who replied (ALL OF THEM) asked "Is it unique?"

      When I reply. NO. I get a "Sorry, not interested" response.
      When simply replying "NO" to such a question, you should expect to get similarly flat rejections just about every time. Understand that very often these demands for "exclusive" content is generally a ruse to discourage spinners and spammers from submitting garbage-laden keywords only for the backlinks.

      Instead, answer the question with a bit more engaging conversation, giving your experience in the niche and include a portfolio of other articles such as on EZA. If you're just starting out, offer to write "exclusive" articles on a regular basis, with the reservation these articles will be submitted later for syndication to other publishers.

      It may take several follow-ups to convince publishers to accept your articles. Establishing syndicated outlets is a relationship-building process which does require nurturing.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275570].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AZMD
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      Well your responses have cleared that one up. That's what I thought anyway just wanted a little clarity.

      I'll leave him and move on.

      Alexa, is there a knack to finding people who DON'T have this obsession with unique content. I've emailed about 25 about their site and then posted an article at the end of the email for them to use. The ones who replied (ALL OF THEM) asked "Is it unique?"

      When I reply. NO. I get a "Sorry, not interested" response.
      Please correct me if I'm wrong here but you should have responded with "Yes, the content IS unique."

      When you write a unique article and place it on your website, then submit that article to let's say EzineArticles and GoArticles and they ask you if the article is unique, the answer is YES.

      Now if you took an article that someone else wrote and wanted to submit it, the answer would be NO, the article is not unique to you.

      If you had responded to these people with a true statement saying "Yes" instead of "No" you would have had more acceptance of your personal unique article that you were offering them.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
    As I think I said before, but got shouted down - article directories are the place to post content you want syndicated. If you are contacting site owners directly and offering to guest post then I think they have a right to expect unique content. You are asking them to use their time in responding to you and possibly setting you up as a site user.

    If they want to post non-unique content they can get it for themselves from an article directory. Offering unique content is the basic courtesy I would personally expect from someone who contacts me and offers me an article.

    edit: I'll also add, if you contact me offering to guest post and asking me to host a link to your site, I will always ask if it is a reciprocal arrangement. You'll be surprised how many people I never hear from again! Why should I host your link if you won't host mine?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274329].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dogsun
      Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

      As I think I said before, but got shouted down - article directories are the place to post content you want syndicated. If you are contacting site owners directly and offering to guest post then I think they have a right to expect unique content. You are asking them to use their time in responding to you and possibly setting you up as a site user.

      If they want to post non-unique content they can get it for themselves from an article directory. Offering unique content is the basic courtesy I would personally expect from someone who contacts me and offers me an article.

      edit: I'll also add, if you contact me offering to guest post and asking me to host a link to your site, I will always ask if it is a reciprocal arrangement. You'll be surprised how many people I never hear from again! Why should I host your link if you won't host mine?
      Maybe because you're getting free content?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6277567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    I'm glad I don't email you

    What you're saying makes sense but I don't think that's how it works, after reading countless threads by Alexa and MYOB.

    The submission to article directories part is just a tiny part of article syndication. The bulk of it is building relationships with site owners, sending them HIGH QUALITY content that is not unique and then posting a link in return for high quality content.

    The whole point of this is that website do not NEED unique content unless it's to boost their own ego or they don't fully understand the different between syndicated and duplicate articles.

    An easy way I look at it is: Syndicated Articles are articles published at other locations on different sites.

    Duplicate Articles are articles published at different locations on the same site. So having an article published at domain.com/article1 and the same article at domain.com/article1a would be duplicate.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274346].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
      Banned
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      The whole point of this is that website do not NEED unique content unless it's to boost their own ego or they don't fully understand the different between syndicated and duplicate articles.
      I'm curious - what part of maintaining a unique-content site is ego driven, or a failure to understand the difference between two synonyms?

      I also don't understand why you're insistent on using a method that isn't working. Can you please explain what you believe will happen if you continue this failing strategy?

      What are we missing (not getting) here?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274410].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        I also don't understand why you're insistent on using a method that isn't working.
        That's because you're laboring under a misapprehension about whether or not it's working.

        As about 12 other successful article syndicators here have explained to you in about 12 other threads which you've graced with your prejudiced and ill-informed nonsense on this subject, it isn't a method that isn't working: it's actually a method that's consistently improving, which is why ever-increasing numbers of Warriors are making our livings from it and so regularly reporting here on our successes with it.

        But you haven't apparently read the replies to the nonsense you've posted in so many other threads on this subject, so I have no realistic expectation that this one will turn out to be any different.

        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        What are we missing (not getting) here?
        In your case, a large number of things, many of which have been explained to you, repeatedly, in other threads which you've disrupted in exactly this way.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274580].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      I'm glad I don't email you

      What you're saying makes sense but I don't think that's how it works, after reading countless threads by Alexa and MYOB.

      The submission to article directories part is just a tiny part of article syndication. The bulk of it is building relationships with site owners, sending them HIGH QUALITY content that is not unique and then posting a link in return for high quality content.

      The whole point of this is that website do not NEED unique content unless it's to boost their own ego or they don't fully understand the different between syndicated and duplicate articles.

      An easy way I look at it is: Syndicated Articles are articles published at other locations on different sites.

      Duplicate Articles are articles published at different locations on the same site. So having an article published at domain.com/article1 and the same article at domain.com/article1a would be duplicate.
      Firstly, who told you a duplicate article is what is only published on the same site?

      Secondly, why do you think, someone won't publish the article that was already published on your site?

      For a fact, duplicate pages are not penalized, they are just added to the supplemental pages.

      So, why would anyone shy away from syndication of non-unique content? For the very fact that their page might end up in the supplemental pages.

      Why would an Ezine publisher not shirk from accepting your non-unique article or rather, unoriginal article? Because they don't depend on search engines.

      Got the point now?

      And to Alexa, I just had to rectify you.

      As far as I know, both unoriginal and non-unique content basically mean the same thing. Yes, with some difference here and there, but yeah, the same thing.

      Unique is what is exclusively created for you. Original is what is not being copied and pasted from anywhere.

      Well, we can also include the research and statistical data in here, but most of time, that is not counted since most of us don't have the insider access to the restricted research data. But then, we have to accredit the person we borrow it from.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284317].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      I'm glad I don't email you

      What you're saying makes sense but I don't think that's how it works, after reading countless threads by Alexa and MYOB.

      The submission to article directories part is just a tiny part of article syndication. The bulk of it is building relationships with site owners, sending them HIGH QUALITY content that is not unique and then posting a link in return for high quality content.

      The whole point of this is that website do not NEED unique content unless it's to boost their own ego or they don't fully understand the different between syndicated and duplicate articles.

      An easy way I look at it is: Syndicated Articles are articles published at other locations on different sites.

      Duplicate Articles are articles published at different locations on the same site. So having an article published at domain.com/article1 and the same article at domain.com/article1a would be duplicate.
      Here's something you must read before you go any further:

      Duplicate Content in a Post-Panda World | SEOmoz

      This is an excerpt from the article:

      "Contrary to what some people believe, cross-domain duplicates can be a problem even for legitimate, syndicated content."

      Whatever is duplicate can be punished (which means you will end up in the supplemental index). Please note, I said "can be", which means "may not be".

      This is what is said in the article:

      "Syndicated content is any content you use with permission from another site. However you retrieve and integrate it, that content is available on another site (and, often, many sites). While syndication is legitimate, it’s still likely that one or more copies will get filtered out of search results...If you occasionally syndicate content to beef up your own offerings but also have plenty of unique material, then link back and leave it alone. If a larger part of your site is syndicated content, then you could find yourself running into trouble. Unfortunately, using the canonical tag (IV-5) means you'll lose the ranking ability of that content, but it could keep you from getting penalized or having Panda-related problems."


      So, why would anyone not ask for unique (or, exclusive and original content) articles? Even guest posting blogs will have to take care of this aspect while considering your well-written, high quality article that has already been published and indexed on your blog.

      Got the point now?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
    Who mentioned "duplicate" - apart from you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274353].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    I made an assumption. I do apologise.

    My assumption was made because you said it is courteous that you send websites unique content.

    Why would that be then?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
    Just because all the content on all my sites is unique and I prefer to keep it that way. If I found a really specific piece of syndicated content I might use it, but I don't look in article directories, so that's unlikely to happen.

    Unique content that I have written myself is the way I work. As a guest poster I would hope that "you" (whoever the prospective guest poster might be) would respect that.

    Do you add syndicated content to your own sites?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274373].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    In fact, all the content on my sites is content I then go onto Sydicate to others so in a way yes.

    What advantage do you think you have with unique content over someone with a site of syndicated content?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274376].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author fin
      Stop trying to sell ice-cream to an ice-cream man/woman.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274389].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      In fact, all the content on my sites is content I then go onto Sydicate to others so in a way yes.

      What advantage do you think you have with unique content over someone with a site of syndicated content?
      Actually that could make an interesting experiment. I have this idea (maybe incorrect as I've not tested it) that once Google has indexed an article in a location and made it's "decision" about which keywords to serve it for that it is more likely to serve the first article it indexed - unless there are other factors weighing the equation such as inclusion on a very high PR page.

      So I assume, again could be wrongly, that articles on my sites that are either unique or that I have published there first before syndicating are the ones most likely to be served in the results.

      I therefore assume that if you leave a non-unique article on my site, that has already been indexed elsewhere, it is unlikely to bring many visitors to my site. Whereas I assume a unique article is more likely to get visitors.

      A lot of assumptions there, which is why it would make an interesting experiment.

      @Fin - you almost made me spurt soup across my keyboard.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274574].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

        I therefore assume that if you leave a non-unique article on my site, that has already been indexed elsewhere, it is unlikely to bring many visitors to my site. Whereas I assume a unique article is more likely to get visitors.
        Respectfully, Carol, if you're looking at all the content you publish in your site in terms of its ability to bring visitors to your site, then you won't be able to share with your readers/visitors/subscribers some of the best available content on the web (because it's previously published content).

        Apparently not one of the Webmasters of the ever-increasing number of sites to which all my articles have been syndicated over the years looks at it that way. They just want to share outstanding content with their readers for the value of the content itself.

        Clearly, if you want everything you ever publish to be previously unpublished so that your site is credited with the initial indexation, you have a rather SEO-centric view of the matter. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, at all, if it suits you, but I'm sure you can appreciate that it's not of much interest or relevance to article marketers!

        Fortunately for us article marketers, there are huge numbers of Webmasters who don't feel that. (As is very clear from the fact that they'll even take some articles from directories - which is, obviously enough, what directories are there for in the first place).

        The point of article marketing, from our perspective, is that it's a non-SEO-dependent way of attracting highly targeted traffic.

        Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

        So I assume, again could be wrongly, that articles on my sites that are either unique or that I have published there first before syndicating are the ones most likely to be served in the results.

        I therefore assume that if you leave a non-unique article on my site, that has already been indexed elsewhere, it is unlikely to bring many visitors to my site. Whereas I assume a unique article is more likely to get visitors.
        I'm sure that's all true, overall.

        But why does that matter to you?

        Here's the point: if I offer you an article that's already published on my site, you're not dealing with a choice between unique or non-unique content, are you? You're dealing with a choice between having an additional item of non-unique content or not having an additional item of non-unique content. Are you really going to reject my article because you don't want to have on your site something that's already been published on my site?! Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me at all. There's no downside to you, in publishing it. Why wouldn't you want it?!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274617].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          ...you have a rather SEO-centric view of the matter. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, at all, if it suits you, but I'm sure you can appreciate that it's not of much interest or relevance to article marketers!..
          Yes, I do. I probably work in a rather different way from you. I suspect that many of the webmasters that the OP has been approaching don't work in the way you do and so don't see things the way you do (or I do either, come to that).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274655].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
            I subscribe to the SiteProNews Webmaster News source newsletter. Here are the terms for submitting articles to them for publication:

            Article Submissions to SiteProNews

            SiteProNews.com is one of the Web's oldest and most respected webmaster resource sites, attracting visitors from around the world and reaching a webmaster and site owner audience of more than 600,000 through its weekly newsletter.

            If you would like your article(s) to be considered for publication on our site or in our newsletter, use the submission form below. Keep in mind, this is NOT an article directory. We are ONLY interested in articles on webmaster topics (e.g SEO, social media, RSS, blogging, video, e-commerce and web development, promotion, ranking, & design). We accept two types of article submissions:

            1) General Article Submissions
            Articles that have been previously published elsewhere or that are posted simultaneously to other sites, article directories, blogs, etc. will be considered for publication on our site and may be referenced in our newsletter, but will not be given first preference for Featured Exposure on the SPN homepage or in the SPN newsletter.

            2) Exclusive Articles
            Authors who submit original content articles that have not yet been published elsewhere and who agree not to submit to other sites for a period of ten days following the date of submission to SPN will, if their article is selected, receive the following benefits:

            a.) Featured placement on our homepage and in our newsletter.
            b.) Featured placement on our Facebook page.
            c.) Tweets and retweets through our Twitter account.
            d.) Consideration for video/audio conversion and distribution of the converted article to YouTube and other major video sites.

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

            If an acknowledged industry leader such as SiteProNews is happy to accept and circulate 'Previously Published Content', then I see the argument for syndication as proven.

            Furthermore, they stipulate that they only require any original content submitted to them to remain as such for a mere 10 days.

            Maybe people encountering a bunch of naysayers in their endeavors should refer them to the above requirements.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274835].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author deejones
              I’m constantly coming across syndicated articles that are highly ranked for competitive keywords. And when I say “constantly,” I mean it happened several times just yesterday. So Google definitely doesn’t seem to have a problem with syndicated content.

              As a reader, I don’t see anything wrong with the same content being published on different sites. Even on a site that’s all syndicated content, I imagine most of it will be new to most of the visitors to that site. If I find content that’s useful, interesting, or entertaining, the fact that it might have been published somewhere else just doesn’t bother me. And I'd guess that it wouldn't bother most people.

              Originally Posted by AnniePot View Post

              Furthermore, they stipulate that they only require any original content submitted to them to remain as such for a mere 10 days.
              A lot of big blogs that only accept “exclusive” guest posts put a limit on it. After a certain amount of time (say 2 weeks, or 30 days) you can do what you want with the content. So they don’t seem to be worried about “duplicate” content, or their readers finding the content on other sites. They just want to be the first to publish that content. After that, you can post the article on your own site, syndicate it, etc.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275025].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

                Hmm... well don't online archives contribute to the crux of the problem at hand (duplicate content, as defined by Google and webmasters keen enough to scan for it pre-guest-blog approval?) It sounds like it might have been better to leave the stuff in print.
                It's only a "problem" if you accept that any content published in more than one place is the kind of 'duplicate content' Google is trying to remove AND that you are only concerned with webmasters who refuse already-published content.

                I don't accept either of those premises.

                Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

                I understand what you're saying, but we also have to consider the number of people who are online today. The mass market might have been part of a blissful bunch decades ago, but today, 2,280 million people use the internet (Internet Growth Statistics - Global Village Online) compared to just 16 millions back when I jumped on. And this page: Magazines: By the Numbers | State of the Media certainly doesn't make the magazine industry look very appetizing.
                I'm not talking about "decades ago." I'm talking about this month. I'm also not trying to reach 2 billion people. If I can reach the several-hundred-thousand Redbook readers with an article or reference to a subject they care about, I'm happy.

                Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

                I think you suggested in another thread that avenues such as student newspapers and the Penny Saver are two (example) profitable channels for article syndication. At the risk of sounding offensive, I don't think these channels are the best or or most professional way of introducing oneself. Then again, I guess it just depends on one's goals.
                It does depend on one's goals.

                If you are promoting refurbished computers to cash-strapped college students, an authoritative article reproduced in the school newspaper (which may be read by thousands) could be very profitable.

                If you are promoting a manual on how to sell your car yourself, getting a related article syndicated in a Penny Saver type paper can expose your product to tens of thousands of potential buyers.

                If you work in more general niches, getting pieces published in small town weeklies, which may only be read by a few thousand people, multiplied by the number of papers you can get into (these days, many of the small town papers are owned by larger media companies), may be an excellent source of traffic.

                On the other hand, if you're trying to establish yourself as the preeminent authority on the state of an industry, a 1,000 word piece in the local Penny Saver might not do you much good.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275258].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                  It's only a "problem" if you accept that any content published in more than one place is the kind of 'duplicate content' Google is trying to remove AND that you are only concerned with webmasters who refuse already-published content.

                  I don't accept either of those premises.

                  I'm not talking about "decades ago." I'm talking about this month. I'm also not trying to reach 2 billion people. If I can reach the several-hundred-thousand Redbook readers with an article or reference to a subject they care about, I'm happy.

                  It does depend on one's goals.

                  If you are promoting refurbished computers to cash-strapped college students, an authoritative article reproduced in the school newspaper (which may be read by thousands) could be very profitable.

                  If you are promoting a manual on how to sell your car yourself, getting a related article syndicated in a Penny Saver type paper can expose your product to tens of thousands of potential buyers.

                  If you work in more general niches, getting pieces published in small town weeklies, which may only be read by a few thousand people, multiplied by the number of papers you can get into (these days, many of the small town papers are owned by larger media companies), may be an excellent source of traffic.

                  On the other hand, if you're trying to establish yourself as the preeminent authority on the state of an industry, a 1,000 word piece in the local Penny Saver might not do you much good.
                  Points taken!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275274].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
        Banned
        Originally Posted by rosetrees View Post

        I have this idea (maybe incorrect as I've not tested it) that once Google has indexed an article in a location and made it's "decision" about which keywords to serve it for that it is more likely to serve the first article it indexed - unless there are other factors weighing the equation such as inclusion on a very high PR page.

        So I assume, again could be wrongly, that articles on my sites that are either unique or that I have published there first before syndicating are the ones most likely to be served in the results.

        I therefore assume that if you leave a non-unique article on my site, that has already been indexed elsewhere, it is unlikely to bring many visitors to my site. Whereas I assume a unique article is more likely to get visitors.
        Makes sense to me!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    I'm lost... Who was that directed at Fin?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274393].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    I think to call a particular method failing when people are using it successfully is a bit too far fetched. I, myself, just haven't got to grips with it fully yet. But just because, admittedly, I am failing to put it into practice does not mean you need to refer to it as a failing method.

    Then what other reasons are there for people to demand unique content?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
      Banned
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      I think to call a particular method failing when people are using it successfully is a bit too far fetched. I, myself, just haven't got to grips with it fully yet. But just because, admittedly, I am failing to put it into practice does not mean you need to refer to it as a failing method.

      Then what other reasons are there for people to demand unique content?
      Well, just to be clear, I call it failing because the response you got is pretty much a standard response across the board these days. In fact, those claiming it's a successful strategy are in the minority (so much so, they come off as almost unbelievable). But if you do some research -- away from this forum and on authority sites -- you'll probably come to realize that your only alternative is to offer unique content. 25 rejections is a lot, so hopefully you don't wait until you get 100 or 1,000 rejections before you start to realize this.

      Now the reasons why people demand unique content are many, but I assume two base reasons are (1) to offer a unique experience to their visitors, and (2) to avoid a loss of Google rankings. What good is there, after all, in having a website that can't be found on Google? Or having a site that offers what everyone else is offering?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274486].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
        Banned
        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        Now the reasons why people demand unique content are many, but I assume two base reasons are (1) to offer a unique experience to their visitors, and (2) to avoid a loss of Google rankings. What good is there, after all, in having a website that can't be found on Google? Or having a site that offers what everyone else is offering?
        Before I scour my Twitter feed for the latest IT gossip, I wanted to add that the same applies to newsletters, magazines... any publishing entity. If it helps, put yourself in the consumer's shoes, and consider how you would appreciate subscribing to (and perhaps even paying to read) a publication that distributed content that wasn't unique to the source. If it were me, I'd immediately unsubscribe from a source that sent me information that already existed at multiple places. And I'd certainly demand a refund if that source was a paid source.

        Just something to think about.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274555].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    JO touched on something that might be relevant for you. Sometimes people pick potential syndication outlets the same way they mine for micro-niches. They develop a site or product around a very, very specific small piece of a larger niche - which is fine in and of itself. The trouble starts to surface when they go looking for outlets in the same small piece of the niche.

    Many times, if the niche is too small, most of the audience knows what the authority sites are, and they know the members of the personality cult within the niche. The true devotees develop a milk run of those sites, skimming for new stuff. If the same material appears on multiple sites, it might put a chink in the blogger's authority.

    Under those circumstances, the site publishers might well want content that their audience won't see on other sites. Not because of any "duplicate content penalty", but they are watching out for their audience.

    So what's the answer?

    It's time to start "macro-niching" (did I just coin a new word?). MM, you mentioned Lawn Care. If you write a killer piece on some aspect of lawn care, you should be able to find outlets on sites relating to gardening, landscaping, home improvement, equipment and gadgets related to the same, even real estate or FSBO sites. Plus ezines, newsletters, print pubs, company newsletters sent to customers, etc.

    Sometimes you have to use more creativity in seeking outlets than you do in actually creating the content...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

      Before I scour my Twitter feed for the latest IT gossip, I wanted to add that the same applies to newsletters, magazines... any publishing entity. If it helps, put yourself in the consumer's shoes, and consider how you would appreciate subscribing to (and perhaps even paying to read) a publication that distributed content that wasn't unique to the source. If it were me, I'd immediately unsubscribe from a source that sent me information that already existed at multiple places. And I'd certainly demand a refund if that source was a paid source.

      Just something to think about.
      JO, do you read any mainstream consumer magazines? More and more of them are using content found on the web (aka 'syndicated'). Maybe not for the feature headline articles, but you can find an increasing number in the roundup sections, quoted (with source url) within larger articles, and edited down to filler tips of a few hundred words. In that world, your 'long' 1,000 word article may be just right to fill that partial column they couldn't sell an ad for.

      Just something for you to think about...

      Edit: You say you'd "immediately unsubscribe from a source that sent me information that already existed at multiple places", which assumes that you KNOW that the information already existed in multiple places. That's commonly not so, with the possible exception I gave you credit for in my previous post.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274614].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
        Banned
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        JO, do you read any mainstream consumer magazines? More and more of them are using content found on the web (aka 'syndicated'). Maybe not for the feature headline articles, but you can find an increasing number in the roundup sections, quoted (with source url) within larger articles, and edited down to filler tips of a few hundred words. In that world, your 'long' 1,000 word article may be just right to fill that partial column they couldn't sell an ad for.
        Mainstream? No. Mostly IT stuff. However I did encounter printed syndicated material in the past - in other genres (like 10 - 20 years ago). In fact, if memory serves correct, it was really prevalent back in the mid-90s, which probably birthed my obsession with the diversity and uniqueness of the Internet (when it *was* unique mind you).

        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Edit: You say you'd "immediately unsubscribe from a source that sent me information that already existed at multiple places", which assumes that you KNOW that the information already existed in multiple places. That's commonly not so, with the possible exception I gave you credit for in my previous post.
        I'm an absolute info junkie, staying up at ungodly hours skimming what's "new." So you're correct - being obsessed with a thing definitely raises a certain level of awareness. Thing is, there are a lot of me's out there as just obsessed with something... somewhere. :-)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274723].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

          Mainstream? No. Mostly IT stuff. However I did encounter printed syndicated material in the past - in other genres (like 10 - 20 years ago). In fact, if memory serves correct, it was really prevalent back in the mid-90s, which probably birthed my obsession with the diversity and uniqueness of the Internet (when it *was* unique mind you).
          If you read through magazines aimed at the mass consumer market, you'll find more and more instances where the pub either uses a web-based article intact or quotes a web-based source within a piece. Either way, the source url is included, and does generate traffic.

          Another benefit of being included in print pubs is that most of them have online archives, where your content gets a second life.

          Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

          I'm an absolute info junkie, staying up at ungodly hours skimming what's "new." So you're correct - being obsessed with a thing definitely raises a certain level of awareness. Thing is, there are a lot of me's out there as just obsessed with something... somewhere. :-)
          I'll grant that there are a lot of 'yous' out there. And plenty of them are involved in providing the information you all crave. On the other hand, the aptly named 'mass market' is often orders of magnitude larger...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274777].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
            Banned
            Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

            If you read through magazines aimed at the mass consumer market, you'll find more and more instances where the pub either uses a web-based article intact or quotes a web-based source within a piece. Either way, the source url is included, and does generate traffic.

            Another benefit of being included in print pubs is that most of them have online archives, where your content gets a second life.
            Hmm... well don't online archives contribute to the crux of the problem at hand (duplicate content, as defined by Google and webmasters keen enough to scan for it pre-guest-blog approval?) It sounds like it might have been better to leave the stuff in print.

            Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

            I'll grant that there are a lot of 'yous' out there. And plenty of them are involved in providing the information you all crave. On the other hand, the aptly named 'mass market' is often orders of magnitude larger...
            I understand what you're saying, but we also have to consider the number of people who are online today. The mass market might have been part of a blissful bunch decades ago, but today, 2,280 million people use the internet (Internet Growth Statistics - Global Village Online) compared to just 16 millions back when I jumped on. And this page: Magazines: By the Numbers | State of the Media certainly doesn't make the magazine industry look very appetizing.

            I think you suggested in another thread that avenues such as student newspapers and the Penny Saver are two (example) profitable channels for article syndication. At the risk of sounding offensive, I don't think these channels are the best or or most professional way of introducing oneself. Then again, I guess it just depends on one's goals.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274895].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
              Banned
              I just wanted to bring what I was trying to say together with some sensible tie-ins -- italicized and underlined. (I must finally be getting tired. Yay!)

              Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

              I understand what you're saying, but we also have to consider the number of people who are online today. The mass market might have been part of a blissful bunch decades ago, but today, 2,280 million people use the internet (Internet Growth Statistics - Global Village Online) compared to just 16 millions back when I jumped on. And this page: Magazines: By the Numbers | State of the Media certainly doesn't make the magazine industry look very appetizing.
              So because so many people are now online, yester-year's mass market has probably shrunk and joined the rest of us info-junkies, suffering from the same data obsessions and insomnia that I'm apparently suffering from at the moment!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274974].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Sorry, I'm only interested in 100% original content. If you have any articles that will not be spun on other sites, please let me know.
              The quote above is the substance of the response you received. The person went on to give an opinion but your experience - or opinion - may differ.

              If you have any articles that will not be spun on other sites, please let me know.
              He uses "spun" - not "syndicated". Not the same thing -but the comments about EZA aren't far off. As a thread here pointed out not long ago - a lot of marketers have been spinning articles and submitting them for "guest posts".

              Guest posting is the privilege of displaying your niche expertise and link on someone else's platform. Most good sites outside the IM niche require unique content for a guest post. The article may also appear on the writer's own site - but not be spun and distributed all over the web.

              In the end, it doesn't matter whether this site owner is "right" or not. It's HIS website and his choice.

              kay
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

              I'm going to work on being less condescending
              (Condescending means to talk down to people)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274978].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fin
    BTW I was saying you shouldn't try offering your articles to people you don't think would want them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6274715].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Will Edwards
    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    Are they deluded? OR Is what they say true?
    They are deluded

    However, there are many blogs that require unique submissions these days. Provided the blog/site can give me a high quality, relevant link, I would personally be prepared to write them a unique article too.

    Will
    Signature
    Money-Making Rebrandable Books - Free for a Limited Period!

    Click Here to Get Yours
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275305].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RnGWriter
    People should realize that there is a distinct difference between content being duplicated and content being syndicated. Google has no problem with websites sharing content with their readers but it does have a problem with content being duplicated. They have a hard time distinguishing between the two, which is why you should always link to the article's URL. They are even beta testing the use of Syndication tags. If sharing interesting content is a bad thing...


    There is merit to sharing interesting content with your readers; even guest bloggers realize that. Some blogs accepting guest posts, demand original posts but that does not mean that they will not share your post with their readers. even if they do not publish it on their website, they can share it on facebook or twitter. There are no reasons to not syndicate content on your own website; neither in terms of SEO or of anything else. It does not hurt your rankings provided you credit the original author by linking to them and it certainly does not harm your blog's mojo among your readers! If you share something on Facebook or retweet something, are you friends going to "unfriend" you just because they came across said shared content before you did?

    Of course, if a blog wants exclusive posts then you have to respect that.

    P.S In my experience it is very difficult to get syndicated in niches like IM and MMO. Webmasters don't have to rely on your article because there are 10 other guys struggling for the spot as guest post.
    Signature

    Sign Up For AI BotNinja - A Messenger Chatbot Platform by ChatLeads

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275314].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Google doesn't frown on syndicated content, they love it. Why? Because syndicated content, in the context that many here use it, is always very well written, informative, relevant, readable, and most important, valuable to people interested in that topic. In other words, it's not an assembly of keywords thrown together as link bait.

    Webmasters who don't understand this are not your targets for syndication and it's not wise to spend a lot of time trying to convice them. There are literally tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands or even millions) of sites where the owner or decision maker on what's published gets it. Some of the most successful sites I'm aware of operate almost exclusively publishing syndicated material. Think of Yahoo or MSN. They publish mainly syndicated stuff.

    Article directories are syndicators. But not necessarily the type of syndicators you're looking for. Though it doesn't hurt to put your stuff on the more popular directories, but only after you've placed it with live, active syndication outlets.

    Try this. Pick any market or healthy niche and find an authority in that market. It might be some high profile person or someone more obscure. Then do a search on the person's name. It's very likely that they will have written quite a lot on their topic.

    Notice what sites they show up as an author. Many of the sites accept syndicated articles from other writers, not just high profile people. They thrive on such material. Now, just do what the authoritiy people are doing. Follow them around and then pitch the Webmasters that publish them.

    Don't make this harder than it is. And please, forget about what Google thinks. Produce good information for real people and you'll NEVER go wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275391].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      Don't make this harder than it is. And please, forget about what Google thinks. Produce good information for real people and you'll NEVER go wrong.

      I could NOT have said this any better. Thank you.
      Signature
      ---------------
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6278060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    I give up. Talking about this isn't even fun anymore.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

      I give up. Talking about this isn't even fun anymore.

      I know.

      People will believe what they want to believe.

      John McCabe has the patience and diplomacy of a saint. I read through these threads afterwards, sometimes, and wince at how his posts (which I admire enormously) put mine to shame.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275646].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        is there a knack to finding people who DON'T have this obsession with unique content. I've emailed about 25 about their site and then posted an article at the end of the email for them to use. The ones who replied (ALL OF THEM) asked "Is it unique?"
        Pretty simple - low quality sites won't care....high quality or authority sites don't want content that's syndicated everywhere you look.

        You can't argue with someone about how they build THEIR site.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I'm going to work on being less condescending
        (Condescending means to talk down to people)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275704].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author danr62
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Pretty simple - low quality sites won't care....high quality or authority sites don't want content that's syndicated everywhere you look.

          You can't argue with someone about how they build THEIR site.

          kay
          That's quite a wide swath you're brushing, isn't it? There are many high quality authority sites which do accept syndicated content, and even state as much in their submission/guest posting guidelines.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275928].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Pretty simple - low quality sites won't care....high quality or authority sites don't want content that's syndicated everywhere you look.

          You can't argue with someone about how they build THEIR site.

          kay
          Sounds simple to me. But if your articles are already syndicated everywhere you look, why would you still look for syndication? Because, if they accepted your articles again, wouldn't that really be duplication? :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275949].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          high quality or authority sites don't want content that's syndicated everywhere you look.
          Perhaps not "everywhere you look", but fortunately there's no shortage at all of both high-quality and authority sites who happily syndicate previously published articles, otherwise none of the professional article marketers here would be making so much of a living as we are, I think.

          Some of them might prefer a "unique" article (I don't ask them! ), but if I offer them an article that's already published on my site, they're not dealing with a choice between unique or non-unique content, are they? They're dealing with a choice between having an additional item of non-unique content or not having an additional item of non-unique content. If it's content they want to share with their readers/visitors/subscribers, they're hardly going to reject my article just because they "don't want to have on their site something that's already been published on mine" - what would be the sense in that? There's no downside to them in reproducing it, anyway - either they want it or they don't. Granted, there are some who don't, but I don't need all of them to say "yes", anyway.

          Originally Posted by AZMD View Post

          When you write a unique article and place it on your website, then submit that article to let's say EzineArticles and GoArticles and they ask you if the article is unique, the answer is YES.
          I don't agree with this.

          In my experience, what most people mean by the word "unique" is "not previously published".

          Ezine Articles is unusual in that they have a discussion (on their blog) of exactly what the word "unique" means, and by way of explaining clearly that they don't require previously unpublished content, they actually differentiate between "unique to you" and "unique to us", but most people don't do that sort of thing at all: to most, "unique" means simply that they're the first/only to publish it.

          It's rare for people to get the dictionary out and think about it to any great extent. People think of "unique" as meaning "the only one". In the context of an article, what that means to them is "the only copy".

          Originally Posted by AZMD View Post

          If you had responded to these people with a true statement saying "Yes" instead of "No" you would have had more acceptance of your personal unique article that you were offering them.
          Until they find out that you've misled them with some semantic trickery by having a different meaning of "unique" from the normal one? No, no - this doesn't bear thinking about at all. No point in taking a chance on even inadvertently misleading someone.

          And no need to.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275987].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            I know.

            People will believe what they want to believe.

            John McCabe has the patience and diplomacy of a saint. I read through these threads afterwards, sometimes, and wince at how his posts (which I admire enormously) put mine to shame.
            Shucks....

            Miss Alexa, don't sell yourself short - you're no slouch yourself in the patience department.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276188].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author fin
              I know from reading recent posts that guest posting is becoming a good way to build backlinks and not much else How I Increased My Search Traffic by 200% in 6 Months : @ProBlogger

              The amount of traffic is too low to perfect an article.

              Syndication will become even more beneficial, so best start getting good at finding places.

              Guest blogging has become to popular now. Everyone knows the score: they're meant to click through to your site, but they don't.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276211].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author briley knox
                I don't know about that Google is always looking for good article content why would they change now. I don't see the point. I know we hear alot about Google changing the way they rate web sites all the time, if everything you hear about Google is right then how are they going to make money by getting better customers????
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6277403].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
                Banned
                Originally Posted by fin View Post

                Guest blogging has become to popular now. Everyone knows the score: they're meant to click through to your site, but they don't.
                Quoted for truth and too important to be ignored. Another technique about to be absolutely flooded.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6278031].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AZMD
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post


            I don't agree with this.

            In my experience, what most people mean by the word "unique" is "not previously published".

            Ezine Articles is unusual in that they have a discussion (on their blog) of exactly what the word "unique" means, and by way of explaining clearly that they don't require previously unpublished content, they actually differentiate between "unique to you" and "unique to us", but most people don't do that sort of thing at all: to most, "unique" means simply that they're the first/only to publish it.

            It's rare for people to get the dictionary out and think about it to any great extent. People think of "unique" as meaning "the only one". In the context of an article, what that means to them is "the only copy".
            Thanks Alexa.

            I obviously have some confusion about this.

            Why would anyone write an article and give the only copy to another website owner to use exclusively?


            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            Until they find out that you've misled them with some semantic trickery by having a different meaning of "unique" from the normal one? No, no - this doesn't bear thinking about at all. No point in taking a chance on even inadvertently misleading someone.

            And no need to.
            I respect what you are saying. Semantic trickery and misleading was not intended at all. I do not like being mislead and would never intentionally do so to another person. I just could not see how it could be thought of any other way in regards to articles.

            I appreciate the correction.

            Do you ever write 1,200+ word unique articles and give them away for nothing but a backlink?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276429].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by AZMD View Post

              Do you ever write 1,200+ word unique articles and give them away for nothing but a backlink?
              I never have done so far.

              It wouldn't be for the "backlink", for me - it would be for the "link" (i.e. for the traffic, not for the SEO).

              It's unlikely I'd ever be willing to, but I suppose one should "never say never". If someone really had enough traffic that was highly targeted enough for me? :confused:
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276449].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by AZMD View Post

              Do you ever write 1,200+ word unique articles and give them away for nothing but a backlink?
              This is an excellent point. Because of the resources expended in writing the really high quality article, it is seldom worth the effort to provide "exclusive" content to anyone. The great advantage of syndication is that your efforts are leveraged and amortized over wide distribution. If a publisher absolutely refuses to accept my syndicated articles after several attempts, I just move on to the next. There are literally hundreds of millions of potential publication outlets for my articles.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    << I've just got into Article Syndication and well this is a response I got from a potential Outlet that I contacted:

    "Sorry, I'm only interested in 100% original content. If you have any articles that will not be spun on other sites, please let me know. >>

    There is never a guarantee that content won't be reused, stolen or spun no matter where it's published. In some cases, as with article directories, this is permissible as long as nothing is changed. Yet, as anyone who has been creating "original" content for any length of time knows, many people will grab other people's articles and do with them whatever they want. So even if 100% original content was desirable, there is never a way to ensure that it doesn't get reused, either legitimately or otherwise.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6275904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alfid
    Google Panda really hates duplicate content, I know that much. But if you spin the articles and change the wording enough you should have no problems. I do this with a lot of my blogs and still get decent hits no problem.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276386].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by alfid View Post

      Google Panda really hates duplicate content, I know that much.
      It's lucky, then, for all the professional article marketers here, that syndicated articles are not duplicate content. :p

      "Duplicate content" doesn't mean quite what you imagine it does: you have it confused with "syndicated content" at the moment. The difference is explained here: Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing

      Originally Posted by alfid View Post

      But if you spin the articles and change the wording enough you should have no problems.
      You'll certainly gain no advantage from spinning them - this is for sure. If you want to find out why, I can suggest six little items to read, which offer some insight ...

      (i) This post explains the benefits of spinning;

      (ii) This post, and its links, explain how article directories really work and why they exist;

      (iii) The first half (or so) of this thread contains a good discussion of what you can gain from spinning articles;

      (iv) The advice on this subject given by so many people throughout most of this thread has been really helpful to many people here;

      (v) On the meaning and significance of "duplicate content", in this context, this little post from expert article marketer Anne Pottinger includes direct quotations from Google's WebMaster Central Blog on the subject (not easy to find a more authoritative source than that!);

      (vi) This little article is also a very useful and accurate explanation of the subject.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    I've just got into Article Syndication and well this is a response I got from a potential Outlet that I contacted:

    "Sorry, I'm only interested in 100% original content.
    myob often says this is just a smokescreen to
    scare away the article spammers. Personally,
    I just don't care... There are so many publishers
    that I just move on when I get a response like this.




    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

    It's time to start "macro-niching" (did I just coin a new word?).
    LOL, Nice one!
    I'm finding that with article syndication,
    I don't even need a "niche" and I can
    compete very effectively across entire markets.



    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

    Another benefit of being included in print pubs is that most of them have online archives, where your content gets a second life.
    I just found this out yesterday, quite by accident,
    and I rushed over to the WF this afternoon to share
    my new-found knowledge, only to find that it has
    already been posted by you!

    Can I still tell people or would it be duplicate knowledge?
    Should I spin the knowledge into my own words first,
    or can I just use the "quote" button?



    Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

    Hmm... well don't online archives contribute to the crux of the problem at hand (duplicate content, as defined by Google and webmasters keen enough to scan for it pre-guest-blog approval?) It sounds like it might have been better to leave the stuff in print.
    I still don't care what Google says about anything;
    When webmasters think they are "keen" I ignore them, too..

    My sites are still ranked between the Moon and Pluto;
    I took one of them off the ClearNet completely.

    I am still making a stupid amount of money,
    and I haven't written a single article in May.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276752].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      Can I still tell people or would it be duplicate knowledge?
      Possibly.

      Although, now you mention it, I'm sure I read somewhere on Anne Pottinger's blog that it's only really "syndicated knowledge", and widely misunderstood ...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276806].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      myob often says this is just a smokescreen to
      scare away the article spammers. Personally,
      I just don't care... There are so many publishers
      that I just move on when I get a response like this.
      Please don't misunderstand what I meant. As an "article marketer", you must literally market your articles, in a much broader application and definition of the article marketing model. In essence, selling your articles to publishers in return for an implicit endorsement to their reading audience is a marketing coup over the top ranking websites of the competition. Don't blow off publishers just because of their "smokescreen". Show them what you've got.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276861].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        Please don't misunderstand what I meant. As an "article marketer", you must literally market your articles, in a much broader application and definition of the article marketing model. In essence, selling your articles to publishers in return for an implicit endorsement to their reading audience is a marketing coup over the top ranking websites of the competition. Don't blow off publishers just because of their "smokescreen". Show them what you've got.
        Oh, I do send the two articles in my email as you
        have taught us, so they get the chance to
        to see "what I've got." But if they don't want it,
        I'm getting my five publishers per day without them.

        That being said, I have given "first publish rights"
        to many of the magazines that I've contacted
        from the Writer's Market and this resource.

        But when my articles are rejected for any reason,
        I just don't feel the need to try to work past them
        right now... There are just so many, when they
        say "No" then I say "Next!"

        ...I am also completely ignoring blogs at this point,
        so it may be that I get a lot less of this particular
        excuse than many other writers are right now?
        Signature

        The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

        ...A tachyon enters a bar.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6276955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    MYOB, just wanted to clear one thing up. When I said I repled NO. I didn't mean I literally write an email that said NO. I replied explaining why they were unique, other places they can view my content and so on.

    Thanks EVERYONE for their help on the matter. And sorry for starting the FOR/AGAINST Article Syndication debate on the WF... AGAIN!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6277319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    I think this is where so many people are going wrong when it comes to Article Syndication and fully understanding why people would syndicate your articles.

    There are far too many people stuck in the SEO bubble, obsessed with optimizing their articles for Google (as I used to be). The thing is, it shouldn't be about SEOing your articles but about providing your readers with quality information.

    So why would someone syndicate your articles?

    Because they are informative, entertaining and they feel that their reader would enjoy reading them. No, not to impress Google in any way whatsoever.

    Nowadays, what's more important:

    a) The number 1 spot on Google which you have to constantly fight for by writing SEOed articles that sound unnatural to your readers.

    b) Readers who then talk about your website to their friends, on Facebook and Twitter and maybe on their own blogs without having to spend time ranking.

    I would 100% opt for B without a doubt.

    To me, there are far too many webmasters on here who are obsessed with Google and appear to not care about their readers.

    Look at it this way, say you own a Food Blog and for some reason Gordon Ramsay emails you with a few articles about Cooking (obviously) but those articles that he has written are in no way exclusive. They are on his websites and numerous other food blogs. Do you turn him down because they're not exclusive to your website and fully SEOed. Of course not!

    Why? Because you know what he has to provide will be interesting to your readers.

    In my opinion, that is how Article Syndication works. If you have an interesting, thought provoking, emotive article that readers will enjoy, webmasters will (and should) use your article.

    (PS. Sorry to go on).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rozzski999
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279093].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
      The big problem with this thread, and the majority of threads, is despite knowledgeable Warriors with an immense amount of 'in the trenches' experience providing quality responses, there will always be a bunch of trolls and sometimes newbies, who read the OP but nothing more, then jump in with an off-the-wall one liner or completely outdated urban myth.

      I was reading a thread in the Off topic Forum yesterday (http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ml#post6224551) which has so far accumulated 107 responses, where a surprising number of 'senior' Warriors admit they seldom participate in the main forums any more because so many threads are constantly dragged off track and off topic. It was an eye opener.

      I used to participate in all the article, syndication, and content writing threads all the time, but I have to confess my fuse is much shorter than Alexa, MYOB, Mike Tucker, Joe Robinson, etc. Over the last few weeks I've pulled away.

      But I will pause long enough to say thanks - because I'm not hanging out here as much, I've freed up a lot of time to work on my latest Kindle book.

      And yes, before anyone else point it out, I know my reply is also completely off-topic!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279208].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    What's getting harder? SEO? Article Syndication?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279134].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by rozzski999 View Post

      Its getting harder!
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      What's getting harder? SEO? Article Syndication?
      Building a post count and dropping sig links...:rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    JohnMcCabe... I was in no way posting to increase my signature views on the forum. Not at all!

    I'm planning to try adding 3-5 outlets a day to my article syndication niches, per niche. Is that achievable?

    I must say Annie, I've never actually looked in the off topic section, assumed it would be full of useless threads with newbies building their post count up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279388].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      I must say Annie, I've never actually looked in the off topic section, assumed it would be full of useless threads with newbies building their post count up.
      Posts made in the Off Topic Forum don't accumulate towards your post count total - sorry.:rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279411].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      I'm planning to try adding 3-5 outlets a day to my article syndication niches, per niche. Is that achievable?
      To achieve that goal, you may have to send out 25-50 queries per day. Some excellent resources I still use on a daily basis are the Directory of Ezines, Writers' Market, magazines.com, and several online/offline trade/specialty association directories.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    Aha. Nice! I assumed it would. I'll go check it out. (PS, thanks for helping this to go off topic)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valkerie
    I bought into the whole duplicate content thing - until I sent an original article I wrote to a VA to spin and post. He posted, the original article 15 times without spinning it.

    Result, #1 for site. Granted, it was a low #keyword, but I'm going against sites like WebMD, as well as a host of affiliate sites. This site survived Panda and Penguin with no other links.

    I try to keep my site filled with original content. If you post content from the site, there had better be a link back to me.

    Article or Web 2.0 - shared articles that are well written. Original Content Myth busted by experience.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279534].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      JohnMcCabe... I was in no way posting to increase my signature views on the forum. Not at all!
      No worries. I posted both quotes so people would see that I was simply answering your question about what was getting harder.

      rozzski999 was the one dropping links and bumping post count, not you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    Aha. Thought you were accusing me of something for a minute

    John, do you find offline or online publications more effective in your Article Syndication?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      Aha. Thought you were accusing me of something for a minute

      John, do you find offline or online publications more effective in your Article Syndication?
      Truth be told, with the way I'm set up, I've never taken the time to break it down and study it that way.

      I tend to look at things like seasonality when writing/submitting. For example, it's mid-May as I write this. For offline publishers, I'm already looking at autumn topics because their calendars always run several months ahead.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jamie Hudson
    There's a huge difference between article marketing, spamming badly spun content and syndication.

    Syndication is 100% allowed, all news sites syndicate content. Syndicating is essentially taking an article, usually a snippet and re-posting it on another site (usually talking about the part of the content i.e. the snippet).
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279762].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Jamie Hudson View Post

      Syndicating is essentially taking an article, usually a snippet and re-posting it on another site (usually talking about the part of the content i.e. the snippet).
      I think you may actually be confusing "syndication" with "collation", there, Jamie. That certainly describes collation.

      Syndication refers to entire articles, not to "usually a snippet".

      In fact it's part of the standard article directory terms of service that articles being syndicated from that source may only be taken in their entirety. "Snippets" are expressly forbidden. And article marketers offering content to publishers (of ezines and/or websites) are certainly typically offering only entire articles. (And that would be all that any of the publishers on any of my own syndication lists would take, anyway).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    Agreed with Alexa entirely. I can't imagine any webmaster wanting a snippet of my articles. If I emailed to say here's part 1 of my article, I'll send a bit more in the week. They'd say **** off then. Simple as that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6279925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author drmani
    Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

    I've just got into Article Syndication and well this is a response I got from a potential Outlet that I contacted:
    ...
    Are they deluded? OR Is what they say true?
    Syndication is NOT done for SEO.

    This basic premise may help better understand the
    nuances of guest blogging / content syndication.

    If you want access to a particular publication's
    audience, you play by their rules.

    You don't get to decide WHAT those rules are.

    Just if complying with them is worth YOUR while.

    All success
    Dr.Mani
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6283662].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author troy23
    I think the whole thread is nonsense.

    Who the hell knows what Google wants and what they don't want.
    Who knows what they frown upon.

    Do you know someone on the inside?

    And why do you need to spin content?

    Surely you know your own niche well enough to be able to write original content.

    If you are having to spin content then you really should not be in this game.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6283795].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by troy23 View Post

      Who the hell knows what Google wants and what they don't want. Who knows what they frown upon.
      People who read Google's websites and blogs, and watch Matt Cutts' videos, and see what they say openly about what they want, Troy.

      There are many, many things which they explain openly, clearly and consistently. No "interpretative skills" or "guesswork" is required, to understand those things. Google even puts on conferences and meetings at which many of these issues are discussed and explained in public.

      Late last year, they spent a lot of time saying that they don't want their users to be presented in the SERP's with sites whose owners have manipulated the search engine by buying spammy backlinks. And guess what? Early this year there was an overoptimization update, which (according to the way the people who've bought spammy backlinks are whining) has taken those sites out of the top few pages of the SERP's. It's all clear, and consistent, and logical, and easy to follow. Do you need another 5 examples like that? :confused:

      Originally Posted by troy23 View Post

      Do you know someone on the inside?
      You don't have to. We can all watch Cutts' videos, read his blog, and see the clearcut and easy-to-follow information on the Google WebMaster Central Blog. There's nothing difficult or confusing about it. They regularly release enough clear and consistent information about some issues for there to be no ambiguity about them.

      And anyone interested in looking can also see from the effects of the Panda updates (2011) and so far the first of the Penguin updates (2012) that the outcome is exactly along the lines of what they said they "wanted".

      With some of this stuff, there are no big mysteries.

      People sometimes like to talk about Google as if it's some sort of "cryptic oracle" whose pronouncements should be held at arm's length and interpreted very carefully, anticipating mystery and trickery. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      They don't disclose the input parameters for their algorithms, understandably enough, but they announce their objectives, and let people monitor the outcomes clearly enough.

      Originally Posted by troy23 View Post

      If you are having to spin content then you really should not be in this game.
      No arguments there. I'd actually take it further and say "If you imagine you're somehow benefitting from spinning content, you really shouldn't be in this game".

      Originally Posted by troy23 View Post

      I think the whole thread is nonsense.
      I think small parts of it are.

      Of course the theory that article syndication is frowned on by Google is itself utter nonsense (again, we know that because Google has said so openly, clearly and repeatedly, and - effectively, even if not with this specific intention - from extensive testing of what they say, in our own businesses).

      And of course all Warrior Forum threads about article marketing contain some nonsense, because there are always a few people who reply without reading first, know very little, imagine that article marketing is "part of SEO", don't begin to understand what duplicate content (which they seem sometimes to refer to as "doop", though they themselves are actually the ones duped) is, and simply repeat urban myths based on ignorance and prejudice. It's always been like that - and even more so in other forums than here. Here, many of us do at least assiduously correct most of that misinformation, to try to minimize the damage to others. But this thread has plenty of good and helpful content, too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6283968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    At no point did I say I was spinning articles, I want to make that clear. I write 1000-1500 word articles using my own words entirely. I know my niches and I know them well enough to throw out a 1500 word article quite easily.

    And thanks Alexa for again, an indepth response.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284187].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
    There are a lot of people getting upset, getting their knickers in a twist, and looking for someone to blame - and all this currently due to a lot of smoke - I think the fire is still hidden.

    PotPie Girl has written an analogy that, I think, works. She has likened the current algorithm changes to someone doing spring cleaning. Some parts of the house look better immediately, but some parts look worse initially - when you empty out the cupboards before sorting the contents and putting the good stuff back.

    I think it is too early to see the final results of "penguin", I think google is busy analysing the results of what they have just done and are engineering ways to recover some of the losers and punish some of the unworthy survivors.

    However I think two lessons can definitely be learned, (and to be fair a lot of people learned these lessons a while ago)

    1. Don't try and game Google. You may "win" for a whole - you may even survive one algorithm update. But sooner or later you will probably lose. Google has a habit of punishing people for mistakes they made years ago - which in this context means that it could be dangerous to do something dubious for a quick ratings boost while you are working on good long term strategies.

    2. Don't build your business on Google! Even if you think you are doing everything right you could still become collateral damage.


    And to answer the question of the thread - People who are doing Article Syndication properly don't care what Google thinks.
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    And that's why I am avid believer in Article Syndication and using Article Syndication to build traffic. Because you don't rely on Google for your traffic.

    In these recent Penguin/Panda updates, we have seen so many people get stung and that's why it is now important to explore other ways to build traffic, such as Article Syndication.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284293].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author troy23
    Thanks Alexa - I'm aware of the Google announcements regarding backlinking etc.

    I was referring to their stance on article marketing/syndication which as far as I am aware, they have said nothing about.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284383].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    You've proven my point actually Schttrj. You're someone else with an obsession with ranking in the Search Engines as is evident from your responses here on the WF.

    Maybe looking at Article Syndication as not just an online method of gaining traffic but also offline. Let's say an offline Magazine publishes my article with my link, are they worried about their position in the SERPS... I don't think so.

    The idea of Article Syndication is giving blogs high quality, free content for their readers. The key subject being READERS. It's not quality content for GOOGLE, or any other Search Engine. It is there to entertain their readers.

    I personally think you have completely missed the point of what Article Syndication is.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284733].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      You've proven my point actually Schttrj. You're someone else with an obsession with ranking in the Search Engines as is evident from your responses here on the WF.

      Maybe looking at Article Syndication as not just an online method of gaining traffic but also offline. Let's say an offline Magazine publishes my article with my link, are they worried about their position in the SERPS... I don't think so.
      Do you think, there are more magazines out there to syndicate your online article, rather than blogs, websites and content directories?

      If you think so, you are mistaken! There are almost 200 million blogs out there, my friend, who are waiting to syndicate your article. But damn that "duplicate content" issue!

      Yes, I do not say that there are Ezine publishers as well. Yes, they are few, trust me, few and far between, and they won't really help you in your SE ranking. If you are saying you don't care about organic ranking, you are just missing an IMPORTANT piece of the whole puzzle.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285458].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chronic IM
    Hello!

    Is this a 100% true? Article syndication has been around since I can remember time has begun. A lot of great,big and successful news reporting sites has this kinds of techniques that made them that big, or at least help them be. If this is real, google is dumbfound.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284890].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Chronic IM View Post

      Is this a 100% true?
      It's 100% true that "frowned upon by Google" is utter nonsense, yes.

      Originally Posted by Chronic IM View Post

      Article syndication has been around since I can remember time has begun. A lot of great,big and successful news reporting sites has this kinds of techniques that made them that big, or at least help them be.
      Indeed - exactly so.

      The reality is that Google likes syndicated content, and goes to quite some lengths to say so openly, and repeatedly.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6284941].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        The reality is that Google likes syndicated content, and goes to quite some lengths to say so openly, and repeatedly.
        As much as I want to believe the internet marketing myths, here's another myth that needs to be busted.

        Google doesn't like syndicated content. But yeah, we cannot really say, which page will go up against which one. There are a LOT many factors going on in there, than a simple algorithm.

        And here's a question to you. Show me 10 keywords, where you will get at least one article directory in the top 3 results of the SERP. Why only article directory? You can also show me any site that has syndicated content and is within the "top 10" results.

        Are you game?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manicmethods
    Right, I've finally got my Squeeze Page designed so it doesn't look like your usual scammy spammy BS. I've emailed a potential 40 outlets, so I'll keep an eye out on my inbox in the hope that a few respond positively.

    I don't know what else I can do to make this work. I've followed advice from members likes MYOB and Alexa Smith.

    So fingers crossed it comes off.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285172].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
      Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

      Right, I've finally got my Squeeze Page designed so it doesn't look like your usual scammy spammy BS. I've emailed a potential 40 outlets, so I'll keep an eye out on my inbox in the hope that a few respond positively.

      I don't know what else I can do to make this work. I've followed advice from members likes MYOB and Alexa Smith.

      So fingers crossed it comes off.
      Yeah... Sending it to 40 and waiting is a little
      passive. You want to send it to 40 every day.
      And, if I really want to get into a specific
      publication, I follow up with them two days
      later if I haven't heard back from them.
      I've even gotten responses like, "Oh, you're
      a real person" and "So you wrote this yourself?"
      lmao... Which leads to the personal connection.
      Signature

      The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

      ...A tachyon enters a bar.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285314].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by manicmethods View Post

        I personally think you have completely missed the point of what Article Syndication is.
        Indeed. What seems to be persistently and stubbornly overlooked is that article syndication can be completely independent of Google or any SEO consideration.

        Traffic generation from articles alone is a very powerful marketing model, and is perhaps the most cost-effective method for breaking into even the most hotly competitive and lucrative markets.

        For niches with the most intense competition, there is an increasing advantage for article syndication, because there are generally also more publications available. Contrast this with SEO, where marketers must search for "low competition" keywords to "be #1".

        In my experience, the traffic from my syndicated articles exceeds niche keyword searches by several factors of magnitude.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285424].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mtrentin
    is multiple directory submission considered syndicate or duplicate content? (this is if you are submitting the same article to multiple directories)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285655].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by mtrentin View Post

      is multiple directory submission considered syndicate or duplicate content? (this is if you are submitting the same article to multiple directories)
      In essence, it's article syndication, but search engines "might" treat your article as duplicate content. Check the link I mentioned above.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285673].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    I think the reason that we continually argue about this is that there are two "camps" when it comes to content.

    Camp A sees things only in terms of getting ranked in Google. They want content on their site that has the best chance of that. An article that appears no where else will have the best chance of that. They can't think past ranking in Google.

    Camp B sees that putting your "message" (in this case a well written article) in front of people who want to hear it can get you targeted traffic. Publications in this camp know that having really great articles (no matter where else they have been published) keeps their readers happy. My guess is these publications could care less about Google traffic and I know the article marketers who practice this also could care less.

    Although sometimes people sneak over from camp A to camp B (in the middle of the night when no one is looking), for the most part these two camps will never see eye to eye.

    If you have been building websites and trying to get "free" SEO traffic from Google for any amount of time, then you probably know how fickle Google can be. One day you are at the top, the next day you are gone. This happens even to "white hat" sites that do everything by the rules.

    Seems to me, camp B is getting a much better return on their investment even if it is a little more work in the beginning. It seems to be a better long term plan.

    I guess if you want to publish on sites that are in Camp B, you might look for sites that don't really care about SEO and ranking in Google.

    Lee

    P.S. As I said earlier sometimes people "defect" from Camp A to Camp B but I've never really seen anyone go from Camp B to Camp A, wonder why that is?
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285667].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      I think the reason that we continually argue about this is that there are two "camps" when it comes to content.

      Camp A sees things only in terms of getting ranked in Google. They want content on their site that has the best chance of that. An article that appears no where else will have the best chance of that. They can't think past ranking in Google.

      Camp B sees that putting your "message" (in this case a well written article) in front of people who want to hear it can get you targeted traffic. Publications in this camp know that having really great articles (no matter where else they have been published) keeps their readers happy. My guess is these publications could care less about Google traffic and I know the article marketers who practice this also could care less.

      Although sometimes people sneak over from camp A to camp B (in the middle of the night when no one is looking), for the most part these two camps will never see eye to eye.

      If you have been building websites and trying to get "free" SEO traffic from Google for any amount of time, then you probably know how fickle Google can be. One day you are at the top, the next day you are gone. This happens even to "white hat" sites that do everything by the rules.

      Seems to me, camp B is getting a much better return on their investment even if it is a little more work in the beginning. It seems to be a better long term plan.

      I guess if you want to publish on sites that are in Camp B, you might look for sites that don't really care about SEO and ranking in Google.

      Lee

      P.S. As I said earlier sometimes people "defect" from Camp A to Camp B but I've never really seen anyone go from Camp B to Camp A, wonder why that is?
      To be honest, what I think is, you should be both in Camp A and Camp B. You cannot say, I won't drink milk, I will only drink beer. Both are good for your health.

      If you leave Camp A, you are missing whole LOT of online options that might not only provide you with better SE ranking, but also better exposure to target readers.

      If you leave Camp B, you are still missing on building an overall portfolio, where people just know you by your name and doesn't care about searching for you on the search engine.

      So, if you ask me, both has its own merits and demerits, you cannot discount any one.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6285739].message }}

Trending Topics