Question about article syndication that I can't find an answer for (After reading a Dracobar Thread)
Unforunately I do not have enough posts to post links, but I recently came across a thread started by Dracobar titled "$30 out of $1000 penguin proves 2.0 works". In said thread Dracobar, the OP, explains how he ranks his websites by syndicating his articles to his own web 2.0's and getting those web 2.0s indexed.
He goes on to explain that he writes his articles as pages (static pages) and writes filler articles as posts (has a date + appears on the rss feed, etc).
He states numerous times that you should never syndicate a "page" article (articles that he wants to rank for his keywords), but to only syndicate "filler" articles that aren't targeting any keywords.
Why is this? Why wouldn't syndicating the articles that I want to rank for, assuming they have been indexed already, help? If I use the resource boxes to link back to the original articles (not directly to the same article, but cross-link them, so for example "syndicated article a links back to original article b", etc)
Does having your content syndicated devalue your content or pagerank in any way?
I realise that some people syndicate everything, as they do not care about google and benefit in other ways from syndication, but if I want to rank like the OP in the mentioned thread, is syndicating everything really that bad?
Thanks in advance guys,
-
travlinguy -
[ 1 ] Thanks - 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832324].message }}-
Iamcap -
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832345].message }} -
-
-
Alexa Smith Banned-
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832344].message }} -
-
Iamcap -
Thanks - 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832352].message }}-
Alexa Smith Banned-
[ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832377].message }} -
-
-
Iamcap -
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832410].message }} -
-
travlinguy -
[ 3 ] Thanks - 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832430].message }}-
Alexa Smith Banned-
[ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6832437].message }} -
-