SEO Firms: What Is the Highest rate per 500 words you will pay for content? (QUESTION)

81 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey guys and gals,

I want your honest opinion here.

I try to be accommodating and flexible when I give content creation quotes. Naturally, everyone wants to save as much money as they can. I also charge one rate on forums and another on my own site, like many writers do.

But I would like to know what the maximum is you will pay for high-quality, unique content.

Paying your content creator well is the #1 way to earn their loyalty. To be honest, $10/500 word clients are a dime a dozen, and writers don't really feel any particular need to wow them. That's not to say that I don't value those clients. They can really pad my pockets on slow days. On the other hand, they represent *much* more work and more of these clients have unrealistic expectations compared to say, $30/500 word clients. (Just keeping it real)
#500 #content #firms #highest #pay #question #rate #seo #words
  • Profile picture of the author sadekjake
    You have asked a very good question. Content creation is one of the most challenging fields for most marketers as you can never really get hold of someone reliable who will keep delivering over a long term. $1-2/100 word creators are dimes a dozen as you said, and to be very honest I think it is extremely tough for a decent writer to offer/create unique value at that range.

    I personally think $3-4/100 words is a good rate to charge, and I am sure that there are a lot of marketers who will comfortably buy at that range if you can provide quality and RELIABILITY. Turn around time is something content creators are never good with - and this could be your unique value proposition.

    Lastly, I have seen content creators charge premiums for faster turnaround time, research, etc etc. Overall, don't feel tempted to charge a low rate because everyone else is doing so. A lot of people (including me) are already buying at higher rates and I am pretty sure you will receive enough buyers too.

    My ceiling would be $4 per 100 words.
    Signature

    Brand mentions and exposure on reputed news and online media sites. WSO here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718857].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
      Originally Posted by sadekjake View Post

      You have asked a very good question. Content creation is one of the most challenging fields for most marketers as you can never really get hold of someone reliable who will keep delivering over a long term. $1-2/100 word creators are dimes a dozen as you said, and to be very honest I think it is extremely tough for a decent writer to offer/create unique value at that range.

      I personally think $3-4/100 words is a good rate to charge, and I am sure that there are a lot of marketers who will comfortably buy at that range if you can provide quality and RELIABILITY. Turn around time is something content creators are never good with - and this could be your unique value proposition.

      Lastly, I have seen content creators charge premiums for faster turnaround time, research, etc etc. Overall, don't feel tempted to charge a low rate because everyone else is doing so. A lot of people (including me) are already buying at higher rates and I am pretty sure you will receive enough buyers too.

      My ceiling would be $4 per 100 words.
      Thanks for the great info .

      My rates are on the higher end of that spectrum. I don't lower my rates to compete, and I strongly encourage other writers not to do so. It's a race to the bottom. If you engage human readers, charge what you're worth.

      That said, I do occasionally work with people on price if I have the time to fill the orders, and if they order in bulk.

      Reliability is huge. Writers are people too, and sometimes things come up that we can't postpone. When this happens, we lose clients, and that's how it should be. It sucks, but it is what it is.

      Indeed, $10/500 word writers are everywhere, as are $10/500 word clients. And yes, it is exceptionally difficult to create compelling Web content at that price. It's almost impossible to crack the $100 level at that level. I did it a few times when I started out, but it takes a heavy toll.
      Signature

      On the whole, you get what you pay for.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718960].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

    Hey guys and gals,

    I want your honest opinion here.

    I try to be accommodating and flexible when I give content creation quotes. Naturally, everyone wants to save as much money as they can.

    But I would like to know what the maximum is you will pay for high-quality, unique content.

    Paying your content creator well is the #1 way to earn their loyalty. To be honest, $10/500 word clients are a dime a dozen, and writers don't really feel any particular need to wow them. That's not to say that I don't value those clients. They can really pad my pockets on slow days. On the other hand, they represent *much* more work and more of these clients have unrealistic expectations compared to say, $30/500 word clients. (Just keeping it real)
    That is cause they are used to order 500 words for $3 to $5

    I also have high expectations when I order 500 words for $10,- after all I'm paying 2-3 times more so I expect the content to be of higher quality then I can get myself all day long, anywhere.

    And that's the problem with some writers, they feel underrated when working for $10/500 words and thus they start to outsource it to platforms like iWriter.

    Earn their loyalty? Most should be happy they get work.

    You're saying it yourself already, writers have no urge to WOW $10/500 words clients while they do have that urge for $30/500 word clients, so no wonder that the $10/500 word clients start to complain when they receive some basic article that is most likely outsourced.

    One thing I learned and that I want to give as advice to content buyers:

    "It doesn't matter whether you spend $1 or $2 for your content, you end up with the same basic crap (there are a few exceptions as is the case with everything). I have an excellent writer for $1,20/100 words right now which writers much better content then the $2/100 words writers that I tested."

    Personally I feel very uncomfortable spending $3-$4/100 words for website content, for a sales letter, ok why not, for a piece that I plan to use in a newsletter and also use for paid traffic, sure no problem.

    But for some website content, no definitely not, have to add that I launch dozens of sites at a time so you can imagine the costs involved with that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718897].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kapoor297
    I am not gonna write a article for a guy who will be paying $5/500 words. i am not of that level. So i would not write.
    I am not saying that i can't but if you can;t pay $15/500 words for unique article, i would neglect.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
    also have high expectations when I order 500 words for $10,- after all I'm paying 2-3 times more so I expect the content to be of higher quality then I can get myself all day long, anywhere.
    You shouldn't. $10/500 words is an extremely low rate. What exactly are you paying 2-3x more than? Fiverr? That's garbage.

    Yes, you can get lucky on Fiverr, but those writers will move on once they realize what they're worth.

    Finally, real writers don't feel grateful for work at the $10/500 word level. Don't kid yourself. For perspective: I charge $49 for 500 words on Constant Content and get steady sales. On my personal website, I charge $30 per 500 words. I charge more at CC because they take 30%. If you don't pay more than $10/500 words, you probably aren't even on the radar of most writers who can really make a difference to your site's metrics.

    Personally I feel very uncomfortable spending $3-$4/100 words for website content, for a sales letter, ok why not, for a piece that I plan to use in a newsletter and also use for paid traffic, sure no problem.

    But for some website content, no definitely not, have to add that I launch dozens of sites at a time so you can imagine the costs involved with that.
    I think you're being kind of short-sighted. Google is pushing the bar for quality ever higher. If you stick with low-rent writers, you're going to regret it. As mentioned, yes, you can get lucky from time to time. But any decent writer is going to leave you eventually if you're paying peanuts.

    People are starting to expect more from websites. Typos and illogical article structure aren't as tolerated anymore.

    And, to be blunt, your business costs are irreverent to us. Every business has costs, including ours. If you can't afford to scale up, don't scale up.
    Signature

    On the whole, you get what you pay for.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718943].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

      You shouldn't. $10/500 words is an extremely low rate. I charge $49 on Constant Content and get steady sales.

      Yes, you can get lucky on Fiverr, but those writers will move on once they realize what they're worth.

      Finally, real writers don't feel grateful for work at the $10/500 word level. Don't kid yourself.
      If writers don't want to give all they got they shouldn't accept $2/100 word writing jobs, simple as that but no they are probably short on work but their egos get in the way.

      Don't pretend like you know anything about Google, you're as clueless as they come, Google has no way to determine the quality of an article besides checking it for grammar / spelling.

      I already outlined why I would hire a more expensive writer, and that's defnitely not for Google.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718947].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sadekjake
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        If writers don't want to give all they got they shouldn't accept $2/100 word writing jobs, simple as that but no they are probably short on work but their egos get in the way.

        Don't pretend like you know anything about Google, you're as clueless as they come, Google has no way to determine the quality of an article besides checking it for grammar / spelling.
        You're wrong mate. Google keeps striving every day to understand content and it's quality. They are not perfect yet, but they are definitely getting better.

        You mention ego - but you do have to understand that the level you are willing to pay at is not sustainable for anyone to take content writing as a profession and stick to it. And of course at the end of the day, you know it for sure that you get what you pay for. Your $1.2/100 words writer, provided he is really as good as you say, is likely to move soon once he finds out people paying better.
        Signature

        Brand mentions and exposure on reputed news and online media sites. WSO here.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718979].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by sadekjake View Post

          You're wrong mate. Google keeps striving every day to understand content and it's quality. They are not perfect yet, but they are definitely getting better.

          You mention ego - but you do have to understand that the level you are willing to pay at is not sustainable for anyone to take content writing as a profession and stick to it. And of course at the end of the day, you know it for sure that you get what you pay for. Your $1.2/100 words writer, provided he is really as good as you say, is likely to move soon once he finds out people paying better.
          I'm not wrong at all, I still have sites maintain top rankings with content written by $2/500 word writers, yes that low.

          Lol teach me about Google.

          I realize that professional writers need to make $60/hour and well researched articles take time, simple as that, I 'm just pissed of that better writers at higher rates are so scummy that they outsource it to Indian writers (this happened multiple times already).

          The $1,20 writer has other projects coming up, writing is not her core business, she's just filling some empty time, though she's the best writer I ever had. Much much better then $3/100 word writers that I tested. My sites don't need sales copy, (Amazon takes care of that), they need informative content with a personal touch, anyone can write that, even me when I run it through a grammar checker.

          Ever heard of "the product sells it self"? This especially relates very well to this forum or better said the WSO section, they need great writers or they would never be able to sell their crap lol.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718990].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            I'm not wrong at all, I still have sites maintain top rankings with content written by $2/500 word writers, yes that low.

            Lol teach me about Google.

            I realize that professional writers need to make $60/hour and well researched articles take time, simple as that, I 'm just pissed of that better writers at higher rates are so scummy that they outsource it to Indian writers (this happened multiple times already).

            The $1,20 writer has other projects coming up, writing is not her core business, she's just filling some empty time, though she's the best writer I ever had. Much much better then $3/100 word writers that I tested. My sites don't need sales copy, (Amazon takes care of that), they need informative content with a personal touch, anyone can write that, even me when I run it through a grammar checker.

            Ever heard of "the product sells it self"?
            For every webmaster that posts low-quality (often rehashed or outright copied) content and retains their rankings, there are 10 others who lose their rankings.

            I get what you're saying about farming. But really, not many high-rent writers do that. If I were to outsource to India, I would lose my client base in a day. (No offence to anyone from India intended)

            When I come across the claim that you're making, almost invariably the content that the person is bragging about turns out to be horrible—typos everywhere, poor grammar and poorly constructed arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you aren't a native-English speaker (and I don't know if you are), how can you spot crappy content written in English?

            Well-written content leads the reader to the bottom of the page and gets shared a ton. This is a craft, and it takes a lot of work.

            Maybe you're getting lucky; it won't last.
            Signature

            On the whole, you get what you pay for.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719002].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

              For every webmaster that posts low-quality (often rehashed or outright copied) content and retains their rankings, there are 10 others who lose their rankings.
              You have any data to back that up? Guess not....

              You just want to win a discussion that you can't win.

              We were comparing $5-$10/500 words content to the stuff you write, but now all of a sudden you come up with copied content? WOW.

              Nine out of ten lose their rankings due to the backlinking they do. Try again!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719011].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

              I get what you're saying about farming. But really, not many high-rent writers do that. If I were to outsource to India, I would lose my client base in a day. (No offence to anyone from India intended)

              When I come across the claim that you're making, almost invariably the content that the person is bragging about turns out to be horrible—typos everywhere, poor grammar and poorly constructed arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you aren't a native-English speaker (and I don't know if you are), how can you spot crappy content written in English?

              Well-written content leads the reader to the bottom of the page and gets shared a ton. This is a craft, and it takes a lot of work.

              Maybe you're getting lucky; it won't last.
              Lol I'm not a native and for that reason I can't detect crappy content?

              Give me a break.

              I reject 9 out of 10 writers that contact me, how you think I do that? Throw 10 numbers in a bowl, close my eyes and pick one?

              This is an SEO sub forum btw, maybe you should post in the copywriting section where people might appreciate your knowledge as it's clear you know very little about Google / SEO

              Yeah I get lucky, over and over again, wish I had such luck in the casino to win 9 out of 10 times.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719013].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
          Originally Posted by sadekjake View Post

          You're wrong mate. Google keeps striving every day to understand content and it's quality. They are not perfect yet, but they are definitely getting better.

          You mention ego - but you do have to understand that the level you are willing to pay at is not sustainable for anyone to take content writing as a profession and stick to it. And of course at the end of the day, you know it for sure that you get what you pay for. Your $1.2/100 words writer, provided he is really as good as you say, is likely to move soon once he finds out people paying better.
          And the majority of people who can live on that rate are not native-English writers. No offence to anyone out there, but it's true.

          Natives use colloquialisms that other natives will recognize. This means that their content will resonate better with the target audience.
          Signature

          On the whole, you get what you pay for.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718998].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        If writers don't want to give all they got they shouldn't accept $2/100 word writing jobs, simple as that but no they are probably short on work but their egos get in the way.

        Don't pretend like you know anything about Google, you're as clueless as they come, Google has no way to determine the quality of an article besides checking it for grammar / spelling.

        I already outlined why I would hire a more expensive writer, and that's defnitely not for Google.
        You should really look into Hummingbird. Of course Google can tell crap from well-written content. For one thing, well-written content attracts social proof. People share it. Rehashed crap, in general, does not get shared.Creating this type of content is my job. Anyone can cobble words together.

        And if you think that Google won't soon have the ability to directly analyze content for quality, you're dangerously mistaken.
        Signature

        On the whole, you get what you pay for.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9718988].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

          You should really look into Hummingbird. Of course Google can tell crap from well-written content. For one thing, well-written content attracts social proof. People share it. Rehashed crap, in general, does not get shared.

          And if you think that Google won't soon have the ability to directly analyze content for quality, you're dangerously mistaken.
          Once again you have have no clue, Hummingbird is not about quality of content, it's about writing in a certain style, everyone can be instructed to write like that, even the worst writers.

          Social sharing has zero influence on SEO.

          Keep on trying.

          Oh soon is a nice statement, I bet there will have to be a few huge processing power break throughts before that will ever happen, and even then.

          Linkbait content is a complete different topic but content on itself doesn't create that, you can write the best content in the world and still rank at page 500, only with the needed outreach and promotion of that content it will be able to take off.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719007].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            Once again you have have no clue, Hummingbird is not about quality of content, it's about writing in a certain style, everyone can be instructed to write like that, even the worst writers.

            Social sharing has zero influence on SEO.


            Well, you pretty much lost all credibility with this statement. Hummingbird is a complete engine overhaul. It isn't a simple algorithm update. The entire point is to help searchers find higher-quality content.

            I guess you're referring to the longtail. The longtail isn't "the next big thing," or a new type of keyword that you can just stuff and hoped to get ranked.

            By the way, both Google and Bing look at social signals when deciding how to rank content.

            It's time to step out of 2009, bud.

            Not really sure what you mean about Google being able to detect poorly-written content. There is already software that can do this. It's just a matter of coming up with a sufficiently complex algorithm. It won't require a quantum computer, lol.

            Lol I'm not a native and for that reason I can't detect crappy content?

            Give me a break.
            I don't know about you, specifically, but I've known many, many people who speak English as a second language who cannot tell stellar content from bad content. Examples: their vs there, its vs it's, affect vs effect.

            A lot of English speakers don't even know the difference, but for those who do, seeing typos like these makes is a huge red-flag in what is supposed to be authoritative content.
            Signature

            On the whole, you get what you pay for.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719015].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nik0
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

              Well, you pretty much lost all credibility with this statement. Hummingbird is a complete engine overhaul. It isn't a simple algorithm update. The entire point is to help searchers find higher-quality content.

              I guess you're referring to the longtail. The longtail isn't "the next big thing," or a new type of keyword that you can just stuff and hoped to get ranked.

              By the way, both Google and Bing look at social signals when deciding how to rank content.

              It's time to step out of 2009, bud.

              Not really sure what you mean about Google being able to detect poorly-written content. There is already software that can do this. It's just a matter of coming up with a sufficiently complex algorithm. It won't require a quantum computer, lol.
              Hahahaha, dude you really know nothing about Google or Hummingbird, give it up, you're making a clown out of yourself. This is the SEO forum. Hellloooo!

              Google's definition of quality content is purely based on technical concepts, is that really so hard to grasp for you? We're dealing with a bot here.

              Hummingbird is about answering questions/queries in a better way, surprise surprise, the answer doesn't have to be written in a better style, the answer purely needs to match better with the question. An answer written by a 5 year old can match better then any irrelevant answer or for the sake of argument the answer from a crappy Indian writer can match a 1000 times better then the one from a professor that talks about (or adds) complete different things.

              Googles goal is to provide the most relevant results, that's it.

              Google doesn't use social signals like Facebook shares and Tweets to rank content, don't make stuff up, if you want to make such claims then proof it by testing it. Me and many others tested it already.

              I sure hope you're not talking about the Flesch reading test lol as Google already made some statements about that.

              But as said, it seems you're very desperate for sales to come into the SEO forum and make up all kind of stuff.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719026].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
                Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                Hahahaha, dude you really know nothing about Google or Hummingbird, give it up, you're making a clown out of yourself. This is the SEO forum. Hellloooo!

                Google's definition of quality content is purely based on technical concepts, is that really so hard to grasp for you? We're dealing with a bot here.

                Hummingbird is about answering questions/queries in a better way, surprise surprise, the answer doesn't have to be written in a better style, the answer purely needs to match better with the question. An answer written by a 5 year old can match better then any irrelevant answer or for the sake of argument the answer from a crappy Indian writer can match a 1000 times better then the one from a professor that talks about (or adds) complete different things.

                Googles goal is to provide the most relevant results, that's it.

                Google doesn't use social signals like Facebook shares and Tweets to rank content, don't make stuff up, if you want to make such claims then proof it by testing it. Me and many others tested it already.
                You've already demonstrated your ignorance as to how Google ranks content, re: social signals.

                This being the SEO forum is irrelevant. Forums like these are rife with bad information.
                Signature

                On the whole, you get what you pay for.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719039].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author nik0
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                  You've already demonstrated your ignorance as to how Google ranks content, re: social signals.

                  This being the SEO forum is irrelevant. Forums like these are rife with bad information.
                  He just doens't give up does he.

                  Ranking with social signals, the joke of my life.

                  Maybe you can help the social signal sellers blow new life into the crap they sell.

                  I don't know about Bing btw, why would I care with their tiny market share.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719042].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
                    Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                    He just doens't give up does he.

                    Ranking with social signals, the joke of my life.

                    Maybe you can help the social signal sellers blow new life into the crap they sell.

                    I don't know about Bing btw, why would I care with their tiny market share.
                    This is interesting. You seem to be going backwards.

                    When Google first came out, ranking by backlinks was the only way to determine whether content was useful or not. This is no longer so.

                    Social media search engines (like Buzzsumo) are picking up steam because they rank content by how many times said content has been shared on social media. These search engines allow people to search socially. They allow people to instantaneously find content that is proven worthwhile. Why? Because crappy content doesn't get shared. And the spam that does get shared by blackhatters is immediately recognizable for what it is. It's a way that searchers can bypass all the spam that's out there.

                    This is basically the sole reason for the success of Reddit.

                    Google and Bing have both already incorporated social share counts into their algorithms. Google has to be very careful with how they phrase things because of concerns over Google+ and bias.

                    If you think that they ignore this data, again, you are dangerously mistaken. Nor are they going to allow search engines like Buzzsumo to threaten their market share by creating a more relevant product.

                    Go ask Moz if Google doesn't take social signals into account. Specifically, ask them why they immediately started to rank for "Beginner's Guide" after releasing their piece "Beginner's Guide to SEO."

                    Or ask Shrushti if social media played any role in their online presence.

                    Even if search engines aren't yet directly taking social shares into account, sharable content gets more backlinks, which makes it rank faster and higher. Additionally, research from Stone Temple has shown that a Google+ share causes GoogleBot to visit a site more often.

                    Regarding Hummingbird, you might find →this← helpful. And this.

                    You really need to be creating in-depth content that conveys authority in the subject. You aren't going to get that for $10 on a regular basis. Good luck.
                    Signature

                    On the whole, you get what you pay for.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719063].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
                      Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                      This is interesting. You seem to be going backwards.

                      When Google first came out, ranking by backlinks was the only way to determine whether content was useful or not. This is no longer so.

                      Social media search engines (like Buzzsumo) are picking up steam because they rank content by how many times said content has been shared on social media. These search engines allow people to search socially. They allow people to instantaneously find content that is proven worthwhile. Why? Because crappy content doesn't get shared. And the spam that does get shared by blackhatters is immediately recognizable for what it is. It's a way that searchers can bypass all the spam that's out there.

                      This is basically the sole reason for the success of Reddit.

                      Google and Bing have both already incorporated social share counts into their algorithms. Google has to be very careful with how they phrase things because of concerns over Google+ and bias.

                      If you think that they ignore this data, again, you are dangerously mistaken. Nor are they going to allow search engines like Buzzsumo to threaten their market share by creating a more relevant product.

                      Go ask Moz if Google doesn't take social signals into account. Specifically, ask them why they immediately started to rank for "Beginner's Guide" after releasing their piece "Beginner's Guide to SEO."

                      Or ask Shrushti if social media played any role in their online presence.

                      Even if search engines aren't yet directly taking social shares into account, sharable content gets more backlinks, which makes it rank faster and higher. Additionally, research from Stone Temple has shown that a Google+ share causes GoogleBot to visit a site more often.

                      Regarding Hummingbird, you might find →this← helpful.

                      You really need to be creating in-depth content that conveys authority in the subject. You aren't going to get that for $10 on a regular basis. Good luck.
                      For those not into SEO. Anything shared on social media sites is linked to your site using a rel="nofollow" attribute, which means any links pass no direct SEO value.

                      So the links are ignored, the only question worth discussing is can and does Google use social network share/like data as a ranking factor?

                      Although there is correlation data social activity corresponds with SEO rankings (a site that does well on social media tends to do well in Google) , there's no evidence Google uses social metrics like Facebook likes and shares.

                      Correlation is not causation. The cockerel crows in the morning, the Sun rises, that's correlation, not causation.

                      Google could use Google+ share data, they own Google+, but Google can't guarantee access to Facebook share and like data. Facebook is a competitor of Google's and Facebook can block Google at anytime. Google has stated they don't do anything special with social network sites, so if they are telling the truth what would they use from Facebook as a ranking signal they would use from any website?

                      How would Google use Facebook as a ranking signal?

                      BTW Have you been on Facebook lately? You said "Crappy content doesn't get shared", I see nothing but crappy content shared on Facebook. As you touched on the blackhatters think Facebook etc... is a ranking factor so are hitting it hard with crappy spam. It's like saying blog comments are mostly good quality content!

                      David
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719224].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
                        You are oversimplifying.

                        For those not into SEO. Anything shared on social media sites is linked to your site using a rel="nofollow" attribute, which means any links pass no direct SEO value.
                        I guess it depends on how strictly you define "no direct SEO value."

                        Several studies have shown that Google doesn't index no-follows, but it does follow them. There is a difference. A no-follow link from a high-authority domain has inherent value. Furthermore, link-diversity is crucial post Penguin. You don't want to have 100% do-follow links or anywhere near that.

                        Also, no-follow links help you attract do-follow thinks because a link is still a link, and a share is still a share. If your content is of high-quality, a no-follow link can easily lead to a do-follow. I've pulled hundreds of thousands of hits from Reddit alone. You can bet that traffic converted into do-follow links. Pulling traffic from Reddit is incredibly difficult with mediocre content.

                        Re: Facebook, as with everything else, the best content will get shared the most often, and that is what SMSE like Buzzsumo are tapping in to. Google doesn't need the specifics in order to use this data. They just need fuzzy data on how often content is being shared. Then they can assign it a weight within the algorithm.
                        Signature

                        On the whole, you get what you pay for.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719266].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
                          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                          You are oversimplifying.



                          I guess it depends on how strictly you define "no direct SEO value."

                          Several studies have shown that Google doesn't index no-follows, but it does follow them. There is a difference. Furthermore, link-diversity is crucial post Penguin. You don't want to have 100% do-follow links or anywhere near that.

                          Also, no-follow links help you attract do-follow thinks because a link is still a link, and a share is still a share. If your content is of high-quality, a no-follow link can easily lead to a do-follow. I've pulled hundreds of thousands of hits from Reddit alone. You can bet that traffic converted into do-follow links.

                          Re: Facebook, as with everything else, the best content will get shared the most often, and that is what SMSE like Buzzsumo are tapping in to. Google doesn't need the specifics in order to use this data. They just need the fuzzy data on how often content is being shared. Then they can assign it a weight within the algorithm.
                          Ghoster doesn't need the specifics in order to legitimize this data, in order to use this data, They just need the fuzzy data.

                          Good sales copy. Not fooling us old folk.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719304].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Google and Bing have both already incorporated social share counts into their algorithms. Google has to be very careful with how they phrase things because of concerns over Google+ and bias.
                            Not they are not. In fact, as Kevin stated above, Google has given specific reasons why they are not using this sort of data.

                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Or ask Shrushti if social media played any role in their online presence.
                            A role in an online presence does not mean a direct SEO benefit.

                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Several studies have shown that Google doesn't index no-follows, but it does follow them.
                            Of course they crawl them. You don't even need to do a study for that. Google has said they crawl them.

                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Furthermore, link-diversity is crucial post Penguin. You don't want to have 100% do-follow links or anywhere near that.
                            Not one bit true.

                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Also, no-follow links help you attract do-follow thinks because a link is still a link, and a share is still a share. If your content is of high-quality, a no-follow link can easily lead to a do-follow.
                            And now you are just grasping at straws. Of course social media promotion can potentially lead to content being distributed elsewhere. However, that doesn't prove social signals have a direct impact on rankings. They don't.


                            I've pulled hundreds of thousands of hits from Reddit alone. You can bet that traffic converted into do-follow links. Pulling traffic from Reddit is incredibly difficult with mediocre content.

                            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                            Google doesn't need the specifics in order to use this data. They just need fuzzy data on how often content is being shared. Then they can assign it a weight within the algorithm.
                            You are dreaming.

                            Two major reasons that Google will not include Facebook likes and shares in their algorithm:

                            1) They do not have access to enough data to make a determination between real ones and fake ones. It would be even easier to manipulate than links.

                            2) They are not going to give significant importance in their algorithm to something they could be completely shut out of at any moment. Facebook and Google do not have a particularly good working relationship. Google is not stupid. They are not going to give that kind of power or authority to a 3rd party.
                            Signature
                            SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
                            Get a FREE Quote.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719330].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
                          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                          Google doesn't need the specifics in order to use this data. They just need fuzzy data on how often content is being shared. Then they can assign it a weight within the algorithm.
                          And how do they get this fuzzy data without Google being easily gamed by blackhats?

                          I'm sorry, but you can't use an argument like the one above, it's weak. You might as well say Google uses emotions to rank webpages, if the love factor is above the hate factor you get a page 1 rank!

                          David
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719585].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
                            Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

                            And how do they get this fuzzy data without Google being easily gamed by blackhats?

                            I'm sorry, but you can't use an argument like the one above, it's weak. You might as well say Google uses emotions to rank webpages, if the love factor is above the hate factor you get a page 1 rank!

                            David
                            Shares from low-authority accounts can be discarded. Problem solved. You still end up with a subset of data that fairly accurately represents shares. Influencers initiate most sharing.

                            I never said that social shares would replace backlinks, so I don't know what you're on about in that last bit. You give the social share a weight that's much lower than the number of do-follow backlinks, but it still makes a difference.

                            As to your post above, you're splitting hairs. If a prominent no-follow link leads to do-follow links because of referral traffic, that's a direct impact on SEO.
                            Signature

                            On the whole, you get what you pay for.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719991].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                              As to your post above, you're splitting hairs. If a prominent no-follow link leads to do-follow links because of referral traffic, that's a direct impact on SEO.
                              In fairness I think you were claiming a bit more than this so thats why you got certain responses. However that point is taken and I think the response have gotten to be a bit too much. You are not the first to suppose social has direct impact on SEO but I don't recall the responses getting that nasty as they have to you.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720306].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
                              Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                              Shares from low-authority accounts can be discarded. Problem solved. You still end up with a subset of data that fairly accurately represents shares. Influencers initiate most sharing.

                              I never said that social shares would replace backlinks, so I don't know what you're on about in that last bit. You give the social share a weight that's much lower than the number of do-follow backlinks, but it still makes a difference.

                              As to your post above, you're splitting hairs. If a prominent no-follow link leads to do-follow links because of referral traffic, that's a direct impact on SEO.
                              And how does Google determine a low authority Facebook or Twitter or Pintrest account?

                              You said "Influencers initiate most sharing", does this mean only a small number of Facebook users matter? Which ones? How does Google decide which accounts?

                              It's very easy to state "all they have to do is..." but they have to actually be able to do it. Google doesn't own Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest etc... so how are they acquiring this quality data, are Facebook etc.. supplying it to Google for free or fee?

                              Your nofollow/dofollow argument is indirect SEO like I described with the John Lewis ad, it can't be quantified. A nofollow link on Facebook could generate a million dofollow links or none.

                              I could get millions of links from this text below:

                              I own a new news site, I want you to search in Google for "Black Friday Brings Millions To UK Economy". Click the first result, in the top right hand corner of the site is a search form, search for John Lewis, click the first result found. Scroll to the bottom of the main content and click the Facebook share button and share the article on your Facebook account.

                              Go to Facebook and share to all your friends the link you just shared via Facebook and ask your friends if they own a website to add a dofollow link from their websites.

                              I'll let you know how many dofollow links I get, thanks BTW :-)

                              If this generates one dofollow link is that direct SEO value in your eyes?

                              David
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kherk Roldan
    just want to share, I'm paying $5 for 500 words content with my VA

    $30 per 500 words is pretty much big.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719051].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
    Ghoster must write all those "Tweet your way to the top of Google" WSO sales letters. He is clearly able to take pie in the sky theories, and turn them into believable hype spin that almost sounds credible.

    But 99% of what he has said is total fabrication.

    He's an excellent writer, as you can see.

    If I find the time later, when I have less important things to do. I may take the time to explain, with citations from Google - not some random websites opinion like Moz. Why they "Don't" and more to the point "Can't" use social signals as a ranking factor. I shouldn't need to, as this topic has been beaten over the head for over a year now. But maybe for the amusement of the masses.

    To summarize, the problems are more focused around concerns of:

    Server Access To Social Sites
    Server Bandwidth Resources
    And Privacy Laws
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Electrical
      Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire View Post

      Ghoster must write all those "Tweet your way to the top of Google" WSO sales letters. He is clearly able to take pie in the sky theories, and turn them into believable hype spin that almost sounds credible.

      But 99% of what he has said is total fabrication.

      He's an excellent writer, as you can see.

      If I find the time later, when I have less important things to do. I may take the time to explain, with citations from Google - not some random websites opinion like Moz. Why they "Don't" and more to the point "Can't" use social signals as a ranking factor. I shouldn't need to, as this topic has been beaten over the head for over a year now. But maybe for the amusement of the masses.

      To summarize, the problems are more focused around concerns of:

      Server Access To Social Sites
      Server Bandwidth Resources
      And Privacy Laws
      I don't know anything about this so I ask with genuine curiosity.

      Let's say you had an article on a site that had no SEO done for it. The article is about Kim Kardahian's butt implant and it ends up getting spread around Facebook and Twitter, millions of people spread it, doing whatever you do on those social websites.

      All of those millions of shares and likes and whatever else happens wouldn't help the ranking of that article at all?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
        Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

        I don't know anything about this so I ask with genuine curiosity.

        Let's say you had an article on a site that had no SEO done for it. The article is about Kim Kardahian's butt implant and it ends up getting spread around Facebook and Twitter, millions of people spread it, doing whatever you do on those social websites.

        All of those millions of shares and likes and whatever else happens wouldn't help the ranking of that article at all?
        Direct SEO value, none.

        Indirect SEO value, potentially loads. If the visitors own websites and decide to link to your site, the backlinks will have a direct SEO impact.

        It's along the lines of having a TV ad at Christmas, like the John Lewis Monty the Penguin TV ad.


        Running a popular advert on TV has no direct impact on SEO, but millions of people will see the ad, will search for John Lewis TV Ad and link to the page John Lewis Christmas TV Advert with Monty The Penguin just like I did. If the link is dofollow it will pass direct SEO value.

        That's how Facebook works. Artificially inflating likes and shares is pointless SEO wise, for direct SEO value you need links that aren't nofollow.

        If you know how to make content go viral on Facebook etc... it could have a major impact SEO wise due to links. Not easy to get crappy content go viral, not easy with quality content.

        David
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719554].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

        All of those millions of shares and likes and whatever else happens wouldn't help the ranking of that article at all?

        As SEO dave covered It most likely would but indirectly. If it is shared a lot and enough people see it the higher number of webmasters that will see it and potentially link to it.

        I think we need to be careful when we say Social cannot help SEO. Any form of publicity can help with organic white hat link building. its just not something that can be directly quantified or in many cases relied on (since most people won't link from their own websites).

        wasn't this a thread about content?
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719855].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
        Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

        I don't know anything about this so I ask with genuine curiosity.

        Let's say you had an article on a site that had no SEO done for it. The article is about Kim Kardahian's butt implant and it ends up getting spread around Facebook and Twitter, millions of people spread it, doing whatever you do on those social websites.

        All of those millions of shares and likes and whatever else happens wouldn't help the ranking of that article at all?
        This has already happened many times. Look into Shrushti.



        "Correlation is not causation" is a blanket argument. Yes, it's true, but you can't use that kind of argument on specific cases. I mean in general, not you specifically .
        Signature

        On the whole, you get what you pay for.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9719997].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

          This has already happened many times. Look into Shrushti.

          "Correlation is not causation" is a blanket argument. Yes, it's true, but you can't use that kind of argument on specific cases. I mean in general, not you specifically .
          Causation is what is important.

          There are zero documented cases of a webpage ranking based on social signals.

          The only "evidence" there is are these idiots that keep putting out reports which show nothing more than a correlation between top ranked sites and social signals. What they blatantly fail to address is which came first. Did the social signals bring the rankings or did the rankings (and resulting traffic) bring the social signals?
          Signature
          SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
          Get a FREE Quote.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720049].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

          Shares from low-authority accounts can be discarded. Problem solved. You still end up with a subset of data that fairly accurately represents shares. Influencers initiate most sharing.

          I never said that social shares would replace backlinks, so I don't know what you're on about in that last bit. You give the social share a weight that's much lower than the number of do-follow backlinks, but it still makes a difference.

          As to your post above, you're splitting hairs. If a prominent no-follow link leads to do-follow links because of referral traffic, that's a direct impact on SEO.
          Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

          This has already happened many times. Look into Shrushti.



          "Correlation is not causation" is a blanket argument. Yes, it's true, but you can't use that kind of argument on specific cases. I mean in general, not you specifically .
          Have there been newer Google citations since January 2014?


          April, Nope. Starts out by pointing out the poster first question being an "assumption". Goes on to discuss the algo moving more weight to relevance over PR.


          Anything newer
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    This pretty much ends the discussion.

    Signature
    SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
    Get a FREE Quote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jezter6
    SEO section is getting very angry today.

    Someone might even give you an infraction and report your post for being a meanie...

    Apparently skin is much thinner these days.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by jezter6 View Post

      SEO section is getting very angry today.

      Someone might even give you an infraction and report your post for being a meanie...

      Apparently skin is much thinner these days.
      Lol who gives a **** about infractions these days or any days, it's not like the WF is that profitable (like it used to be).

      Don't get me wrong, without the WF I would still be a nobody, it allowed me to make a great small fortune, on the other hand if the WF wasn't here there would most likely be another forum as things always even their selves out.

      I'm quite exceptional I guess, I've received at least a handful final warnings and a dozen perm bans for being direct and it really doesn't change me in any way.

      Don't get me wrong, I love this forum, but I can't stand bullshit.

      That;s just me, I'm 38 now, and I read that it's very hard if not impossible to change someone once he reached 25+ or something, even when some one wants to change at that age it's hardly possible.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720239].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        I'm quite exceptional I guess, I've received at least a handful final warnings and a dozen perm bans for being direct and it really doesn't change me in any way.
        Keep it up and you'll get a permanent one if this is going to be your new posting style. this is jsut waaaaay over the top

        Originally Posted by niko

        Fat ass American piece of shit
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9720296].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Keep it up and you'll get a permanent one if this is going to be your new posting style. this is jsut waaaaay over the top
          I suppose the Amercian part bothered you?

          Yes I went a bit to far, apologies to OP, had a rough night and didn't really care about a thing.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9721190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    We happily pay $40 per article all day long.

    I know of other business owners that pay $400 per article.
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9721182].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
      Originally Posted by John Romaine View Post

      We happily pay $40 per article all day long.

      I know of other business owners that pay $400 per article.
      Thanks for your reply. It blows my mind when people come on claiming that no one pays above $10-$20 for content.

      Bottom line is, there's content, and then there's content.
      Signature

      On the whole, you get what you pay for.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722654].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
    Wow, this thread blew up.

    Even if the search engines don't use social yet, they will in the near future, so it's a moot point. Same goes with grading content for quality.

    Cutts:

    Facebook and Twitter pages are treated like any other pages in our web index so if something occurs on Twitter or occurs on Facebook and we're able to crawl it, then we can return that in our search results. But as far as doing special specific work to sort of say “you have this many followers on Twitter or this many likes on Facebook”, to the best of my knowledge we don't currently have any signals like that in our web search ranking algorithms.
    A benefit of corporate compartmentalization is that you can have one spokesman say something and be wrong. Later they can just say, "It wasn't my department."

    Just sayin'.

    As to how they would get the data, they're Google. If something like Buzzsumo exists, they can get the data.

    BTW, Google Authorship.

    “Over 10 years, we’re more likely to understand identity, and to understand the social connections between people.”
    Sounds pretty social.
    Signature

    On the whole, you get what you pay for.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722659].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
      Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

      Thanks for your reply. It blows my mind when people come on claiming that no one pays above $10-$20 for content.

      Bottom line is, there's content, and then there's content.
      Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

      Wow, this thread blew up.

      Even if the search engines don't use social yet, they will in the near future, so it's a moot point. Same goes with grading content for quality.

      Cutts:



      A benefit of corporate compartmentalization is that you can have one spokesman say something and be wrong. Later they can just say, "It wasn't my department."

      Just sayin'.

      As to how they would get the data, they're Google. If something like Buzzsumo exists, they can get the data.

      BTW, Google Authorship.



      Sounds pretty social.
      A whole load more..


      Seriously, Authorship is it now? LMAO
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I guess you are just going to keep ignoring the part where he says that the big problem with considering social signals is that they could be blocked from crawling social sites at any moment, and it has happened before.

    It's okay to admit that you were wrong, but if you just want to keep arguing a point that has been proven over and over again to be false, so be it.

    And BTW, Google dropped authorship.
    Signature
    SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
    Get a FREE Quote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722693].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I guess you are just going to keep ignoring the part where he says that the big problem with considering social signals is that they could be blocked from crawling social sites at any moment, and it has happened before.

      It's okay to admit that you were wrong, but if you just want to keep arguing a point that has been proven over and over again to be false, so be it.

      And BTW, Google dropped authorship.
      Didn't see your posts above.

      I was probably thinking schema.org and rich snippets. Just get back to me in 5 years about whether social signals aren't fully integrated . They don't need direct access to Twitter or Facebook. Fuzzy data = estimate, and an estimate is all they need if they're giving it a low weight in the overall scheme of things.

      Too tired to go line-by-line, but I'm sure I'm wrong about some things. No one's knowledge is perfect.

      Not sure what you're problem is with the statement about 100% do-follow links. That is a horrible idea. Unless I misunderstood you. Link diversity is hugely important, and no-follow links are powerful if you engage in content marketing correctly. You can convert them into do-follow links, but more importantly, they can build immense brand awareness.

      I guess if all you care about is ranking in Google, this doesn't mean much to you. I think a brand's overall online surface area is much more important, myself.

      awareness+engagement=profit.

      Joshua Unseth, YouMoz

      To put it into context, of the people that came to the article as a direct or indirect result of the nofollow, ~1% made a comment on the article itself, and ~2% blogged about it – actually, if you count this article, then the results were blogged about by 3% of the visitors.

      While I don't think that these numbers would hold on a site with more viewers, I think that they represent the way in which content ends up going viral. In the end, ALL IT TAKES IS ONE LINK, and its follow status doesn't seem to make a difference.
      If all you ever seek is do-follow links, than you are focusing too tightly on SERPs, imho.
      Signature

      On the whole, you get what you pay for.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723097].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author raiko
        Not to change the subject but has anyone checked if there is a correlation between facebook likes or shares and resulting backlinks. I know it was mentioned previously that viral posts may end up being linked to by webmasters which could result in an indirect SEO boost but I wonder what the correlation between the two is? What would that coefficient would be? I assume it would be positive and less than 1. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients would be interesting. If it was cheaper to write a mildly viral post, which leads to 100 good links, than create your own PBN to get those same amount of links, maybe that would be the way to go.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723152].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        Didn't see your posts above.

        I was probably thinking schema.org and rich snippets. Just get back to me in 5 years about whether social signals aren't fully integrated . They don't need direct access to Twitter or Facebook. Fuzzy data = estimate, and an estimate is all they need if they're giving it a low weight in the overall scheme of things.

        Too tired to go line-by-line, but I'm sure I'm wrong about some things. No one's knowledge is perfect.

        Not sure what you're problem is with the statement about 100% do-follow links. That is a horrible idea. Unless I misunderstood you. Link diversity is hugely important, and no-follow links are powerful if you engage in content marketing correctly. You can convert them into do-follow links, but more importantly, they can build immense brand awareness.

        I guess if all you care about is ranking in Google, this doesn't mean much to you. I think a brand's overall online surface area is much more important, myself.

        awareness+engagement=profit.

        Joshua Unseth, YouMoz



        If all you ever seek is do-follow links, than you are focusing too tightly on SERPs, imho.
        It's humorous, how you keep avoiding confronting the citation given from "Google". Most of what you've claimed about anything SEO related, Is a complete fabrication.

        And here's another magical piece of misinformation about the rel-nollow tag. And your claims that "Link diversity is hugely important".

        Sure it's important, if important = >1% of the webs rel tags.


        You take out today's https: paged social sharing sites, that Google have said they don't count and nothing much has changed.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723564].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        Didn't see your posts above.

        I was probably thinking schema.org and rich snippets.
        That's a big difference.

        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        Just get back to me in 5 years about whether social signals aren't fully integrated . They don't need direct access to Twitter or Facebook. Fuzzy data = estimate, and an estimate is all they need if they're giving it a low weight in the overall scheme of things.
        If you had been around longer, you would remember a time when some people were thinking that search engines might start incorporating a lot of data based on MySpace into the algorithm. Good thing they didn't do that.

        And your crap about "fuzzy data". I think you are missing the fact that Google would be completely stupid to incorporate that kind of data into their algorithm. It is far easier to manipulate that kind of data than it is to manipulate links. They have enough of a problem battling against people manipulating links.

        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        Not sure what you're problem is with the statement about 100% do-follow links. That is a horrible idea. Unless I misunderstood you. Link diversity is hugely important,
        See, my problem with that statement is that unlike you, I don't just parrot ideas that I hear other "gurus" saying. I actually test things for myself and, even more than that, investigate the SERPs. All the answers are right there in the search engine results. I have ranked pages with 0 nofollow links in their backlink profile. I have found plenty of pages in the SERPs where I cannot find any nofollow links pointing at them.

        So yeah, that kind of diversity is a big myth. Creating nofollow links because you think a backlink profile should have them to look natural is just a waste of time.

        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        and no-follow links are powerful if you engage in content marketing correctly. You can convert them into do-follow links, but more importantly, they can build immense brand awareness.
        That is something completely different. We are talking about pure SEO benefit. Not what might happen if you get lucky.

        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        I guess if all you care about is ranking in Google, this doesn't mean much to you. I think a brand's overall online surface area is much more important, myself.

        awareness+engagement=profit.
        I never once said that brand awareness wasn't important. That was never the argument though.

        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        If all you ever seek is do-follow links, than you are focusing too tightly on SERPs, imho.
        Actually, I would say the opposite. If you are focusing on adding nofollow links because you believe in some mythical need for them in order to look natural, then it is you that is focusing too tightly on SERPs.
        Signature
        SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
        Get a FREE Quote.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PassiveInk
    Be cautious. Anything offered for less than $50 is questionable!

    Content = Online Experience

    "We are heading to a new paradigm in 2015 where content is KING."
    Content is the nuts and bolts its the basis of everything that you do online. If you don't have good content on your website, visitors will immediately bounce out of there and be on to someone else's site.

    We need content spreading throughout the web, your SEO and link building efforts can easily fail without content. And, if you don't have good social media content, nobody will share, re-tweet, or "Like" it and you will never be able to build up your brand.

    Why would anyone ever think that content should be cheap? Content holds the value of online success and if you think that it should be found at a black Friday special, you're crazy.

    My opinion, a piece of good, quality content is worth $50 to $225 and sometimes even more. Two things: Consider the "why" of the piece and the length of the piece.

    Obviously the cost of a few 500 word articles or press releases is different than the cost of creating a 20 page ebook. Businesses that don't GET THIS, will laugh and ignore the price. Make no mistakes in this area. Content is King.
    Signature

    Eric
    Passive Ink.
    NicePassiveIncome

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PBMax
    OP, I went down swinging one time trying to claim that social sigs were the new black, but a year later I see zero evidence of this and I think it may be time to put the idea that social impacts rankings to bed.

    Of course it can send direct traffic to your site, traffic that hopefully doesn't bounce too soon, but even then expecting to get a link outta the deal is a reach.

    Just keep writing solid content and let people worry about their sites' rankings. Your job is to put pretty furniture and accents in the house, not house maintenance.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722729].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEO-Dave
    I've reread this thread and want to flip the original question on it's head.

    As a writer that says they are high quality and does appear capable of writing at least reasonable quality content (going on the way you've wrote in this thread), how much do you think you should be paid to generate high quality content?

    I'm interested in quality content that engages the reader, so not your average here's another 500 words on subject A just to fill a site with content or in a feeble attempt to create content to add backlinks from.

    I want content that I and my more savvy visitors won't suspect it's been paid for or quickly created with no passion for the subject.

    How much money do you expect so you care about what you write?

    David
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722928].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
      Originally Posted by SEO-Dave View Post

      I've reread this thread and want to flip the original question on it's head.

      As a writer that says they are high quality and does appear capable of writing at least reasonable quality content (going on the way you've wrote in this thread), how much do you think you should be paid to generate high quality content?

      I'm interested in quality content that engages the reader, so not your average here's another 500 words on subject A just to fill a site with content or in a feeble attempt to create content to add backlinks from.

      I want content that I and my more savvy visitors won't suspect it's been paid for or quickly created with no passion for the subject.

      How much money do you expect so you care about what you write?

      David
      That would be $30 per 500 minimum, in general. I will gladly go to 800 or so for that price if the subject matter merits it. The writing comes naturally; it's the outline and research that take the most time. I don't add fluff, so if the subject matter merits 500 words, you're getting 500 words.

      I've worked for $100 per 500 and I've worked for $30 per 500 and I've worked for $10 per 500. Prices vary by a number of factors, but as a general rule, if the content requires special knowledge, the price goes up.

      Most good writers will work with you on price if they have time in their schedule, but they don't make a habit of working in the $10/500 bracket.

      Think of it this way: I can either do 4 articles in a day for $40, or I can do 4 for $120. Surely we can agree that that is a substantial gap.

      The latter customers will cost me more to acquire, but they are better "quality" clients. They don't fuss as much, and they don't have unrealistic expectations. They leave me alone and let me do my job. These clients recognize the difference between brand ambassadorship (which, when you get right down to it, is my job) and plain old Web content. They don't want to fill their domain with thousands of mediocre articles. They want to dominate their niche with articles that attract organic backlinks.This saves them time and money overall because it means their social marketing team doesn't have to spend hours promoting mediocre content that no one wants to link to.

      Naturally, they give better referrals, too.

      Scope-creep is a huge deal when working with lower-budget clients. I've had $10 clients who for whatever reason expected me to upload their content to WordPress or find images for them. Nope, not what we agreed on. Scope-creep is a bitch because it means that the $10 I'm earning is really $7 because I've got a guy goosing me for free work that I'm not billing for. It generally doesn't happen when dealing with $30+ clients.

      ______

      • It's perfectly OK to ask your prospective writer how they intend to make your content shareable or backlink worthy if you're paying a decent price. It's NOT ok to expect this if you're only paying $10. Sorry.

      • They should have a plan for this. If you've put down a deposit, ask them to send you their outline before they begin writing. You can tell a lot about their skill level by how they've structured the piece. The introduction shouldn't just pose a problem to the reader, it should offer hope of a solution and tease a bit.

      • Your writer should front-load the article with relevant and useful information to establish authority in the subject matter—without selling the farm.

      • A good writer will keep fluff to an absolute minimum while maintaining an authoritative yet friendly tone. To that end, they should keep adverbs (look for words that end in "ly") and vague words (also, like, etc) to a minimum. At the same time, they should use transitions (However, Moreover, Furthermore) frequently to establish flow and authority. Finally, they should vary their sentence length to keep the reader engaged.

      • Stellar writers know how to create attention-grabbing headlines, and they know how to create content that stands apart in some way from everything else that's already out there. It's not just about getting a clean bill of health from CopyScape.

      • A high-rent writer will provide references to authoritative domains (not Wikipedia).

      • Grammar should be flawless, and you shouldn't find typos. They will know the difference between "its" and "it's," "affect and effect," etc, etc. I think I said this up-thread, but when your readers come across these typos, it's extremely off-putting. Your authority goes right out the window.

      • Ask your writer upfront if they farm out content. Obviously, you don't want this. For $30+, they should absolutely NOT be outsourcing your work.It's counter-intuitive, but the cheap writers are more likely to outsource.

      You can't really judge a writer based on their forum posts. I know some who just let it all hang out on forums, so to speak, but they turn in flawless copy.

      Last thing I can think of off the top of my head..if you want to be taken seriously by a real writer, be prepared to pay at least 50% up front. After a few transactions, I might let it slide. For other writers, this is a hard-and-fast rule. In a perfect world, we wouldn't ask for money up front. But it is what it is.

      Let the writer invoice you, and ask them to note the terms in the invoice. That way, if you get a bad apple, you won't have any problems winning a PayPal dispute.

      One final note: You absolutely CAN find great writers at the $10/500 price. The issue there is that writers tend to increase their prices as they gain confidence. There are a lot of hidden costs associated with working with these novice writers. I see the same people posting in the "Want To Hire" section for new writers like clockwork.

      A lot of business owners overlook these hidden costs. What do you pay yourself per hour? If you spend just 2 hours finding and hiring a $10 writer, the article had better make you a lot of money down the line. Time is money. On the other hand, if you hire a good writer, you're practically guaranteed backlinks if you know how content marketing works (Hint: stellar content + Reddit) Sure, it costs more upfront, but you will gain tangible benefits right away.


      Any other questions, let me know.
      Signature

      On the whole, you get what you pay for.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9722998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FreedomBlogger
    I would personally pay up to $50 per 700 - 800 words article. But it has to be very unique and very very valuable!

    You always get what you pay for!

    I hope this helps!

    Keep up the great work!!

    I wish you the best of the best!

    Cheers!
    Signature
    At the beginning, I thought making money online with a blog was super super hard. Not anymore. Learn the art of making money online blogging - step by step - HERE.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723696].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Back on topic for this post, I've paid writers over $100 for a single article before. Really depends on the niche and the type of expertise needed.

    I generally won't work with writers that charge per word though. I give them a topic with some very specific instructions and guidelines and they write it.

    I hate word counts. Too often a writer will be cutoff because of a word count and the article wraps up with a shitty finish or they inflate the article with a bunch of useless fluff to hit some artificial number. No thanks.
    Signature
    SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
    Get a FREE Quote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723766].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Back on topic for this post, I've paid writers over $100 for a single article before. Really depends on the niche and the type of expertise needed.

      I generally won't work with writers that charge per word though. I give them a topic with some very specific instructions and guidelines and they write it.

      I hate word counts. Too often a writer will be cutoff because of a word count and the article wraps up with a shitty finish or they inflate the article with a bunch of useless fluff to hit some artificial number. No thanks.
      The writer shouldn't take the word count literally. They are charging you for a minimum. If it goes over 100-200, it's no big deal.

      Fluff can be the result of you overestimating how many words your subject matter warrants.
      Signature

      On the whole, you get what you pay for.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723977].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Electrical
        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        The writer shouldn't take the word count literally. They are charging you for a minimum. If it goes over 100-200, it's no big deal.
        You have to pay for an extra $5 gig for every 100 words over.










        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723985].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
          Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

          You have to pay for an extra $5 gig for every 100 words over.



          This ain't fiverr.
          Signature

          On the whole, you get what you pay for.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724250].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

            This ain't fiverr.
            So is this just your classified ad then?

            As a writer, you know what ethos logos and pathos is and I've watched you attempt to establish those things here...

            No need to defend yourself - I've just read the whole thread and look at the intention behind the words. I get it.

            Job well done.
            Signature
            Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
            http://www.godoveryou.com/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724395].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
              Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

              So is this just your classified ad then?

              As a writer, you know what ethos logos and pathos is and I've watched you attempt to establish those things here...

              No need to defend yourself - I've just read the whole thread and look at the intention behind the words. I get it.

              Job well done.
              Cool accusation, bro.

              If I were trolling for clients, I would be dropping my signature.

              If I dropped it somewhere up-thread by mistake, please let me know and I'll remove it.

              To be clear: I'm not looking for work, so please don't PM me. Not that anyone is likely to after I made a jackass of myself on the last page . I'm just shooting the breeze on a weekend. If you do have a question about the writing world, hit me up.

              Or..hold on..I'll solve the problem. There you go:
              Signature

              On the whole, you get what you pay for.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724426].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
                Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                Cool accusation, bro.

                If I were trolling for clients, I would be dropping my signature.

                If I dropped it somewhere up-thread by mistake, please let me know and I'll remove it.

                To be clear: I'm not looking for work, so please don't PM me. Not that anyone is likely to after I made a jackass of myself on the last page . I'm just shooting the breeze on a weekend. If you do have a question about the writing world, hit me up.

                Or..hold on..I'll solve the problem. There you go:
                Pointing out the obvious isn't an accusation, it's an observation.

                This was your signature before you changed your reply to me:


                Push me.
                Signature
                Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
                http://www.godoveryou.com/
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724486].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author nik0
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

                  Pointing out the obvious isn't an accusation, it's an observation.

                  This was your signature before you changed your reply to me:


                  Push me.
                  Lol really, and here he's saying writers won't give their best shot for $10/500 words and there he was advertising $10 for EIGHT HUNDRED WORDS.

                  I was exactly right in my thoughts lol, oh well typical WF behavior.

                  At that rate I cut you some slack Ghoster, you can write for me as your English is decent enough, I don't pay upfront though as I've been scammed 2 times already in the past weeks and don't feel much for waiting Paypal disputes to work out in my favor, we pay after delivery same like we always did. So hit me up if you're short on work.

                  For the record, my writers, about a dozen of them all get paid after delivery and i haven't seen any threads of people accusing me for not paying, and that after 100.000's of words per week for almost 3 years already.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9725203].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Electrical
            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

            This ain't fiverr.
            No, it's not. Fiverr actually works.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724413].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
              Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

              No, it's not. Fiverr actually works.
              Works at what? Yeah, you can get lucky. But what is the cost in time? Every time you send it back, you're losing money.
              Signature

              On the whole, you get what you pay for.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724434].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Electrical
                Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

                Works at what? Yeah, you can get lucky. But what is the cost in time? Every time you send it back, you're losing money.
                Still better and less scammy than what you find here.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724475].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
                  Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

                  Still better and less scammy than what you find here.
                  Weird. I hope that lasts for you.
                  Signature

                  On the whole, you get what you pay for.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724481].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

        The writer shouldn't take the word count literally. They are charging you for a minimum. If it goes over 100-200, it's no big deal.
        Unfortunately thats really not good enough. Verbally contract wise I am still on the hook for the word count thing I agree with Mike. Once you start talking about certain amount of dollars per 100 words to me you are into the low side of writing so you are contributing to your own low prices. In the non IM/SEO world writers do not talk like that. Feature writers for magazines (online and off ) are hired to cover a subject and no one counts each word ( wife was a writer for a newspaper).

        So to answer your question. I am unlikely to go above $10-$20 for a 500 word article. I will go up to and over a hundred dollars If you are going to write a good piece on a subject and you are going to write something people want to link to (and that means it has to be more than good but interesting).

        You also certainly will not get 50% upfront from me until I know you are good because sorry all writers say they are good. I'd rather go to a service that I can accept the article before I pay or at least have a third party go as a middle man than to just give some new writer I know nothing about 50% upfront. Writing samples do not mean squat. I would need to know how you do on a job for me and my subjects before you get half upfront.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724012].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Unfortunately thats really not good enough. Verbally contract wise I am still on the hook for the word count thing I agree with Mike. Once you start talking about certain amount of dollars per 100 words to me you are into the low side of writing so you are contributing to your own low prices. In the non IM/SEO world writers do not talk like that. Feature writers for magazines (online and off ) are hired to cover a subject and no one counts each word ( wife was a writer for a newspaper).

          So to answer your question. I am unlikely to go above $10-$20 for a 500 word article. I will go up to and over a hundred dollars If you are going to write a good piece on a subject and you are going to write something people want to link to (and that means it has to be more than good but interesting).

          You also certainly will not get 50% upfront from me until I know you are good because sorry all writers say they are good. I'd rather go to a service that I can accept the article before I pay or at least have a third party go as a middle man than to just give some new writer I know nothing about 50% upfront. Writing samples do not mean squat. I would need to know how you do on a job for me and my subjects before you get half upfront.
          No one counts each word? Can't tell if trolling.

          Have you ever picked up a copy of Writer's Market? Yes, Web copy is treated slightly differently, but writers still get paid by word. Heck, even content mills pay by word. What I meant was, I charge for a minimum of words, and then I might go over if the content merits it. That's a good thing for you, not a bad thing. A lot of writers do it this way. But if you say to end the article at 500 words on the dot, then I will. No big deal.

          And newspapers? Of course they pay by word. National daily's pay $1/word up. Now, if you have a weekly column, you may be paid a flat fee, but you're still hitting a minimum word count that is inclusive of that price. To be clear: even if they paid a retainer, that retainer covers a minimum of words, so they are still being paid by the word.

          _____


          Regarding upfront, I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't work with you, and nor would most serious writers. To be frank, when a client is paranoid of being ripped off, that tells me that they might not be properly bankrolled. It's a red flag. Maybe they've just been ripped off in the past, but I don't know, and this is business. The more they insist on paying after I turn in the work, the more I require as a deposit.

          If they walk, they walk. Plenty of other fish in the sea. The advantage really goes to the writer here. Novice writers don't realize this, so they're more willing to be paid after they've completed the work. And they get burned. This might be what perpetuates the notion that writers don't require payment up front. Consider: there are a hell of lot more novice $5-$10 writers out there than there are pros.

          Just keepin' it real, sorry if my tone sounds derisive. That's not my intent. But if you have a problem that you can't solve on your own, how does it make sense that the person solving your problem should have to wait to be paid?


          This is something that we have to put up with a lot, actually. A lot more than say, a mechanic would. A lot of non-writers assume that writing is easy. But if it was easy, you guys would do it yourself. If you could do it, but you just don't have time, why would the person doing it for you accept payment after the fact? That doesn't make sense. It's simple supply and demand. If you need a problem solved badly enough, you'll accept my terms. If not, bye-bye.

          Besides, it's not like we're dealing in cash. I send you a Paypal invoice detailing exactly what I'm going to do and when. If I don't, you get your money back. Simple. Where is the writer's protection? There is none.

          Regarding middlemen like Elance, freelance writers despise these companies. It's a race to the bottom. Why should we give them a cut when they do nothing for us but attract lowballers? We have to spend hours sorting through $1/100 word projects to find something with a realistic budget. Then we have to write proposals and compete with dozens of other people. No thanks.

          And, if you're of the mindset that no one pays up front, you're very mistaken.

          ______

          Sorry again for being such a jackass last night. You're absolutely right that I wouldn't want someone coming into my hangout and telling me what the writing industry is like.
          Signature

          On the whole, you get what you pay for.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724263].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

            No one counts each word? Can't tell if trolling. [
            Oh vey. I am on the only one cutting you some slack and rudeness is your reply? Okay if thats the way you want it

            Have you ever picked up a copy of Writer's Market?
            yes you ignorant soul I have. As a matter of fact we had a subscription for it and a bunch of back copies. Go ahead and tell any of the publishing houses or magazines you want payment before the piece. You have to prove yourself first not post on a forum.

            Yes, Web copy is treated slightly differently, but writers still get paid by word
            No professional writer outside of IM and those not good enough that they have to come on forums (like yourself) and ask about work and what they should charge counts words for a job. If you claim so then you are full of garbage. When My wife got a job she asked what the editor was looking for content wise, what the readership was and what was the intent and goal of the coverage was. Thats how pros do it in the publishing world. She never ever said Okay I'll write 500 words and you pay me ten dollars. ROFL......some jobs require a ton load more research than others so a writer that just quotes a cost per word as a blanket generality is a rank amateur.

            Will you get paid on the back end for the length of your article? why yes but its just drivelling nonsense that you go in saying oh I will write 500 words and you pay me such and such.

            Look you obviously are full of yourself and obviously thought you would encounter no one experienced with the REAL professional writing world but you would have been better on another forum because the fact you are in here asking what we would pay you is a sure sign you are half starving as a writer. You gave yourself away.

            Sorry again for being such a jackass last night. You're absolutely right that I wouldn't want someone coming into my hangout and telling me what the writing industry is like.
            No need to apologize it seems you can't help it and today is no different. You are still braying.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724493].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by Ghoster View Post

            Regarding upfront, I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't work with you, and nor would most serious writers.
            You would never have the opportunity you poor soul. I don't hire professional writers trolling in SEO sections for work. I prefer my writers less desperate. Yes I would hire a writer offline who I knew and came recommended and pay them upfront but not you or anyone in the Internetz claiming "Ise can writes". Your trolling in SEO forums for work is to coin a word - a derecommendation. Go to the back of the line.

            To be frank, when a client is paranoid of being ripped off, that tells me that they might not be properly bankrolled. It's a red flag
            If its a red flag that I wouldn't hand over cash to ANYONE on the Internet claiming they can write (of which you are a dime a dozen) then you are even more the fool than others have said you are...only its systemic and not related to SEO alone.

            The more they insist on paying after I turn in the work, the more I require as a deposit.
            and since that hasn't worked for you here you are in the SEO section trying to find out what we will pay you (which is a fee level sliding downward with each post of yours )

            But if you have a problem that you can't solve on your own, how does it make sense that the person solving your problem should have to wait to be paid?
            Only problem - Deluded in NC - is theres nothing special about you solving the problem. Coming in and trolling of all places the SEO section shows you don't have much imagination or style. I can get writers from the common wealth that runs circles around you who have been writing better English than you from eight years old who due to exchange rates will work for less than you. This is why below exceptional writers like yourself come online and cry and weep on forums - You can't compete. You want the industry to change because you just are not good enough to demand more.

            Now if you had come in with some humor, originality, even a hint of imaginative intellect and written a post everyone found entertaining or informative then you MIGHT have found some work but the whole trolling thing shows you are like plenty of writers-

            trying to find out how to get paid more but not really worth the price increase.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724538].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Ghost a couple things. i generally think you got slapped a bit too hard by others in this thread and said so earlier. You are far from the first to think social has ranking metrics so its no big deal to me .

      However part of the response is because you are assuming things that there really is no solid evidence for. I cut you some slack because this thread was about content and identify you as a writer. I don't expect you to know as much about SEO. Personally I wish we had just stuck to that as given the title and the OP this long discussion about social and SEO is hidden from those who might find it useful.

      We do get tired of people coming into our profession and thinking they know it all. SEOs don't normally go into the writing and copyright section and tell writers all about their profession. Its a little arrogant - but pretty common - that every one regardless of what their main thing is tends to think they have SEO down and can lecture even those whose main thing it is - but hey nowadays everyone is a SEO so thats hardly just you..

      You ARE off on social and sorry yes you ARE off on nofollow for SEO (No one is saying you should turn down or not seek links for traffic but nofollow diversity plays little to no part for SEO since its almost impossible to not get nofollowed links in your link portfolio. Why should I go looking for nofollow when they come naturally? - even some of my followed links will turn to no follow anyway).

      The discussion on content would have been more fruitful, as a writer would be heard more on content than trying to teach us about SEO. Just a suggestion and yes I still think its been a bit over the top against you.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9723988].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ghoster
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Ghost a couple things. i generally think you got slapped a bit too hard by others in this thread and said so earlier. You are far from the first to think social has ranking metrics so its no big deal to me .

        However part of the response is because you are assuming things that there really is no solid evidence for. I cut you some slack because this thread was about content and identify you as a writer. I don't expect you to know as much about SEO. Personally I wish we had just stuck to that as given the title and the OP this long discussion about social and SEO is hidden from those who might find it useful.

        We do get tired of people coming into our profession and thinking they know it all. SEOs don't normally go into the writing and copyright section and tell writers all about their profession. Its a little arrogant - but pretty common - that every one regardless of what their main thing is tends to think they have SEO down and can lecture even those whose main thing it is - but hey nowadays everyone is a SEO so thats hardly just you..

        You ARE off on social and sorry yes you ARE off on nofollow for SEO (No one is saying you should turn down or not seek links for traffic but nofollow diversity plays little to no part for SEO since its almost impossible to not get nofollowed links in your link portfolio. Why should I go looking for nofollow when they come naturally? - even some of my followed links will turn to no follow anyway).

        The discussion on content would have been more fruitful, as a writer would be heard more on content than trying to teach us about SEO. Just a suggestion and yes I still think its been a bit over the top against you.
        I understand. Yeah, I got carried away. Sorry guys.

        Anyway, if anyone has any questions about working with freelance writers, ask and I'll check back.
        Signature

        On the whole, you get what you pay for.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724256].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
    I don't get it. You people spend hours here, typing thousands of words, but
    you are debating how much to pay some clown for 500 lousy words?

    Paul
    Signature

    If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724019].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Electrical
      Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

      I don't get it. You people spend hours here, typing thousands of words, but
      you are debating how much to pay some clown for 500 lousy words?

      Paul
      I don't follow your point. What does the first part have to do with the second?

      I'm a member of dozens of different forums and have written hundreds of thousands of words across them. So what? I still suck at writing articles that people would want to read and share with others. If I could write those articles, there would be no such thing as a "writer".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724036].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

        I don't follow your point. What does the first part have to do with the second?

        absolutely nothing but its all connected to Paul's need to make illogical incoherent rants.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724048].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Originally Posted by Electrical View Post

        I don't follow your point. What does the first part have to do with the second?
        Even a child could understand that.

        You have the time, effort, knowledge, etc. to type thousands of words in forums....
        all the while you need to hire someone to type a lousy 500 words?

        What part of that do you not understand?

        Okay, let me be clearer....

        You type a 100-200 word reply in a matter of seconds. And you do this multiple times
        a day. Literally writing thousands and thousands of words for content in the
        warriorforum or other forum....yet....you debate whether to spend 2-3 bucks on
        some idiot writing a 500 word article?!?!?!?!?!?

        Now that I don't understand.

        Here's a thought. How about paying some clown to type in thousands of words on
        the forum, freeing yourself up to write a 500 word article that might make you money.

        Let's change the OP's question:

        "What Is the Highest rate per 500 words you will pay for content to be posted in
        the warrior forum for you?"

        Some of you are literally giving hundreds of dollars a day to the WF in written content.
        But you will not write one dang article that would actually mean something to your
        bottom line.

        I don't hire writers for that exact reason. I take the time to research, write, publish.
        Makes me actually know what is going on in the niche. Keeps ME up to date.
        Makes me the expert. Gets an article written that I know is true, fact-checked,
        perfect, awesome, and up to my standards.

        One reason why I am not here much anymore. I am working on my sites, not
        typing thousands of words for WF readers.

        If I'm typing thousands of words, it better pump up MY bottom line, not
        for some else.


        Is that clear for you?

        Paul
        Signature

        If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724896].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Electrical
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Even a child could understand that.
          I disagree. Your logic is completely flawed.

          You have the time, effort, knowledge, etc. to type thousands of words in forums....
          all the while you need to hire someone to type a lousy 500 words?

          What part of that do you not understand?

          Okay, let me be clearer....

          You type a 100-200 word reply in a matter of seconds. And you do this multiple times
          a day. Literally writing thousands and thousands of words for content in the
          warriorforum or other forum....yet....you debate whether to spend 2-3 bucks on
          some idiot writing a 500 word article?!?!?!?!?!?

          Now that I don't understand.

          Here's a thought. How about paying some clown to type in thousands of words on
          the forum, freeing yourself up to write a 500 word article that might make you money.

          Let's change the OP's question:

          "What Is the Highest rate per 500 words you will pay for content to be posted in
          the warrior forum for you?"

          Some of you are literally giving hundreds of dollars a day to the WF in written content.
          But you will not write one dang article that would actually mean something to your
          bottom line.

          I don't hire writers for that exact reason. I take the time to research, write, publish.
          Makes me actually know what is going on in the niche. Keeps ME up to date.
          Makes me the expert. Gets an article written that I know is true, fact-checked,
          perfect, awesome, and up to my standards.

          One reason why I am not here much anymore. I am working on my sites, not
          typing thousands of words for WF readers.

          If I'm typing thousands of words, it better pump up MY bottom line, not
          for some else.


          Is that clear for you?

          Paul
          No, it's not clear. Your reply makes no sense, it's simply ignorant and childish.

          The only possible way that what you said could make sense is if the stuff we post in forums is so interesting that it could make good content. The truth is that it's not good content. Most of us aren't writers, so while we can write out a 300 word email to our friend or forum post about the weather, we can't write an interesting article that is going to get people linking to it.

          But I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Let's take your last 30 posts, put them up on a brand new blog, and give Google that sitemap. Let's see how many visitors that site gets
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724932].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post


          Is that clear for you?

          Paul
          As mud. On a forum there is no research and all you are doing is stating your opinion. Most people have others write articles about subjects they don't wish to write about or they feel someone else can do better . I for example don't do as much prof reading, spelling correction or typo correction on a forum so I can post as fast as I type.

          Apples and oranges. Even a child could understand the difference
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724941].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          If I'm typing thousands of words, it better pump up MY bottom line, not
          for some else.


          Paul
          ROFL....and he said that knowing he has nearly 8,000 posts and to my memory hardly ever has had a sig. He just made a point I have made about posters posting soo often with no sig to advertise. It does make no sense.

          Thanka Paul! but you are going to make Yukon very mad for backing my point on that.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724952].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

          Here's a thought. How about paying some clown to type in thousands of words on the forum, freeing yourself up to write a 500 word article that might make you money.
          Tried that before at BHW, they got completely raped lol

          As for the rest, back in the days forum posting paid off big time for me, nowadays a lot less now that SEO lost popularity, but you must realize there is a big difference posting as a hobby, which I do lately or writing content that bores the shit out of you.

          I post on forums in between work, just to have a break from the boring stuff and in the past it also brought in some additional bucks, writing about things you like and making money, can't be a greater combo then that.

          That's why I outsource my juicer reviews to others.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9725191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

      I don't get it. You people spend hours here, typing thousands of words, but
      you are debating how much to pay some clown for 500 lousy words?

      Paul

      How dare we freely discuss things on a discussion board since it disqualifies us from talking about writing that we pay money for.

      Sometimes your shtick is just so illogical its humorous.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9724038].message }}

Trending Topics