Syndicated content vs. Spun content as Tier 1 Web 2.0 filler content

2 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hello,

I am trying to create several relevant webs 2.0 blogs (blogspot, over-blog, tumblr and wordpress) as Tier 1 links; some of them are expired, some are brand new, with keywords optimized URLs. I want to make them as relevant as possible to the keywords I target, but I've got that content problem.

I know, original, hand made content is the best option, but, as I don't have enough time and money for that, I am forced to find a quick solution to the relevance issue. So, I tested several spinning software, but I ended up editing the spun versions, taking plenty of time, and I decided eventually to use nonedited spun content only for Tier 2.

This is why I've thought about syndicating some articles (not the entire article, but only a fragment of around 500 words of it). Each article will have a nofollow link/URL citation at the bottom, pointing to the source website, and maybe an introductory line above the article body (not mandatory, only if I have time for that).

Could these syndicated articles help me create relevant and decent themed web 2.0 properties? I imagine them as some "information hubs" targeting a certain niche, with plenty of useful content (youtube videos with some short comments, shared articles, etc.), something like Facebook pages (not original but highly relevant shared content).

Has anybody tried this before?

Or, what do you think is worse as filler content for Tier 1 web 2.0s - spun content, or syndicated content?

Thank you very much
#content #filler #spun #syndicated #tier #web
  • Profile picture of the author Benjamin Ehinger
    I know, original, hand made content is the best option, but, as I don't have enough time and money for that, I am forced to find a quick solution to the relevance issue.
    Invest the time and money now, even if you don't get things done as quickly as you want. It will pay off int he end to have unique, well done content on your Web 2.0s. They are basically worthless, IMHO, if they are spun or syndicated content with nothing truly unique.

    You can use some videos and some syndicated content, but you need a good amount of original content for these to really make a difference. If you use spun content, you'll just end up with a bunch of low quality links to your site and won't get the results you really need.

    Make sure your strategy is sound before you start moving forward. If you rush it, you'll likely end up with low quality everything, which won't last, if it ever even becomes successful.
    Signature
    Ready to Explode your Content Marketing?

    Discover How to Increase Revenues with My Complete SEO Content Strategy Here!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11167577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Clint Butler
    I'm in with Benjamin.

    Web 2.0's with unique content are better for link quality, and more importantly, will stand up to a manual review if your are unlucky enough to trigger one.

    I use syndicated content mixed in with unique articles.

    Now, it's not hard to do with spun content if you are manually spinning and taking the time to edit the final spun article. Or, you can use content curation and populate your web 2.0's and it will take even less time.

    With that method your quoting someone elses content and providing your own insights to that content will only take you five minutes to get it done.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11168429].message }}

Trending Topics