Quality Content that people want to link to naturally - How?

54 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hi,

I read in one of the threads that some helpful guy mentioned something along the lines of:

"One of the best things you can do is create QUALITY content that people want to link too naturally which you can push out via social media, email or other forms of communication.

Can someone please explain to me how it happens, I have lots of good content for publishing but I just can't envisage how will people link to it naturally? I mean what is a natural linking, how it happens and what are the best ways for it?

Will they just copy and paste my whole articles or something else?
If they copy and paste my article on their blog/website that runs the risk of getting Google duplicate content penalty, or am I missing something?

Please explain how will someone link naturally to a good content, I am not really sure how it happens, it would be good to know so that I can prepare my content for it ie. format it in a better way or something..

Many thanks!
#content #link #naturally #people #quality
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author IGotMine
    Please explain how will someone link naturally to a good content,
    Like this:

    I'm a member of an Internet Marketing community, the Warrior Forum.

    On this forum, there are numerous examples where people link to another site that contains information that explains or reinforces their statement. I often link to Wikipedia.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
    Thank you very much for the reply mate!

    I understand that, but that's not what I meant by sharing content.
    I was thinking more towards the scenario whereby someone would see your interesting/valuable article and would like to have that whole article featured on their site?

    How can that be done in the safest way ie. without antagonising google?

    I am aware of canonical tag but, apart from that, is there any other elegant way to do that?

    many thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592417].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sats
    Frank, this is basically building backlinks.

    1. Create great content.
    2. Reach out to people and ask for link backs/include your content, etc.

    Format your content for your website. In most cases you'll get link backs. If somebody does want to feature your content on their page, they'll likely copy paste it onto their website and hopefully link back to you. That has nothing to do with your formatting. Google should have already identified your website as the original source, so it won't be a problem.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592441].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by Sats View Post

      Frank, this is basically building backlinks.

      1. Create great content.
      2. Reach out to people and ask for link backs/include your content, etc.

      Format your content for your website. In most cases you'll get link backs. If somebody does want to feature your content on their page, they'll likely copy paste it onto their website and hopefully link back to you. That has nothing to do with your formatting. Google should have already identified your website as the original source, so it won't be a problem.
      Thanks Sats!

      would you be kind to explain what you meant by the following:

      1) reach out to people and ask for links back - do you mean asking them to post your article on their website or something else?

      2) format your content for your website, what does that involve?

      3) If somebody does want to feature your content on their page.... but if they just copy and paste they will be creating a duplicate content, that's something that is(as far as I know) not very desirable these days?

      4) That has nothing to do with your formatting - I don't get this one either, please explain?

      many thanks for your kind help - it is very much appreciated!!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592485].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sats
        1. A backlink is in two forms - either a link back to the article on your website, or as somebody described below, they'll feature the article on their website and link back to your website in the author bio. Backlinks help you rank higher in Google amongst other things.

        3. Yes, offer your article to be featured once Google has indexed your article so the canonical points to you. This way it doesn't matter if somebody copies your article, Google will still give you credit.

        Ignore points 2 and 4 - probably a language barrier. Hope this helps.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Hemming
      Yes! Reaching out is the key, and gets results. Also promoting content on sites like Reddit can help if you get a lot of views - I've gained a few links from this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11599725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ZoyaHall
    Before your content will be referenced, you need to promote it.
    You need a lot of backlinks for people to see it and get a good rating.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592475].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
    Thanks Zoya!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author King Manu
    Amazing content will entice readers to share it. And yes, you need to properly format it too.

    No one wants to read a block of text.

    Can you give an example of your good content ready to be published? It might not be as good as you think it is.

    Was it written by a professional writer?
    Does it have a low bounce rate and engage the audience to comment / share it?

    Writing high-quality content is not as easy as it sounds.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592500].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by King Manu View Post

      Amazing content will entice readers to share it. And yes, you need to properly format it too.

      No one wants to read a block of text.

      Can you give an example of your good content ready to be published? It might not be as good as you think it is.

      Was it written by a professional writer?
      Does it have a low bounce rate and engage the audience to comment / share it?

      Writing high-quality content is not as easy as it sounds.
      Thanks for the contri King Manu,

      I wasn't actually referring to the quality of the content, I was just enquiring about how it is done, what are the best ways to let someone share your article, and how to go about it in regards to inserting your link etc.

      I haven't tried and failed doing it, and I am not scratching my head wondering where I had made a mistake, I am going to do it and I am just trying to establish the strategy ie. how to do it best

      If you have any suggestion on that subject please share it here

      Many thanks!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592521].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DABK
        I'll do it with an example:


        your keyword is low credit mortgages.
        you plug it in Google and look at the top pages
        you try to produce better content than what they have


        Better is subjective, I know, but if you look at a few of the top ones, you'll get a good idea of what better looks like.


        You put the link in the bio... and one, in the body, preferably close to the top (just not the first sentence).


        You, then, contact owners of sites in, to go with my example, real estate sales, appraising, law, and title companies and offer them your article... Best way would be to search for sites in those fields that have an active blog... they'd be more likely to be interested. Also, some of them do not call their article collection blogs, they called them articles. So, look for those sites, too.



        Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

        Thanks for the contri King Manu,

        I wasn't actually referring to the quality of the content, I was just enquiring about how it is done, what are the best ways to let someone share your article, and how to go about it in regards to inserting your link etc.

        I haven't tried and failed doing it, and I am not scratching my head wondering where I had made a mistake, I am going to do it and I am just trying to establish the strategy ie. how to do it best

        If you have any suggestion on that subject please share it here

        Many thanks!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592610].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
          Originally Posted by DABK View Post

          I'll do it with an example:


          your keyword is low credit mortgages.
          you plug it in Google and look at the top pages
          you try to produce better content than what they have


          Better is subjective, I know, but if you look at a few of the top ones, you'll get a good idea of what better looks like.


          You put the link in the bio... and one, in the body, preferably close to the top (just not the first sentence).


          You, then, contact owners of sites in, to go with my example, real estate sales, appraising, law, and title companies and offer them your article... Best way would be to search for sites in those fields that have an active blog... they'd be more likely to be interested. Also, some of them do not call their article collection blogs, they called them articles. So, look for those sites, too.
          Thanks very much DUBK, super helpful contri to me!!

          That's exactly what I was asking - how it is done, different ways of doing it etc.

          I have a few questions please:

          Could you please explain why do you say "just not in the first sentence"?
          Is it a common sense ie. it would point to the old ways of keyword stuffing(first sentence, last sentence, bold etc) which might be easily picked on/flagged by Google, or is there some anecdotal evidence that it is a dangerous thing to do? Perhaps some of the Google's "spokespersons" have commented on it?

          Is having a bio with a link a necessary bit or just a suggestion?
          Would that perhaps increase the genuineness of the whole proces ie. if you don't have a bio with the link it may look suspicious if there is an article with just your link within it? What about including an extra authority link in the article, does that still work or help?

          Finally, is there any other way of doing it ie.flogging your article/content to a third party website or blog?

          Many thanks in advance!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592736].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DABK
            1. If you approached me with a request to host your article on my site, and you put a link in the first few lines, I'd say no to you. My site exists to benefit me and my visitors, not you. A link that can take people away from my site in the first few lines is too much, unless you paid me $5000 a month.


            A bio makes you look more trustworthy. It is not necessary... But, then, people will think the site owner wrote the article, your authority is not being built that way.


            As to the third question: it's called syndication. Find places that accept articles on your topic and be a writer that works with them. Find post by myob 0n this forum... he uses syndication quite well.



            Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

            Thanks very much DUBK, super helpful contri to me!!

            That's exactly what I was asking - how it is done, different ways of doing it etc.

            I have a few questions please:

            Could you please explain why do you say "just not in the first sentence"?
            Is it a common sense ie. it would point to the old ways of keyword stuffing(first sentence, last sentence, bold etc) which might be easily picked on/flagged by Google, or is there some anecdotal evidence that it is a dangerous thing to do? Perhaps some of the Google's "spokespersons" have commented on it?

            Is having a bio with a link a necessary bit or just a suggestion?
            Would that perhaps increase the genuineness of the whole proces ie. if you don't have a bio with the link it may look suspicious if there is an article with just your link within it? What about including an extra authority link in the article, does that still work or help?

            Finally, is there any other way of doing it ie.flogging your article/content to a third party website or blog?

            Many thanks in advance!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592774].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
              Originally Posted by DABK View Post

              1. If you approached me with a request to host your article on my site, and you put a link in the first few lines, I'd say no to you. My site exists to beneift my visitors, not you. A link that can take people away from my site in the first few lines is too much, unless you paid me $5000 a month.


              A bio makes you look more trustworthy. It is not necessary... But, then, people will think the site owner wrote the article, your authority is not being built that way.


              As to the third question: it's called syndication. Find places that accept articles on your topic and be a writer that works with them. Find post by myob 0n this forum... he uses syndication quite well.
              Thanks DABK, you are a Star!!

              Now that you explained about the link in the first sentence(or thereabouts!), it makes super sense - I can't stop laughing at my own stupidity and obvious lack of common sense .. It just shows how much I know about these things.. You can tell I am not a blogger

              Regarding the bio in the footer of the article, same thing, it does make sense in so many ways.
              I haven't visited many blog websites in my time, so wasn't sure how common a bio is(now that you mention it, it must be pretty common) so I was a bit apprehensive about Google. I thought that leaving your "footprint" might point to a paid guest post etc.
              My original idea was to write an article, offer it to a webmaster and ask them to insert a link to my website to look as if he found my site by chance/accident or by searching the subject on the net. I thought that was the best way for the link to look natural. Trouble with that approach is that you just can't explain how come all of a sudden 20-30 random webmasters have found your website on the net by chance, whereas your website had been there forever and nobody ever made an effort to feature it
              Also, that approach is not going to work for authority, although that wouldn't bother me that much..

              I will look out for myob, not sure yet how to do that but I will hopefully find him somehow

              Once again, thank you soooo much for your time&effort and kind help- it is super appreciated!!
              It really helps a lot to have someone just point it to you rather than having to search for the info on the net and hope you pick the right advice!!

              Cheers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592810].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

                I will look out for myob, not sure yet how to do that but I will hopefully find him somehow
                My system is actually quite simple. Write articles for your audience, then find other publications that have audiences similar to yours. This is the essence of true article syndication. I have found this marketing model to be quite formidable, especially within the most hotly competitive (ie lucrative) niches.

                I like heavy competition, because usually that's where you can find the most blogs, websites, online/offline publications, and editors who are hungry for quality and engaging articles for their subscribers and reading audiences.

                But I don't just wait around for my articles to be "found". They are quite aggressively and continuously promoted to specifically targeted outlets. For any given commercially viable niche, there may be thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of online/offline publications which may be a fit for article syndication.

                Despite more than 20 years doing article syndication, however, none of my websites have ever ranked in the search engines. In my observation, writing for search engines has never been an effective marketing model. People may use search engines for research, but ultimately the conversions come through personal connection.

                The article syndication marketing business model is not new. It has been proven effective for 200+ years. Perhaps the greatest example is the John Deere company. Their helpful articles and other practical content has been circulating and duplicated since their founding in 1837, and even now still appears simultaneously in magazines, online publications, social media, and other outlets such as YouTube videos.

                In my not so humble opinion, this is content marketing at its best. John Deere is a $37 billion a year company, but worrying about "antagonizing" Google or any other SEO constraints has never been a concern.

                Having said that, there is indeed value for SEO of course. But increasingly, Google's algorithm is evolving towards quality, relevance, and audience engagement. The classical best practices in writing for real audiences are becoming the new standard for optimal SEO results.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593761].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
                  Originally Posted by myob View Post

                  My system is actually quite simple. Write articles for your audience, then find other publications that have audiences similar to yours. This is the essence of true article syndication. I have found this marketing model to be quite formidable, especially within the most hotly competitive (ie lucrative) niches.

                  I like heavy competition, because usually that's where you can find the most blogs, websites, online/offline publications, and editors who are hungry for quality and engaging articles for their subscribers and reading audiences.

                  But I don't just wait around for my articles to be "found". They are quite aggressively and continuously promoted to specifically targeted outlets. For any given commercially viable niche, there may be thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of online/offline publications which may be a fit for article syndication.

                  Despite more than 20 years doing article syndication, however, none of my websites have ever ranked in the search engines. In my observation, writing for search engines has never been an effective marketing model. People may use search engines for research, but ultimately the conversions come through personal connection.

                  The article syndication marketing business model is not new. It has been proven effective for 200+ years. Perhaps the greatest example is the John Deere company. Their helpful articles and other practical content has been circulating and duplicated since their founding in 1837, and even now still appears simultaneously in magazines, online publications, social media, and other outlets such as YouTube videos.

                  In my not so humble opinion, this is content marketing at its best. John Deere is a $37 billion a year company, but worrying about "antagonizing" Google or any other SEO constraints has never been a concern.

                  Having said that, there is indeed value for SEO of course. But increasingly, Google's algorithm is evolving towards quality, relevance, and audience engagement. The classical best practices in writing for real audiences are becoming the new standard for optimal SEO results.
                  Thanks for getting in touch, it is very much appreciated!

                  Good point about not waiting for your articles to be "found"

                  I will deffo have a look into content syndication and see if there is something in there for me.

                  I get your point about writing for search engines not being the most effective marketing model but, unfortunately, some of us are stuck in niches where we simply have to rely heavily on search engines.

                  When I create content for outside my website, the only concern I have is to find a decent place to publish it. Publish it in a way so it looks fairly "naturally" placed, and get a link. A link which will help me rank better on Google. So, for the link alone really.

                  The only reason why I would then care if anyone at all reads the said content is purely for the traffic "benefit", and traffic only for the seo purpose ie. Google sees increase in the number of my site visitors. That sort of traffic is highly unlikely to create any conversion for me, ever.

                  My potential clients will almost never land on my website from any of those articles, blogs etc.

                  Well, the above is generalising, of course, every now and then I might get an enquiry from those kind of visitors but it is negligible and would not really be worth investing the effort if you would rely on those conversions.

                  Cheers!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593875].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanbiddulph
    Hi Frank,

    Listen closely to your readers. Create content based solely on their problems, wants and needs. Then, make friends with other bloggers in your niche, by commenting genuinely on their blogs and by promoting them on your blog and through your social media. Ask for nothing in return. Expect nothing in return. Earn their trust. Then, after you earn their trust, these blogging friends link to your excellent content naturally.

    I pitched 2 human beings since I created my blog in 2014; one was a top blogging tips blogger as an experiment, and the editor at Positively Positively, a site with 2 million fans and really world famous contributors like Mark Cuban and Seth Godin (yes I am a contributor too). Other than that, all people linked to me naturally and organically, by THEIR choice.

    To date, I have 50,000 natural, organic links on my blog, minus the 20 or so I nabbed by those 2 pitches. Some of my organic links include (meaning they pitched me)

    - Fox News
    - Forbes
    - Entrepreneur
    - Virgin
    - Market Watch

    in addition to:

    - Neil Patel's blog
    - Pro Blogger
    - Huffington Post
    - John Chow's blog
    - Lifehack

    and I also was asked-invited-pitched to speak about blogging at prestigious NYU, and of course I took him up on the offer

    I asked for nothing and pitched no one. They found me, and either linked to me immediately or interviewed me or featured me, boosting my authority organic links.

    Being generous, earning trust and blogging the right way does wonders for your career.

    This approach takes years but if you blog, may as well spend years blogging the right way.
    Signature
    Ryan Biddulph inspires you to be a successful blogger with his courses, 100 plus eBooks, audio books and blog at Blogging From Paradise
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592566].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by ryanbiddulph View Post

      Hi Frank,

      Listen closely to your readers. Create content based solely on their problems, wants and needs. Then, make friends with other bloggers in your niche, by commenting genuinely on their blogs and by promoting them on your blog and through your social media. Ask for nothing in return. Expect nothing in return. Earn their trust. Then, after you earn their trust, these blogging friends link to your excellent content naturally.

      I pitched 2 human beings since I created my blog in 2014; one was a top blogging tips blogger as an experiment, and the editor at Positively Positively, a site with 2 million fans and really world famous contributors like Mark Cuban and Seth Godin (yes I am a contributor too). Other than that, all people linked to me naturally and organically, by THEIR choice.

      To date, I have 50,000 natural, organic links on my blog, minus the 20 or so I nabbed by those 2 pitches. Some of my organic links include (meaning they pitched me)

      - Fox News
      - Forbes
      - Entrepreneur
      - Virgin
      - Market Watch

      in addition to:

      - Neil Patel's blog
      - Pro Blogger
      - Huffington Post
      - John Chow's blog
      - Lifehack

      and I also was asked-invited-pitched to speak about blogging at prestigious NYU, and of course I took him up on the offer

      I asked for nothing and pitched no one. They found me, and either linked to me immediately or interviewed me or featured me, boosting my authority organic links.

      Being generous, earning trust and blogging the right way does wonders for your career.

      This approach takes years but if you blog, may as well spend years blogging the right way.

      Thank you for the valuable contribution Ryan!!

      It all makes perfect sense, of course, your approach to developing your business is honest/sincere and in the ideal world that's how things should work.
      It is a long winded strategy that is kind of dependent on other people's good will and genuineness.
      Result may or may not happen, they are far from being guaranteed, but in your case, thankfully they did happen!

      Unfortunately, not everybody has the time, enough money and clear vision to do it that way, not even talking about the temptation of black hat opportunities(everywhere) which promise(in theory) fast success!

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592728].message }}
  • Provide value , inspire , ask questions , use humor
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592594].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by BrabantPromotions View Post

      Provide value , inspire , ask questions , use humor
      thank you Brabant, it is not exactly what I was asking though
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592721].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    I will look out for myob

    Click on SEARCH in white toolbar above


    Click on Advanced Search


    Enter myob in 'member name' - and click - it will come up with a list of threads where myob has posted recently...and at the top of the list you can click on his name and go the profile.


    Sounds harder than it is - learning you way around the search, etc of the forum will help you here.
    Signature

    Due to the current pandemic I will no longer be shaking hands or giving hugs. You may wave, bow to me or give me the finger...your choice.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
    Thanks Kay, muchos appreciated!!

    Cheers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
    Thanks Sats!

    The problem with Author Bio scenario is that it doesn't really make sense to insert a keyword as a link, 99% of the time it is a plain URL sort of link... surely it is good for your domain authority but it won't help as fast as the keyword will

    How sure are you about your point 3?
    I think I remember reading somewhere that just because you post it first, it doesn't guarantee that Google will give you the authorship, unless there is a canonical tag(or something like that) present?
    I am not 100% sure how it works with canonical tags(not even 100% sure what exactly they are) and how long the articles have to feature on your website before you can be sure that it will be attributed to you?

    Cheers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11592867].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Bio

      Frank Spenser is a fiction writer. To learn more about what he does visit frankspenser.com.

      Fiction writer would be a hyperlink so would the url.

      Attributed to you by? If you mean Google, it does not bother. It shows the version with the best SEO.

      If you do want Google to know it appeared on your site first, wait till you see it when you search
      Domain:www.yourwebsite. com.

      Without the space.

      If it shows it, it knows.

      Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

      Thanks Sats!

      The problem with Author Bio scenario is that it doesn't really make sense to insert a keyword as a link, 99% of the time it is a plain URL sort of link... surely it is good for your domain authority but it won't help as fast as the keyword will

      How sure are you about your point 3?
      I think I remember reading somewhere that just because you post it first, it doesn't guarantee that Google will give you the authorship, unless there is a canonical tag(or something like that) present?
      I am not 100% sure how it works with canonical tags(not even 100% sure what exactly they are) and how long the articles have to feature on your website before you can be sure that it will be attributed to you?

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593399].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
        Originally Posted by DABK View Post

        Bio

        Frank Spenser is a fiction writer. To learn more about what he does visit frankspenser.com.

        Fiction writer would be a hyperlink so would the url.

        Attributed to you by? If you mean Google, it does not bother. It shows the version with the best SEO.

        If you do want Google to know it appeared on your site first, wait till you see it when you search
        Domain:www.yourwebsite. com.

        Without the space.

        If it shows it, it knows.
        Thanks DABK!

        It's getting more confusing by the minute

        So, if Google doesn't penalise duplicates, and the best seo-ed content can feature higher than the original source(even if it is duplicate), then it clearly makes no difference who the original source is, and it is not important where it appeared first.

        Importantly, if that would be the case, then everyone could just jump on "borrowing" the content and trying to seo it as best as they can, in order to feature it high on search. That would be a very dangerous scenario, or am I not seeing something?

        Perhaps it is not so black and white and the truth lies somewhere in between

        Cheers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593479].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
          Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

          Thanks DABK!

          It's getting more confusing by the minute

          So, if Google doesn't penalise duplicates, and the best seo-ed content can feature higher than the original source(even if it is duplicate), then it clearly makes no difference who the original source is, and it is not important where it appeared first.
          Essentially, correct.

          Take syndicated news as a perfect example. When the Associated Press (AP) releases "news" most of the "associated news sites" already have a legal agreement to copy the articles and post the articles on their respective sites. Nothing new about that. Also, the news is not accessed from an official AP public site. It is accessed from the back-end.

          It does make a difference to Google who the original source is in context with the AP because Google considers the AP to be an authority source.

          In terms of a non-AP type of site i.e. any site, maybe your site, maybe my site being Google Friendly and having a long history of publishing authoritative content and stable SEO then all said sites will as a minimum be indexed regardless of the source of the content.

          Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

          Importantly, if that would be the case, then everyone could just jump on "borrowing" the content and trying to seo it as best as they can, in order to feature it high on search. That would be a very dangerous scenario, or am I not seeing something?
          It is only dangerous if the content is not credited to the source which runs the risk of plagiarism. We as content publishers give credit to the author(s) of the original works and we also obtain the original source's permission to republish the works.

          It terms of Google SEO.. Google does not bother with plagiarism. Not at all. We as business owners bother with plagiarism.

          Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

          Perhaps it is not so black and white and the truth lies somewhere in between
          Now that you know how it works.. it is black and white and the truth does not lie somewhere in between. Would you agree?

          Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

          Cheers
          You have a nice day as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593518].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
            Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

            Essentially, correct.

            Take syndicated news as a perfect example. When the Associated Press (AP) releases "news" most of the "associated news sites" already have a legal agreement to copy the articles and post the articles on their respective sites. Nothing new about that. Also, the news is not accessed from an official AP public site. It is accessed from the back-end.

            It does make a difference to Google who the original source is in context with the AP because Google considers the AP to be an authority source.

            In terms of a non-AP type of site i.e. any site, maybe your site, maybe my site being Google Friendly and having a long history of publishing authoritative content and stable SEO then all said sites will as a minimum be indexed regardless of the source of the content.



            It is only dangerous if the content is not credited to the source which runs the risk of plagiarism. We as content publishers give credit to the author(s) of the original works and we also obtain the original source's permission to republish the works.

            It terms of Google SEO.. Google does not bother with plagiarism. Not at all. We as business owners bother with plagiarism.



            Now that you know how it works.. it is black and white and the truth does not lie somewhere in between. Would you agree?



            You have a nice day as well.
            Thanks Jeffery!

            I didn't know much about AP and how it works, now that you mention it it makes sense.

            So, essentially, if you "plagiarise" without giving credit to the source you run the risk of being reported by the original author.
            Other than that, you might just be fine as far as Google is concerned.

            Yes, it seems to be fairly black and white

            Cheers!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593697].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
              Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

              Thanks Jeffery!

              I didn't know much about AP and how it works, now that you mention it it makes sense.

              So, essentially, if you "plagiarise" without giving credit to the source you run the risk of being reported by the original author.
              No, not specifically right. You have flip-flopped the words (twisted the words) to fit your personal understanding. This would be right (black and white):

              When anyone republishes an original works without the original author's consent and do not credit the the original source then you have committed plagiarism and run the risk of being reported.

              See the difference?

              Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

              Other than that, you might just be fine as far as Google is concerned.
              No! Again, Google does not bother with plagiarism. Not at all. We as business owners bother with plagiarism. In other words, Google is not concerned.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593711].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
                Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

                No, not specifically right. You have flip-flopped the words (twisted the words) to fit your personal understanding. This would be right (black and white):

                When anyone republishes an original works without the original author's consent and do not credit the the original source then you have committed plagiarism and run the risk of being reported.

                See the difference?



                No! Again, Google does not bother with plagiarism. Not at all. We as business owners bother with plagiarism. In other words, Google is not concerned.
                Thanks Jeffery - Fantastic point

                Yes, HUGE difference - The original author's CONSENT is what was missing from my statement.. well, not just missing for the hell of it - I didn't get it first time

                If the original author is not happy for you to republish his works, that's the end of it, no amount of crediting will wash it away!!

                Seemingly small detail that makes all the difference, and yet so simple even the unaccustomed ones like me (eventually) get it

                Thank you for taking the time to point it out yet again - muchos appreciated!!

                Cheers
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593737].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

    Will they just copy and paste my whole articles or something else?
    If they copy and paste my article on their blog/website that runs the risk of getting Google duplicate content penalty, or am I missing something?
    Google does not care about duplicate content and there is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty.

    Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

    Please explain how will someone link naturally to a good content, I am not really sure how it happens, it would be good to know so that I can prepare my content for it ie. format it in a better way or something..

    Many thanks!
    People who say that you will just get good links naturally with good content are ******* liars. Every last one of them.

    You need to promote the content to places that may want to link to it, and most of the time you have to pay for the links. People are not just going to magically find your content and decide to link to it. Hell, 99.9% of the people who are reading your content probably do not have a site of their own to link off of even if they wanted to.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593073].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Google does not care about duplicate content and there is no such thing as a duplicate content penalty.



      People who say that you will just get good links naturally with good content are ******* liars. Every last one of them.

      You need to promote the content to places that may want to link to it, and most of the time you have to pay for the links. People are not just going to magically find your content and decide to link to it. Hell, 99.9% of the people who are reading your content probably do not have a site of their own to link off of even if they wanted to.
      Thanks very much Mike for your input!

      I didn't know that duplicate content wasn't dangerous, I remember reading somewhere(possibly long ago) about duplicate content, Google penalising it etc.

      To be honest, when it comes to my niche, what you said is 110% correct.
      Granted, I am not very experienced in link building methods etc. but every single competitor that I spied on has nothing but self-promoted(self-created ie. web2.0 profiles, social bookmarks etc) and paid links(articles on various blog sites etc)
      I am yet to find one link that is obviously "natural".
      Now, that applies to my industry, I am not sure how it works for the other niches but I would be very surprised if it is that much different.

      I don't mind paying for the link placement, I just want to do it right, and make it look "natural" ie. don't want it to be painfully obvious that I have paid for the link. That's why I posted in here, to find out what are the best methods for doing that.

      I have the content, can even create more, but wasn't sure whether I should first publish it on my website, or perhaps save it for publishing directly on guest-posting websites. Or create double content on the same subject, one for my website and one for the guest posting site?

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593093].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fastdealdublin
    I always link my articles to other people content that is relevant. If i write an article about carpet cleaning, i could add a link about some particular issue or solution that i have discovered while reading something. You can create a topic like "natural carpet cleaning shampoos" and then link to a website that sells natural carpet cleaning shampoos because it explain in more detail the product.

    Relevant content will always be linked and shared. You can also share your articles on scoop.it, list.ly, etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
    Thanks fastdealdublin!

    what is the idea behind posting articles on scoop, listlly and similar sites.
    To gain an extra link or to get some exposure and hopefully traffic?
    Or, perhaps, to be super lucky and have someone share your article(slim chance)?

    Cheers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593145].message }}
  • In our experience, the fastest and the easiest way to get natural links is to also link to other resources. And when we promote them on social media, we make sure we tag them so they know they've been linked to.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593187].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Blogging Giant
    Quality content means you have covered all the topics in your blog post with statistics, images, and based on your experience.

    No one will copy your content. They will naturally link your content by anchor text linking. Anchor text is a clickable text in form of hyperlink.

    If you want to write quality content then mention others and share your blog with them on social media by mentioning.

    Or you can send them an email and ask them to share your blog content. If they will like then priority is high of getting a link.

    Otherwise, go to smaller blogs and ask them to link, and in exchange, you can share their blog content.

    If anyone copies your content then you should ask them to mention your blog link in the resource.

    You will not face any duplicate content issue because your blog post is indexing first and use canonical tag for your blog o avoid content duplication.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593260].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by Blogging Giant View Post

      Quality content means you have covered all the topics in your blog post with statistics, images, and based on your experience.

      No one will copy your content. They will naturally link your content by anchor text linking. Anchor text is a clickable text in form of hyperlink.

      If you want to write quality content then mention others and share your blog with them on social media by mentioning.

      Or you can send them an email and ask them to share your blog content. If they will like then priority is high of getting a link.

      Otherwise, go to smaller blogs and ask them to link, and in exchange, you can share their blog content.

      If anyone copies your content then you should ask them to mention your blog link in the resource.

      You will not face any duplicate content issue because your blog post is indexing first and use canonical tag for your blog o avoid content duplication.
      Thank you for the extensive reply, it is very much appreciated!

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author squadron
    It's a myth that good content will get links naturally as much as Google says it will. It's hard enough to find someone who has the technical expertise to create a link
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by squadron View Post

      It's a myth that good content will get links naturally as much as Google says it will. It's hard enough to find someone who has the technical expertise to create a link
      I am not very experienced in all this generally, but when it comes to my niche your statement is 110% correct!!
      Very few people in my niche even know about links, seo etc, never mind sharing content and giving you a link - it makes it so much more difficult to create the strategy, never mind the implementation.

      I am already happy when I can come up with something related to my niche, and webmaster willing to "co-operate"

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593475].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clickmatixptyltd
    If your content is of superior quality, then people will start referring your content( the link) whenever your niche is discussed anywhere on the internet. That's how good content works.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593426].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      No, that is not how it works. Go search for something on Google. Go to the 4th page or further and look at some of that content, compare it to #1.

      You will find out some content that's better than #1. Content people do not see, do not talk about..

      Because it is not marketed properly.

      People see only content that was marketed well to them.

      Originally Posted by clickmatixptyltd View Post

      If your content is of superior quality, then people will start referring your content( the link) whenever your niche is discussed anywhere on the internet. That's how good content works.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593476].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593743].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Medon
    Get the content organised and posted on influencer sites. if it can get published on hubpage, yahoo .... you will be on track.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author myob
    Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

    I get your point about writing for search engines not being the most effective marketing model but, unfortunately, some of us are stuck in niches where we simply have to rely heavily on search engines.
    Well, some others of us are stuck in niches that are overwhelmingly dominated by deep-pocketed and entrenched SEO professionals. Those are the types of sites I target for article syndication in addition to "authority" sites and offline publications. Hitching a ride on top-ranking websites has made me a formidable competitive contender in major markets and some of the biggest leagues.

    My best answer to this question:
    Can someone please explain to me how it happens, I have lots of good content for publishing but I just can't envisage how will people link to it naturally? I mean what is a natural linking, how it happens and what are the best ways for it?
    People don't link to content "naturally". They will link to engaging content that resonates with their internal narrative or intent. There are very powerful nuances and subtleties in not only word association but also in framing and context. For example, the same content published in general interest publications will have more "linking" in relevant niche-specific publications, and even substantially greater "linking" in authoritative or prestigious publications.

    Article syndication writers have known this for 200+ years. And as perhaps the biggest and most successful online advertising platform in history, Google is now beginning to reward SEM copywriters and publishers who give readers a better contextual experience. Quality content is rapidly becoming a minimum standard even for SEO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11593932].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by myob View Post

      Well, some others of us are stuck in niches that are overwhelmingly dominated by deep-pocketed and entrenched SEO professionals. Those are the types of sites I target for article syndication in addition to "authority" sites and offline publications. Hitching a ride on top-ranking websites has made me a formidable competitive contender in major markets and some of the biggest leagues.

      My best answer to this question:


      People don't link to content "naturally". They will link to engaging content that resonates with their internal narrative or intent. There are very powerful nuances and subtleties in not only word association but also in framing and context. For example, the same content published in general interest publications will have more "linking" in relevant niche-specific publications, and even substantially greater "linking" in authoritative or prestigious publications.

      Article syndication writers have known this for 200+ years. And as perhaps the biggest and most successful online advertising platform in history, Google is now beginning to reward SEM copywriters and publishers who give readers a better contextual experience. Quality content is rapidly becoming a minimum standard even for SEO.
      Thanks myob, great contribution, much appreciated!!

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11594311].message }}
  • To me "quality" content is also "unique" content. So when people copy it, they are only creating duplicate content which is not quality.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11594150].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VirtualVeena
    Thanks for all the great tips guys.
    Appreciate it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11594154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WBBSE TRICKS
    You have created high quality backlinks. Try to make backlinks from where you will get traffic. Don't waste your time to create profile, commanding backlinks

    Always try create backlinks from high authority site, where you will get traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11594793].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seoexpertinindia
    People don't find anything unless you are a very famous guy. It would be a good idea to create a great content and than use the Link Bait Strategy to get the links. Once you have developed the relations with people than Mouth publicity will work for you. Also E-Mail Marketing works in 95% cases if done correctly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597110].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stephen Crooks
    I read on the Ahrefs blog that out of every thousand people who look at your amazing content, you can expect 1 natural back link in return on average. This means you need an almighty following of people reading your content to get those natural backlinks.

    Having said that, it does happen that an article, video, infographic or whatever it is you have created captures the imagination of the niche you are in, it can fly. Here is the approach I use to do it.

    1. Go to https://answerthepublic.com/ and search out a topic in your niche.
    2. See which questions are the ones that occur the most.
    3. Find existing content out there that is really popular for the questions you uncovered in step 2.
    4. Turn that content into a good video or infographic. Alternatively, look at how you could improve that content and do it.

    To find the decent content, use a tool like buzzsumo or Ahrefs content explorer.

    Once you have created you quality piece of content, get the word out on subreddits, forums, facebook groups or if you have the budget, advertise.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597398].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Spencer
      Originally Posted by Stephen Crooks View Post

      I read on the Ahrefs blog that out of every thousand people who look at your amazing content, you can expect 1 natural back link in return on average. This means you need an almighty following of people reading your content to get those natural backlinks.

      Having said that, it does happen that an article, video, infographic or whatever it is you have created captures the imagination of the niche you are in, it can fly. Here is the approach I use to do it.

      1. Go to https://answerthepublic.com/ and search out a topic in your niche.
      2. See which questions are the ones that occur the most.
      3. Find existing content out there that is really popular for the questions you uncovered in step 2.
      4. Turn that content into a good video or infographic. Alternatively, look at how you could improve that content and do it.

      To find the decent content, use a tool like buzzsumo or Ahrefs content explorer.

      Once you have created you quality piece of content, get the word out on subreddits, forums, facebook groups or if you have the budget, advertise.
      Thanks for the great contribution and for q&a tactics Stephen, much appreciated!
      I am sure that ahrefs' estimates are not far off, if I go by my own experience.

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Skywriting
    Originally Posted by Frank Spencer View Post

    "One of the best things you can do is create QUALITY content that people want to link too naturally which you can push out via social media, email or other forms of communication.

    It works like this:


    I find a good quote and I create a link to the source.

    Top Methods for Quality Traffic

    - Content
    - On Page SEO
    - Off page SEO




    And my first example above, links back to your original post which gets it traffic and provides " link Juice" ....which means that the link adds to the page reputation. But mostly through traffic.

    And you mostly never have to worry about duplicate content because your original posting created a "Ping" that when the spider followed it, it included a time stamp. So your post was FIRST and original.

    Just post lots of original content that is on your preferred topic. ANd use keywords and phrases common to your topic. If your topic is the color red......don't spend all your time talking about "black". Focus on your primary topic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
    Google looks at "quality content" differently compared to "unique content".

    "Quality Content" is simply content that can is verified by reputable sources.

    whereas

    "Unique Content" is simply content that may not be verified by reputable sources because it is unique only to the published source.

    Take a new thematical formula, a new mathematical formula, essentially anything that is new be it derived from your own mind, research, actionable results such as tests conducted in a laboratory, tests results conducted in a social gathering and so on. That is considered "Unique" in every sense of the word according to the published source.

    Take Internet Marketing for example. Who coined and expounded on the term "Digital Resell Rights License" wherein many marketers never heard of the concept much less practiced it? Allen Says! Founder of this very forum. That in itself is "Unique".

    Take Internet Marketing Website Traffic for another example. Who expounded on the term " Internet Marketing Traffic" wherein many work lab tests were conducted resulting in proven traffic models? John Reese! Owner and author of Traffic Secrets and Traffic Secrets 2.0 to include many more. That in itself is "Unique".

    The point is many a person can write "quality content" whereas not many writers can provide "Unique Content."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597423].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stephen Crooks
      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      Google looks at "quality content" differently compared to "unique content".

      "Quality Content" is simply content that can is verified by reputable sources.

      whereas

      "Unique Content" is simply content that may not be verified by reputable sources because it is unique only to the published source.

      Take a new thematical formula, a new mathematical formula, essentially anything that is new be it derived from your own mind, research, actionable results such as tests conducted in a laboratory, tests results conducted in a social gathering and so on. That is considered "Unique" in every sense of the word according to the published source.

      Take Internet Marketing for example. Who coined and expounded on the term "Digital Resell Rights License" wherein many marketers never heard of the concept much less practiced it? Allen Says! Founder of this very forum. That in itself is "Unique".

      Take Internet Marketing Website Traffic for another example. Who expounded on the term " Internet Marketing Traffic" wherein many work lab tests were conducted resulting in proven traffic models? John Reese! Owner and author of Traffic Secrets and Traffic Secrets 2.0 to include many more. That in itself is "Unique".

      The point is many a person can write "quality content" whereas not many writers can provide "Unique Content."
      I get what you are saying and you are correct unique content is the holy grail. I think the OP was trying to find out how they can create content that will attract natural back links.

      For me, unique content is great but really difficult to find a topic that people are craving that hasn't already been created before. The emphasis should be to create better content (skyscraper content) that people are drawn toward.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11597471].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author prvegas
    As you post and get indexed by Google and other search engines you will begin to get organic traffic. As you get that traffic there will be other bloggers, news sites or blogs that can link to you as they write their content. Many research sites will find the content useful and may link to you.

    This is the best source of links to aquire, it takes time and consistency in posting but the links will come.

    Ken
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11599980].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics