can we use the same article to get backlinks

This issue of duplicate content has been discussed at length. My personal opinion and many will disagree, is that the fresher the content the more love you will receive from Google in terms of ranking.

well, I will suggest you rewrite your articles for each article before you submit

Google dont like duplicate content and its better you use fresh article for everysite and that will give you better ranking.

Hey I heard that google will flag duplicate content and it is not useful... however I heard some guys are telling to do 1500+ submissions while spinning 15 articles, and they are telling that they get more traffic via google.... I am so much of confused, Is that a fallacy or true guys?

You will not get valid backlinks if you are using duplicate content. Period! If you are submitting articles for the purpose of gainng backlinks then you need to submit unique content.

Im using duplicate content for getting backlinks and my rankings are fine, time will tell.

what happend if i use same content but different title?

It's fine, fine fine fine fine fine. :-)

1 article, 200 article directories, 3 links in sig, 600 1 way links. Low quality links but still links. Really though it's about developing your own method. You could do 200 unique articles and post each to a different article directory. This would probably be better but would take you a hell of a lot longer, time you could be spending more wisely doing other things.

As for the whole dupe content. Google does not frown on such things, if anything Google likes to see articles reprinted, it's like a thumbs up to that article that someone would want to reprint it. Of course that's the way a perfect world would work (one without people submitting articles by the dozen to multiple directories) however they cannot penalise against it as they would take down legitimate people also.

Always look at it this way. If there is a legitimate reason for doing something, then the big G has it's hands tied.

So yeah, anyway, back to the OP: Using the same article over and over is just dandy. It would be good to have a decent batch of them to use though. 500 words will get you through 99.9% of submission approvals and believe me, quality does not matter so much so knocking them out fast is simple enough.

I am sure, that will result you the duplicate issue, however, If you rewrite the article for each submissions, that would be great....

I was told that you should first publish an article on your own site about a week or so before you publish it to an article directory.
So do you get credit for the links coming from the directory and other sites? I do not often see many backlinks from my articles being reported except from the Article Directory if that was the place of origin and I did not post the article on my site first.
As mentioned I think duplicate content is the theft of sites content and having duplicate pages on ones own site.

This is what Matt Cutts says about it at the 2009 Pubcon in Austin, TX..

Matt Cutts was asked about the impact of Duplicate Content and when to use Canonical Link Tag?
Matt Cutts: Guys, don't worry about duplicate content. Why? Because who makes the duplicate content right? The white hats, they're like, I make a valid site and maybe I had it in a different country. Maybe it's (dot)uk, and I don't want to be penalized for duplicate content; or I have a printable version of an article, and I don't want that to be viewed as duplicate content. It's really funny. Whenever someone asks me about duplicate content, I can pretty much assume that they're a white hat. It's kind of a nice little feature. So most of the time you do not need to worry. Search engines go out of their way to try to figure out, 'What is the duplicate content, how do we remove it without causing any problems whatsoever?' People very, very rarely get penalized for duplicate content.
How can original content owner get the most page rank?
Most of the time if we detect one page and then another page being duplicate, we will just say, 'OK this page we won't show; we will show this page instead.' If you're the person who originally wrote the content, it's very smart to embed a link to the original location of that article. And then if it ever gets scraped or copied or syndicated or whatever, that duplicate article will link to your original article. That pretty much guarantees that you, the original person who wrote that article, will have the most page rank and show up first.
When and why to use canonical tag?
We just introduced something about a few weeks ago called the 'canonical link tag.' And the idea is there are so many big sites that have duplicate content on their own site. Like, has anybody ever run into having www and non-www version of the site. Sometimes you tell the developers, 'Put a 301 from the www version to the non-www version,' and they don't do it, and you end up with like 18 copies of the same site, or the http version of the site and the https, secure version, of the site, sometimes those both show up. Sometimes you just have the same content, you know, sorted by ascending price and descending price.
In an html page, you have an element in the head, and that element basically says the canonical version of this page is the preferred version of this page, the pretty version, the clean version of this url, is right here. So, for example, maybe you want all the sort prices to be increasing in price. You can say, 'okay the canonical version of this page is sort equals ascending,' or something like that. And it's very very simple. We treat it just like a 301 pretty much.
What about hijacking?
Can't I say that if I hack into this guy's site right here, maybe the canonical version is my black hat site. In order to prevent that from being an issue, you can only do the canonical tag within your own site. So that's the automatic safety valve that prevents against any kind of hijacking.
Now is it possible to have problems?
It is. IBM shot themselves in the foot with the canonical link tag. Whenever you visited the home page, they did a redirect and they also set the canonical link tag to be a page that was like a 404 and had never been crawled by Google. Yeah. That's not good. So for a couple of days, we were like, 'IBM.com?null,' you know, or something like that. So don't just jump into this. Take a little bit of time. Plan out how you're going to do the canonical tag. Make sure that it makes sense. There's time. It's not an emergency, but it's a really great way to solve any duplicate content problems.

Source: blog.milestoneinternet.com/web-development/faq-on-duplicate-content-and-moving-your-site-by-matt-cutts-at-pubcon-2009/

HI

I submit the same article to over 500 article directories... and get a lot of blog owners pickup my article and post it on their blogs... so my goal is to get my article on as many blogs as I can.. building my backlinks and growing my traffic.. not all blog owners use the same article directory to find articles to post on their blogs.

Thx
Tom

HI
Google dont like duplicate content.
So its better to use fresh article for every site and that will give good back link,traffic and also help u to get good PR as well.

Well you will get more confused after getting some more posts about it.
It's like some people think that google don't like duplicate content so if you can't write a fresh article then re-write the original one again and again and use on different sites.
Some people submit the same article on different sites specially article directories so i think so that's ok to use because you are giving a link back to your site in the resource box so it's not a duplicate content.
Thanks
Webmatic