| 8:21 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
From an SEO pint of view #2 is better if the copy is written professionally.
From financial point of view, obviously free content is better, but in reality it is not, as from a Site management point of view again #2 is better, content entered by strangers has to be closely monitored.
Which do you think will convert better for your advertisers? Another question you have to ask yourself.
I would choose less frequent quality over daily low quality content.
| 9:37 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
'Free' articles are usually rubbish that people have thrown together to get a link back - they submit the same trash to 2,000 sites (and in most cases, it was unoriginal in the first place).
All that merely clutters the web with duplicate garbage, and Google - quite rightly - has developed an allergy to the stuff (as have I ;) ).
Google LOVES original, unique content; so your site will do much, much better, medium to long term, with your own work.
Slower to get going - but well worth the patience.
| 6:01 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
#2 is the best way hands down.
#1 could get you sued. Do you know that all of this free content is legal? Sure, you can have your fun little disclaimers, but you will be first in line to be sued. After your civil case, you can then proceed against others--if you even know who they really are.
I have run an articles submission website for about 9 months or so now. Let me tell you this. 99.5% of the articles submitted are garbage. On a scale of 1-10, the writing is between 1 and 4 on average.
Sure, people think they are writing well, but that's like a minor league ball player thinking he is great.
Hire real writers and get real content.
| 11:24 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think both are viable alternatives. It depends on your industry. I work with writers who write for free all the time and believe me, the articles are not trash nor duplicated. It depends on the type of site and how you set the terms from the get go.
| 5:28 pm on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Link popularity and content, which affect traffic more?
| 9:12 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Harry, could you maybe give your opinion/experience about what kind of industries/sites are viable for article submission, and which ones arenít?
[edited by: Kneek at 9:14 am (utc) on July 25, 2006]
| 9:55 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree, writing your own content is definitely the way to go.
Using many of the article databses is like sifting for gold. Although there often are good articles amongst them it can be a bit labourious and I can't imagine the approach is good for engaging visitors.
On that subject, has anyone had any success from the other end of it? (i.e submitting their own articles to directories)
| 12:56 pm on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think sites that cover current events in many industry are better suited to the collaborative approach. There are so many things and interests to cover in a niche, that more people willing to do it for free is an asset.
However, if you want to publish the defitive article on a type of drug or any kind of self help, resource (think evergreen) contents, yopu'll require better writers. That means you may have to pay.
| 2:56 pm on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you write good enough stuff yourself, it will attract a better quality of user-submitted articles. People don't tend to want to build a site on their own, but if they feel like they're part of something bigger then they'll be far more likely to make an effort. That's what Wikipedia is built upon, basically.