Forum Moderators: martinibuster
1) What are a few quality sites where you can submit articles? (Not 100 in a list but 2-5 quality submission sites)
2) Does anyone have any examples of articles they have written that were widely distributed? Any tips on achieving this?
3) Would an article on the history of the sundial be a good idea for a site that sells sundials?
Thanks for your help, questions 1 & 2 are the ones I am most interested in.
The quality sites to submit to are the ones not "known" for being article directories - find specific sites within your industry that take submissions and get emailing them. ;)
>>>> 2) Does anyone have any examples of articles they have written that were widely distributed? Any tips on achieving this?
A: Write good articles and submit them to every industry hub you can think of that features content.
B: Submit an article to a widely used article directory used by spam sites to scrape content from. ;)
>>>> 3) Would an article on the history of the sundial be a good idea for a site that sells sundials?
Sure - as long as it is interesting for the user and doesn't sound like a boring history book - AND there would be an interest by the industry sites to publish it.
Are their any good sites for mass distribution of a quality article?
Is there anyone out there that has tried one of these sites or one similar and then seen their article distributed on the web?
Never used them - but my email has ended up on some of those bulk submission sites distribution lists and I get articles I didn't ask for all the time (read, spammed by them).
I had a small concern about this as well. Since you have a single article written and distributed across many sites, all those pages may end-up as duplicates, and the one that has published the article first, can only pass any PR, link benefit to your site. Is this concern valid?
So PR can be passed from them too.
I can't comment on the passing pagerank part, but MANY article sites exist that accept articles without any substantial review, and MANY article sites exist that allow you to choose your anchor text. SO MANY, in fact, that it's hard to keep count.
If you have same article published across a number of sites, which end-up as duplicate pages, what is the real benefit of these links? As much as dmoz clones?
I will be searching for good niche sites to submit articles too, but I want to avoid submitting to things that are a waste of time. It would be really helpful for someone to post a good couple of sites or to post a link to a good list of article sites.
Thanks, hope everyone is having a nice Thanksgiving weekend.
BTW, I believe piconsulting was also looking for traffic not just PR or link popularity. So, if the Google considers it duplicate only part of the benefit is lost.
idea of submitting articles to generate traffic and to gain link popularity.
I am not looking to write a crappy article and spam 100 article sites and hope for the best.
Thanks again if anyone has a good resource or two.
Also, that one article may get syndicated out to a dozen sites, so a dozen links with good anchor text.
I am afraid those pages will go the dmoz clones way. Many links with one dmoz link, but with the benefit of just one. Or atleast if one article gets featured on 10 sites, the link benefit is not 10X but, far less than that, IMHO.
>> I recommend Buzzle.
I've observed two specific sites that have managed to "game" their way to the top of their niches simply by:
1. getting listed in every free and pay-for-inclusion directory in town (and there are hundreds of these).
2. by writing a handful of articles and submitting them to every "articles" site there is, which in turn often syndicate them out to other sites.
I would like to believe that you can't game google and msn this way, but that's fantasy. I have observed 2 sites use this strategy over several months and this is how they did it.
In one case, a site bought a half million links on online newspapers. Guess what? They were sandboxed. But big deal, when they came out of the sandbox they were at the top of their serps. In the other case, the guy has spammed about 6 different articles out to hundreds of sites and has accomplished the same goal---he's at the top.
The sickening reality of google and msn (less so with yahoo it seems) is that if you are patient and don't need to earn from a site for several months to a year, you CAN effectively game your way to the top of ANY niche. Most webmasters have not realized this and, furthermore, most don't have the patience to follow such a long-term strategy.
I would advise GG/Matt Cutts to seriously consider passing on the notion that articles sites and dmoz clones should ALL have their pagerank stripped-----because when more webmasters figure this out, every serp may potentially belong to spammy, yet patient and diligent webmasters.
Now, regarding good articles site, I would recommend ezinearticles. They at least seem to proof articles before they go live and their articles get good placement from google, allowing incoming traffic for the author whose link appears on the page.
Kind of viral in it's own way. Imagine dozens of articles submitted to dozens of articles sites.
They gave away the most basic of information because they didn't actually know anything themselves. Plonking articles around the web is not advertising, it's not using images, nor does it use any copywriting skill to achieve any objective other than to suggest another pupil of the late Corey Rudl.
I don't believe they even wrote their own copy for their sites, which shows the level of desperation of the copywriters they hired.
Articles is not advertising, and people do it still as it's the one of the few methods they know. Most of these articles are of poor quality and hold very basic information, most article databases are 'general interest' only, and not even specialised in any way - so that rules out any sort of marketing advantage over the next article database - and what does that tell you about the skill of the database owner? This is worrying that many still do this, and I stopped it myself about 3 years ago, as I didn't want to risk people finding an article linked to my site and judging my talents because I copied everyone elses promotion method.
Forget articles guys and girls, you are not going to make a million visitors using them. Free simply doesn't exist anymore, and there's a very good reason for that.
Forget articles guys and girls, you are not going to make a million visitors using them. Free simply doesn't exist anymore, and there's a very good reason for that."
Yes, in general, these articles are of very poor quality. And many "article submitters" will write articles that are totally unrelated to their site. But that doesn't matter, nor does the quality of the article.
The strategy we're discussing revolves around "backlink acquisition" and it is a very powerful strategy that works. Does it produce good content for the web? NO. Does it produce lots of incoming traffic for your site? NO. Does it add value for web users? NO.
Does google and other SE's care that the answers to these questions are all no? NO.
Google and msn care only about links. More is better. And this is why this practice, while debatable, works to elevate sites.
Think about it? Why do people want to get into dmoz? Because google god smiles upon dmoz? No, because of all the crappy backlinks from worthless dmoz clones----that really add up pretty powerfully.
Why set yourself up to bad links, it would be the beginning of a bad reputation for any site.
Also,if people check out links as they say they do, won't they notice the bad quality links and refuse to link based on the quality backlinks of another site. That's got to be a concern to other webmasters seeking quality and rep.
Or is this REALLY about not caring as long as whatever links are to be had.
This isn't speculation for me. I KNOW with absolute certainty that it works, because I have several sites that have nothing but backlinks from this method (at least that I went out and got proactively). Sure, some of the links are from other sites that liked my content, but for every one of those, there are probably 20 that are from distributing content with my links embedded. There is so much to recommend this approach. Again, it cracks me up when people bash it. That's ok by me... you keep paying out the butt for links. :-)
I don't buy linkspace, I buy advert space - there is a major difference. I don't know how quickly you expect a web business to take off and start making a proper profit, but in reality it takes years to become recognised, maybe you're hoping to make all this money in the first 3 months from backlinks. There is no such thing as an overnight success, and any major success comes with much hard work, a gimmick and clever advertising, but you won't get that from link swaps, article distribution, recommend me scripts, feeds or increasing pagerank.
There are so many hurdles that you need to get past. before a website launch can take place - and I don't believe you have been there yet. I know these barriers well, and have been there so can talk from experience about how tough it is. It's very hard to get things right without much of a budget, organise business accounts, merchant accounts, advertising, getting the right web designer or copywriter, selecting the best form of advertising etc etc. And that's all before I even start listing the kinds of problems you WILL encounter before you get to the launching stage.
Then we have business laws, administration side of things - I could go on for days quoting this stuff, but you aren't going to listen so I wish you luck and just prey that your business doesn't go down. From what you said about the 2 year time factor, if that is a major stumbling block for you, then what are you going to do when you have to wait years for your site to be accepted and used as a regular resource?
Not so easy when someone puts it like I have and tells the harsh reality like it is.
Articles is not advertising, and people do it still as it's the one of the few methods they know
Actually I would entirely beg to differ, and would like to point out a difference between hired temporary copywriters who stuff articles then submit lousy non informative articles to real site owners who really post useful information on their topic.
That information, is , and always will be advertising. How is it not? By nature of having information that someone else is seeking you are setting up a scenario to advertise. Its always been this way.
The real problem is that less than quality articles are rampant on the internet because many article directories take any and everything, it seems with little or no review.
Write articles. Post them in a blog, or somewhere you can transmit by RSS. Then manually submit them to directories. Search for sites that accept articles. I have at least one or more sites that happily accepts real quality articles.
These links get picked up by whatever sites and that means I don't have to waste time writing articles. You don't actually need that many links for this process to work - 1000 links can start the process, and I sit back and simply wait.
Last time I took this approach, I gained over 40'000 backlinks. You can carry on forever writing articles, or you can get smart and do it a little easier.
How much time have you wasted writing articles - I bet it's years, and what have you or many got to show for it - a few good links here and there maybe. Will it make you a millionaire? hmmmmmmm, doubtful. But don't pretend that's NOT why people do this, they do it for money.
