I've wasted months trying to get Adsense approval

I have a small website with syndicated articles

[Art_H]

I have a small website with syndicated articles, and am unable to get Adsense approval. I've never had an adsense account. The auto responder always says -Page Type- does not provide value or unique content. The only unique article would be the original article. What would be the point of syndicating articles? It seems like Adsense might be a waste of time. I've found at least 60 other sites with the same format as mine with Google ads on them.

[johnnie]

If you don't have original content at all, then what additional value do you provide? Syndicated articles can be a nice complement, but you shouldn't build your site on them. Google wants quality, original sites that provide added value to that already available.

[koan]

I have a small website with syndicated articles, and am unable to get Adsense approval.

The answer is in the question. You could have spent those months creating unique content.

[Art_H]

So, What's the point of writing an article for syndication if it's considered junk on other sites? Doesn't make sense. Why would an author want an article to be found on only one url in the whole world? The whole point is to distribute with proper links.

[Swanny007]

The point of writing articles for syndication is to get people to come to your site for more, unique articles. If you have 10 articles on your site and then syndicate all of them, then there's no added value at your own site. I have only submitted one article to the directories and it was not an article I put on my own site.

If you were to build your site with unique articles, get approved, I guess you could always put some syndicated content back on your site. I wouldn't recommend that but it's possible. If you have identical content to any other sites you always run the risk of having a duplicate content penalty in the search engines (i.e. your site won't rank), and AdSense won't approve you. So it's really a lose-lose proposition until you have quality, unique articles of your own.

[eeek]

Why would an author want an article to be found on only one url

What need is there for more than one?

[johnnie]

Consider syndicated content as an additon to your offerings. And be careful; most of the syndicated articles I encounter at ezinearticles and the like are just rehashed sentences of empty nonsense.

[koan]

Art_H, are you saying your site has syndicated articles from other people or are you saying your articles are syndicated on other sites? If it's the ladder, I don't see a problem, but if your site only has copies of other people, then it doesn't have any value in the eyes of search engines.

[Lame_Wolf]

If it's the ladder

Depends if it is your real ladder, or your step ladder... Sorry, couldn't resist. <G>

[explorador]

Why would an author want an article to be found on only one url in the whole world?

It's not egoism as some state nowadays, its because great content (of any kind) is hard work and is not intended to appear on a bunch of sites to drive traffic for them and make $$ for them. Each to its own, hands to work.

Like others said, please explain as its not clear if you wrote those articles and you allow them to be published on other sites or if you are publishing articles from other sites on yours. (I would think is the last one) Any of them are not the right model.

Giving credit, links to the writer... an even so, not publishing everything as it is (replication) its the only way to go. Internet its said to be easy... don't think so, its harder.

[Lame_Wolf]

So, What's the point of writing an article for syndication if it's considered junk on other sites?

Well, if I were writing articles, I would write them for MY site, not for others and not for syndication.

Doesn't make sense.

Yes it does ... if you think about it.

Why would an author want an article to be found on only one url in the whole world?

Why not ?
If you were writing an article about purple widgets with green dots, the visitor will find it ... at YOUR site.

Two things... SEO and Search Engines. Simple as that.

The whole point is to distribute with proper links.

Since when ?

What's wrong with other sites linking to that article page ?

Far better all round. That is what the web is about.

[tangor]

If one thinks of how "syndication" is actually spelled: "regurgitation" then the warnings others have given regarding duplicate content, value, etc., makes more sense. Google (and most folks) look for the original as the "BEST SOURCE" instead of regurgitation sites with no unique content to offer.

[eeek]

The auto responder always says -Page Type- does not provide value or unique content.

I think that says it right there. You don't have unique content and Google's automation isn't going to let you get anywhere with signing up until you do.

[farmboy]

There a number of people who write articles for syndication: political pundits, advice columnists, car repair columnists, etc. With those, the authors get paid for their article/column by EACH site, newspaper, etc. that publishes the article. Thus, the more places it appears, the more income they earn.

Is that the type of "syndication" you're discussing?

If not, do you mean articles at one of the article sites where the author hopes it gets spread around and he will benefit by having a lot of incoming links?

Or maybe you mean an RSS feed and you are calling that a syndication?

Which one is it?

FarmBoy

[Art_H]

@swanny007 you sum up the situation the best, the syndicated articles would need to be a feed, (javascript), unable to be seen by spiders, and the articles on the site would need to be hard code and original. If I want to keep the articles in the feed, they need to remain unpublished and for me only, correct?

[himalayaswater]

Or maybe you mean an RSS feed and you are calling that a syndication?

That is nothing but content theft. If someone using RSS feed, be prepare to get DMCA later on. There is now free service called fairshare.cc. It will provide details for each of your urls and reusing page, including if they linked you back or not and if ads are present or not.

[Art_H]

@himalayaswater thanks. What I meant was, the articles that I have now and are causing me trouble are from article sites like farmboy said, These folks hope to get spread around with links back. Some are my own, of course. These have to be hardcode, no feed. I need to remove these except the ones I wrote and get feeds for any other articles that are not my own. This model would show me as having less content, but the content I do have would be quality, and I could still have plenty for my visitors to read.

[brianng]

You should spend that time to create a real site, or write more articles. I believe most of the site reviewing process is automated, so your site will be automatically rejected no matter how many times you submit the site.

[signor_john]

Google isn't saying you can't use "syndicated content," or even that you can't build an entire site around syndicated content. Google is merely saying that it doesn't want to run "Ads by Google" on that kind of site.

To put it another way, Google is no more obligated to be your advertising partner than you are to be Google's advertising partner. Think of it as a win-win situation: You get to choose, and so does Google.

[ember]

All of our content is original, written in-house, and we do not distribute it so it is on only one URL, ours (except, of course, for the sites that plagiarize our site). AdSense seems to like that, and so do our readers. Makes us unique. Our content it too valuable to just give it away to others.

[Art_H]

Yep- looks like all of those articles out there are pretty much useless- I sure see the advantage of having the only copy of your content on your site. Why would anyone dilute the value of their content by making it free to copy?