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 site linked to as now part of a bad neighborhood
Wouldn't the 1st site have to link back to the bad sites for this to happen? Otherwise many sites like hotmail, yahoo etc. would be penalised.
Aren't bad neighborhoods in the strictest sense sites that you link TO and not sites that you receive links FROM.
"In which case, an unethical competitor could conceivably do this to your site on purpose etc."
For this reason, I don't think it happens. It would be too easy to sabotage someone. In fact, if IBL could harm you or a competitor, people would be sabotaging each other 24/7. It would be chaos. I think this is why google may have taken the position that IBL links cannot hurt a site, though, in some cases, they may not help a site.
This makes sense. I doubt google has 1/100th the number of filters and penalties that have conjured up or speculated about by us, the paranoid webmaster community.
I think the deciding factor would probably be the percentage of total links that were coming into your site from "bad neighborhoods". Just one of many variables, all with the goal of deciding on the site's TrustRank, as the theory goes.
So the TrustRank of a Yahoo or Hotmail would probably not be too impacted by a relatively small number of bad neighbors.
Of course this is all just wild speculation on my part. I may have to test this out on one of my sites.
IF I decided to offer those articles to other sites for ibl purposes. In theory, I should not suffer from a duplicate content penalty?
The idea is a good one, but too many people are using them for the purpose of one way links. Google will catch up to this I would think.
I'd try this on a new site, but never on my older sites that are more established. I know it works for now, but just be careful I would say.
Brian
Using that logic, shouldn't google blacklist the yahoo directory since everyone who pays the 300 bucks to get in is only doing it for a one way link? Should google blacklist sites because they have hundreds of links from dmoz clones? That would make just as much sense since 99.9999999 percent of all web users have NEVER heard of dmoz and the only people who submit to dmoz are webmasters (and those webmasters ain't doing it for "powerful dmoz links", but rather all those "one way links" from the dmoz clones).
Should google blacklist anyone who uses PRleap, or PRnewswire, or PRweb---since those press release services are really just conduits for "one way links"?
What about all the gazillions of free directories? Blacklist those too for all those terrible one way links they provide. I guess that means google should also go after the pay for inclusion directories like gimspy, joeant, bestoftheweb, etc---those one way links again.
I understand your trepidation, I do. I just don't think it holds up under scrutiny. The most google would ever do, IMO, would be to start stripping articles sites of their pagerank (an idea I threw out once). And this is exactly what google has been doing to some pay for inclusion directories. But...if you notice, that doesn't mean the people who got the links from those directories got penalized. They may simply have lost some pagerank that they were otherwise getting. There is a huge difference between NULLIFYING A BENEFIT and APPLYING A PENALTY. I really don't think google gets too much into penalization, but instead looks for ways to strip advantages away from rank manipulation.
But...even stripping a few articles sites of their PR wouldn't even address the issue since the value of this method has little to do with where an article first appears. The benefit of this method comes from the viral-like replication of articles on sites that "republish" article content. And while "article sites" themselves may be fairly easy to group, how do you propose to track down every single site that ever republished an article that originally appeared on an article site---and then determine whether or not the submitter of the article was simply submitting an article or trying to "game" the system. This involves subjective analysis, i.e. human analysis on a scale to which google will never commit. Good grief, even with their cash cow adsense, they can't be bothered to give you more than canned responses.
Dose anyone out there have a list of top syndicated article topics?
Should google blacklist anyone who uses PRleap, or PRnewswire, or PRweb
I don't think they have blacklisted them but a very popular Google engineer confirmed at least one of those isn't passing green pixels any more.
