PDA

View Full Version : How do you get links to your website?



jamesray50
12-09-2010, 12:31 AM
How do you get links to your website? Right now I have two links and I don't know where they came from. Is there some way to see where the links are coming from?

Harold Mansfield
12-09-2010, 01:28 AM
If I remember correctly if you type "links:http://yourdomain into the search bar, it will list which sites are linking to you.

As for how I get links? Slowly. I'm not very aggressive after the first few weeks online.

With a new site I'll run it through a directory script that I have for 50-80 PR0 links just to get the juices flowing.
Then I'll link to it from some of my other sites.
I submit the RSS feed to the usual feed directories and Google blogs.
I'll throw a couple of blog posts out and bookmark those.
If I'm blogging regularly I'll also Tweet and auto post to Facebook and hope to pick up a few readers.
Then I run it through Bookmarking Demon ( Social Bookmarking script).
If I'm really anxious I'll put an autoblog on a subdomain and feed keyword related news excerpts through it with links back to the home page.
After that I'll drop it when commenting on other blogs or industry websites.
And then every now and then I'll luck up and write a well read blog post and pick up a few links naturally.

That's about it.

I know that all sounds like Greek to you right now, but it won't after while.

Spider
12-09-2010, 09:00 AM
Sounds like greek to me, and I've had several websites since 1996!

How long is "after a while"?

greenoak
12-09-2010, 10:30 AM
thanks eborg....what a neat link..i did it and it worked like a charm.............i didnt really get the rest of your post at all...but im sure it was a great guide!!!!..and i think we have done some of the things you mention...like posting on other blogs...that really was productive EXCEP[T it was more like kindred spirits instead of actual prospective customers since it was more national in geography.....
we get quite a bit of action from being on forums and from our blogs.... it all kind of works together...there isnt much of a reason for another store to put us on their site but when it happens we are happy...we are on as many relative regional sites as we could come up with....
we get a lot of people to our site from just googling us or looking for us and we push it in the store a lot...its on every piece of paper that customers get...and we give out free magnets with our url and a smiley face..

vangogh
12-09-2010, 11:31 AM
Jo Ellen getting links isn't always the easiest thing. It's something you need to do over time and never stop doing. There are some things you can do that generate links quickly and easily though those links tend not to be of the highest value. For example the link in your signature here. Every time you post you have another link pointing to your site. That link isn't going to have the greatest value where search engines are concerned, but it's still a link. a penny on it's own isn't worth much, but 100 of them are still a dollar.

Another thing you can do is submit to directories. Again most of these will have limited value. Generally those that have some kind of editorial process before accepting a site for inclusion into the directory will likely be more valuable. They typically cost money though. What you can do is think about words and phrases (keywords) your customers would likely use to find you, For example "bookkeeping services" Now to find directories you could search for things like

"bookkeeping services" + directory
"bookkeeping services" + "submit site"
"bookkeeping services" + "add site"
"bookkeeping services" + "submit url"
"bookkeeping services" + "add url"

You can try different words for the add, submit, site, and url and you can also try using different keywords. The results should be sites that accept submission and provide a link back to your site. Again not the highest value links, but links nonetheless. I wouldn't submit to any that require you to link to them though. Also know doing this is going to be tedious and take quite a bit of time. It's not fun, but it does start the link building process.

Generally you're going to get links to quality informational content. It's one reason you see people like myself advocating a blog. It's much easier for someone to link to a blog post about an interesting subject than it is to link to sales copy. You also want to build relationships with the people who typically link out to other sites, who also happen to be bloggers in many cases. As you build relationships with people they start linking to you without you're having to ask.

Writing content for other sites is another way to gain links. See if there are any sites in your niche that have blogs looking for writers. Some probably will. You write for them and they give you a short bio at the end with a link or two back to your site. You can also embed a link or two into the article itself as long as it's relevant to the content.

One other thing to do is simply keep your eyes open. Sites offer opportunities to gain a link all the time, but most people aren't paying attention and miss it. Maybe it's a link here and one there, but they all add up.

None of the above will happen quickly though.

Harold Mansfield
12-09-2010, 04:34 PM
Sorry, I knew that I should expound more I just didn't have the time.
I'll promise to come back later and tidy that up a bit.

Harold Mansfield
12-09-2010, 04:36 PM
I knew that I should have expounded on that more , but at the moment I didn't have the time. Sorry about that. You know I will though.


Sounds like greek to me, and I've had several websites since 1996!

How long is "after a while"?

Ha. That was pretty "Geeky". I'll clean that up a little later.

Harold Mansfield
12-09-2010, 09:31 PM
With a new site I'll run it through a directory script that I have for 50-80 PR0 links just to get the juices flowing.
You can purchase or sometimes find for free, scripts that semi-automate submissions to directories.
They usually only have low ranked low traffic directories, but a lot of them.
Here is an example of one:
http://www.esyndicat.com/

The script I use (sorry I don't remember where I got it) will do 153 submissions to PR0 to PR3 directories.

You still have to do the larger and higher ranked directories manually.



Then I'll link to it from some of my other sites.
Pretty self explanatory



I submit the RSS feed to the usual feed directories and Google blogs.
There are RSS directories where you can submit your feed. Sometimes they are called blog directories.
Here is a list of a few.
http://www.toprankblog.com/rss-blog-directories/

Google Blog Submission and Ping
http://blogsearch.google.com/ping

You can also get scripts to automate this process


I'll throw a couple of blog posts out and bookmark those.
Bookmarking sites like Digg, Delicious, Mixx, Yahoo Buzz, Fark, etc.



If I'm blogging regularly I'll also Tweet and auto post to Facebook and hope to pick up a few readers.
If you have Twitter and Facebook profiles you probably do this already



Then I run it through Bookmarking Demon ( Social Bookmarking script).
It's a bookmarking script that automates link submissions to bookmarking,and Pligg sites (Pligg is an open source platform that you can use to build your own Social Bookmarking site)
Social Bookmarking Software, Social Bookmarking Tool (http://bookmarkingdemon.com/)



If I'm really anxious I'll put an auto blog on a subdomain and feed keyword related news excerpts through it with links back to the home page.
You can buy auto blogging scripts that will post article excerpts pulled from RSS feeds. You can set them to pull articles based on what ever niche you want.
Here is an example of one that I set up on a subdomain of one of my sites:
Wordpress Webmaster News | The latest Wordpress Headlines, News and Information from across the web (http://wordpresswebmaster.haroldmansfield.com/)

Many times these scripts are used for evil instead of good. I have argued on both sides of the coin both for and against auto blogging websites.
However, there are creative ways to use the technology such as affiliate websites that can auto post new products or product information.



After that I'll drop it when commenting on other blogs or industry websites.
Commenting on other blogs and websites usually gives you a field to share your own website. Webmasters are very protective over this feature because it's a haven for spammers and "BS" comments from people just looking for back links.
I actually have the feature turned off on most of my sites. I only comment on articles that I actually read and most times the subject has nothing to do with my niche, but a well received comment or observation on a popular website can lead to a little extra traffic, although many times short lived.



And then every now and then I'll luck up and write a well read blog post and pick up a few links naturally.
Natural links are the best. It means that someone found your article or post informative or entertaining and wanted to share it on their own website with their readers.
Just like how we link to things here all of the time

That's about it.

jamesray50
12-10-2010, 01:38 PM
I decided to try adding my site to some directories, so I typed in Bookkeeping Directories. The first one I went to looked like a good one, but in order to get a link to my website there was a one time fee of $19, but I figured what the heck, I'd go ahead and pay that. I filled everything out and paid the fee. It went through Pay Pal. The site said I would receive an email with a link to click on to activate my listing. I never got the email. I went to their support page and sent them an email telling them I never got the email. I have checked my emails again today and have received nothing from them. I have sent them another email. They don't have a phone number. I filed a complaint with Pay Pal in the resolution center with Pay Pal. I don't know if I'll get my money back or not, but I won't pay for any more directory listings even if it means I miss out on links.

Harold Mansfield
12-10-2010, 02:13 PM
Directories are not powerful links. They help, but one link from one directory is not strong enough to warrant paying for it. The exception may be the Yahoo Directory or a local directory similar to a Yellow Pages. For the most part I just use directories to get some links, not because they are going to be any source of traffic or help with Page Rank.

There are enough free directories out that there that you don't need to pay for submission unless there is a specific one that you want to be listed in. I also don't submit to directories that require a reciprocal link. That's just me.
Sorry that you had that happen.

I should have probably also said that just because these are the methods that I use, doesn't mean that I would tell someone to go out and do them or to buy software. Everything is not good for everybody and you still need to be aware of where you are submitting your sites, and understand why you are doing certain things.

greenoak
12-10-2010, 05:15 PM
great info!!...im mostly benefitting from natural links...but maybe should try for more on your list...like directories.and i know lots of relevant blogs i could post on but they are so far away ....maybe when things slow down...
i would sure like t find some relevant places to post etc.... where stores hang out....or regionally where house style people hang out...
......seeing where visits come from is interesting..

vangogh
12-12-2010, 10:50 PM
Jo Ellen I'd stay away from the directories requiring you to pay. There are a handful of directories where it might be worth paying to join, like the Yahoo directory ($300 a year), but most aren't going to offer enough value to justify the money. On the bright side $19 isn't a lot. Sorry I thought I had mentioned not to pay earlier in the thread, but think I only mentioned not linking back to the directory as a requirement for being included.

DeniseTaylor
12-13-2010, 03:45 PM
Hi There

When you implement any linking strategy, it's important that you remember high quality counts. And never ever get involved in any kind of "scheme." Who you link to is very important, so make sure you hook up with high quality sites.

[edited]

jamesray50
12-13-2010, 06:42 PM
I complained to Pay Pal and they contacted the directory and I got an email from the directory saying they had activated my listing. They said the activation email they had sent me probably went in my spam folder, but it didn't, I never received it. But lesson learned, no more paid directories for now. I can't afford the bigger ones right now. I'll just try to build links the natural way, commenting on forums and articles. Maybe it will help some. I just have to be patient.

Harold Mansfield
12-13-2010, 06:54 PM
Building links is an ongoing process. Slow and steady wins the race.

vangogh
12-14-2010, 01:43 AM
Yeah don't worry too much about the more expensive directories like Yahoo. There are some that are worth being listed in under $100 if you're interested, but if it means anything I've never paid to be in a directory.

Harold Mansfield
12-14-2010, 08:34 AM
Yeah don't worry too much about the more expensive directories like Yahoo. There are some that are worth being listed in under $100 if you're interested, but if it means anything I've never paid to be in a directory.

And to add to that, I've never picked up any traffic from a general directory including DMOZ, and Mahalo.

Business Attorney
12-14-2010, 09:29 AM
I do occasionally get hits from a general directory but it is so infrequent and such a minuscule portion of the total that I would say it is not worth putting any effort into.

The best (but slowest) way to get valuable links is to provide good content. My LLC site gets links from libraries and edu sites as a reference. This month I even got a few hits from Wikipedia, so someone must have used my site as a reference on an article there. If you don't have content that is worth someone voluntarily linking to, you'll have a hard time getting enough valuable links to make much of a difference.

vangogh
12-14-2010, 11:12 AM
Great content is absolutely the foundation for getting links. I think you still need to give your content a push so it gets noticed by some people. Where and how you push it is the question and there's no one right answer.

Anthony
04-30-2011, 07:35 AM
How do you get links to your website? Right now I have two links and I don't know where they came from. Is there some way to see where the links are coming from?

There are many online tools available which can show you the domain from where the links are coming. Watch links is one of them and you can download the SEO Quake and SEO Power suit's back link checker which shows the back link URL and you'll get the idea that form where the link is coming.

SEO In Leeds
05-17-2011, 03:27 PM
Directory links are not really what you might call 'friends in high places'. A word of advice, never pay for this service. Google likes to see high quality links from 'relevant' sites with good anchor text links to relevant pages on your site. Not easy to do for anyone without tons of spare time or without the proper software to do this en masse via article and video marketing. Good SEO companies (like us) offer link building services that use article and video marketing including the anchor text links - this is link building for 2011. Building out relevant and high quality content with anchor text links is what you need to do. Google does not always look at the quantity of links more the quality.

htpcva
09-04-2011, 04:19 AM
I know I'm late in joining this thread from the original post, but I found it very interesting. Link building is a pain the butt. I downloaded the free version of the SEO Power Suite software and it's been useful in that I can analyze the competition, however you only get 50 links analyzed. I don't want to spend $300 when it transpires that that's only for 6 months. I've been tempted to pay it, but when I found that out it was a resounding no. I'm still struggling to find places to link to. I've done a bit of search engines submitted, tweet, Facebook, blogging and all that. I'm willing to pay for some kind of tool but I don't want limited access to it for 6 months. That's my 2 cent take on it.

onestepatatime52
09-07-2011, 06:29 PM
From my perspective (I'm not a techie), it seems as though the link building and all the other SEO stuff is a good thing. The caveat is that SEO is a component of your marketing plan not the focal point. I think it still boils down to having great services/products and customer service.

vangogh
09-07-2011, 10:33 PM
SEO is a component of your marketing plan not the focal point

Very, very, true and something so many people skip over. SEO is part of an overall marketing plan. It can be a very effective part, but it shouldn't be all of your marketing. Even better is if you do a few things right and then practice good marketing, much of your seo takes care of itself. Not all, but more than you might think.

@Tommy - Be wary of much of the automated seo software. No software can tell you how to optimize your site. Most of the advice they give is generic at best and often out of date. Where software can help is collecting data, though you still have to analyze the data on your own. The best seo tool is going to be your own brain.

Some of the free tools like the search engines themselves. Open Site Explorer (http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/) is good. The other tools from SEOmoz are also good, but they do require membership.

nealrm
09-08-2011, 12:55 PM
Many people also tend to forget about the offline aspect of marketing your website. Make sure that you site is mention clearly in all offline advertising and business cards.

SEO Service Finder
09-08-2011, 11:50 PM
It’s painful and tedious, but I do a search based on my keyword preference and I start contacting website owners for a reciprocal link. Some accept and some don’t but I find these to be quality links even though I’m exchanging links with my competition.

vangogh
09-09-2011, 02:16 AM
Many people also tend to forget about the offline aspect of marketing your website. Make sure that you site is mention clearly in all offline advertising and business cards.

Good point. I think all of your marketing should have a holistic approach in the sense of understanding that it should all work together. When you do that the whole equals more than the sum of its parts.


I start contacting website owners for a reciprocal link

I don't think reciprocal links have much or even any value any more. Search engines have become sophisticated enough to recognize the majority of exchanges. That's not to say 2 sites or even 2 pages can't exchange links without benefits, but I think emailing people to trade links results in an easy to spot pattern, which makes it simple for search engines to discount the links.

TEB
02-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Write articles and submit them to free article publishing sites, start a blog and submit it to blog directories, use paid press release services, place your link in forum signatures, place your link in blog comments, the ways to get backlinks are almost endless. Try publishing articles if you want backlinks from sites that have high authority. Social bookmarking is another great way to build backlinks.

PressureWashing
03-18-2012, 05:24 AM
Go to somewhere like odesk and pay somebody in India or the Philippines to do stuff like that.
Your time will be better spend on doing other things within your business.

vangogh
03-18-2012, 10:41 AM
Actually that's a bad idea. The links you'd be paying for would be at best low quality and and worst (and more likely) spam. It's possible link like that would provide a small amount of temporary help, but long term they aren't the solution to generating links or ranking well.

Harold Mansfield
03-20-2012, 07:19 PM
People who "build links" for money, are doing nothing more than spamming the internet with your website. It's probably the worst thing that you can do as a website owner. It's like letting a stranger use your car to make a drug run.
Not only are the links low quality and temporary, but some link spammers are relentless pests online. And they are doing it with your URL.

A website owner like myself HATES link spammers and I will report the link (your link) to your hosting company, and all of the search engines merely because you ( or someone you hired) repetitively spammed my site.

The best way to build links is to write content that people want to reference.

vangogh
03-21-2012, 12:25 AM
People who "build links" for money, are doing nothing more than spamming the internet with your website.

I wouldn't say that's true of everyone building links for money, though sadly it is true about a lot. There are legitimate ways to build links. For example hiring a quality writer to create well written articles that they get published on other sites. They might add a link or two in the article or get them in a bio. It's legitimate work that doesn't spam anything. There are other non-spammy ways to build links and charge for the service.

However, I do know what you mean. Sadly there are probably more people charging to spam sites for links than charging for doing a non-spammy and legitimate service.

Business Attorney
03-21-2012, 12:52 AM
I agree with vangogh that there are a small percentage of people who build links exactly like a website owner might: drafting press releases that get publications to write articles, locating niche directories that a website might be in (a few top legal directories for lawyers for example), having good quality articles ghost written for industry publications, etc... All of these are basically the Internet version of tried-and-true traditional offline marketing and PR.

Unfortunately, that type of work isn't cheap. Doctors and dentists, lawyers and accountants may be willing to pop for a $1,500 a month Internet marketing program, and the return may justify the cost. One extra set of braces can more than pay for a 3 month campaign for an orthodontist, one tummy tuck might pay for a 6 month campaign for an plastic surgeon, and a good auto accident case could pay for several years worth of SEO work for a personal injury attorney. I have clients with e-commerce sites that gross several hundred thousand dollars a month in sales, so they too can justify paying people who build links right.

Honestly, if they do their jobs right, you would never feel like you were spammed any more than you are when Sony Records sends you a free ticket to a concert of one of their artists they want you to write about.

Unfortunately, most website owners can't justify that expense, so not surprisingly there is a huge group of people around the world (mostly not in the U.S.) who will spam forums, blogs and wherever else they can drop a link, so that they can charge $19 for 1,500 backlinks or some such crazy number. The same people who want a $15 logo, a $6 banner and $3 articles are more than happy to dole out similarly small dollars for similar quality links.

PressureWashing
03-21-2012, 07:12 AM
Actually that's a bad idea. The links you'd be paying for would be at best low quality and and worst (and more likely) spam. It's possible link like that would provide a small amount of temporary help, but long term they aren't the solution to generating links or ranking well.
Not if you instruct them like you would normal employees.

Harold Mansfield
03-21-2012, 09:44 AM
Unfortunately, most website owners can't justify that expense, so not surprisingly there is a huge group of people around the world (mostly not in the U.S.) who will spam forums, blogs and wherever else they can drop a link, so that they can charge $19 for 1,500 backlinks or some such crazy number. The same people who want a $15 logo, a $6 banner and $3 articles are more than happy to dole out similarly small dollars for similar quality links.

Maybe I should have been a little more specific. Yes, there are quality service providers out there. Although I would qualify the services that you've mentioned...press releases, articles and son on as part of an over all SEO or marketing campaign.

But the "1500 backlinks for $19" kind of deals are definitely bad news. Those types of services would have you believe that they personally own a network of high ranking sites, when in reality what they are doing is using scripts to target forums, blog networks, Pligg sites, and comment sections of other people's blogs and websites.

vangogh
03-23-2012, 01:14 AM
Unfortunately, that type of work isn't cheap.


Unfortunately, most website owners can't justify that expense

Yes and no. I do agree the quality work isn't going to be cheap and it seems like site owners can't justify it. But I think that's because many think only of the expense and not the return. If done right any good marketing should bring back a greater return than the expense. I think what scares people is that their aren't guarantees and seo can seem like magic and mystery to those who don't know much about it. I think people would prefer to spend their marketing budget on things that are more conventional.

I do understand seeing the price and thinking that's too much. I'm hardly rich and those same thoughts come to me at times when I want to make a purchase for my business. However, I know that you have to keep investing in your business to keep it going and growing. Most of the investments I've made have been worthwhile even though with some it was hard to see the money go out.


Not if you instruct them like you would normal employees.

Instruct them in what? Most people who hire these cheap link builders usually don't have any idea how to instruct them and even if they did you can't make someone do more work than you're paying them. I'm familiar with those firms in India and Pakistan. They come here in large numbers leaving spam before they're all banned.


But the "1500 backlinks for $19" kind of deals are definitely bad news.

Exactly. For a penny a link how much quality can you expect.

webconquest
03-24-2012, 11:29 PM
Article marketing is a great way to create back links, try writing quality articles and submit them to ezinearticles.com. Once they are approved make tons of spun versions (different flavour of the original articles) and mass submit to tons or low and mid pagerank article directories, don't forget the bio with a link back to your website. You can always outsource from odesk.com.

billbenson
03-25-2012, 01:26 AM
webconquest - what types of sites do you think this is effective for? What types of sites do you have?

vangogh
03-26-2012, 08:05 PM
Bill it's not really effective for anything any more. Once upon a time you wrote an article and submitted it to ezine or similar. If the article was halfway decent lots of people would download it and use it on their sites. Most people wrote junky articles that were just good enough and they could pick up a few dozen links for a half hour.

Today all those copies are duplicate content. They don't rank or pass value. The best you get is the link from the original on ezine, but even that isn't worth much any more. Remember a few years ago half the searches you tried would have ezine articles in the results? How many of them do you see today? A lot less. Many of the changes Google has made in the last year or so has been to reduce the value of this sort of thing.

You can still gain links by creating content for others, but today you want to write the best article/post you can and get a single site to publish. You can guest post for blogs in your industry or find sites that accept articles. Publishing to ezine and similar is pointless now.

billbenson
03-26-2012, 08:46 PM
VG - it was a leading question :)

vangogh
03-27-2012, 12:52 AM
I should have known. :)

Business Attorney
03-27-2012, 01:38 PM
As you know, I am no SEO expert but the way I've seen it explained is that there is some small value left in article marketing IF (and that is a very big IF) the articles are actually picked up. Here is what I understand (but please comment if you disagree).

1. There is a difference, perhaps subtle, between what is considered duplicate content and what is considered syndicated content. Duplicate content is where the same information is contained on your own website at different pages. Syndicated content is content like AP feeds, press releases, or your articles picked up on different sites. The search engines try to avoid indexing and displaying duplicate content. They do index and display syndicated content.

2. After Panda, Google devalued all sorts of sites that just indiscriminately aggregate content. This affected some well known content aggregators as well as most of the article directories. While your article in a directory may still be indexed, any link value that it passes to your site from an article directory is negligible post-Panda.

3. Rewriting (or spinning) the article really doesn't help. It is not the duplicate content that kills the value, it is the fact that the article repositories themselves have essentially no value to pass.

4. If you write a great article that, luck would have it, is picked up by an authoritative site, even though Google knows that it is syndicated content, it will be indexed and linked to from that site. That happens frequently with AP feeds and to some extent with press releases. It almost never happens with an article in an article directory these days, and certainly not with an article in some PR0 article directory that someone started yesterday. If your article is picked up by anyone, it is likely to be some automated blog that picks up RSS feeds from an article directory. The auto-blog will have essentially zero authority and therefore no link juice to pass.

My conclusion is that article marketing is a poor way to spend your time. The reason is two-fold: (1) the links from the article directories themselves are now virtually worthless and (2) the chances of a good site plucking your article from oblivion is very slim.

In short, I think that having your article republished on a popular blog still would have value, but your chances of getting it published on a popular blog are near zero. You would be considerably better off if you approach the blog owner with fresh content for a guest post.

So I end up in the same place as vangogh with the difference being that I don't think that article marketing is a complete waste of time, but is far less likely to pay off than seeking the same result in a more direct manner.

vangogh
03-27-2012, 02:05 PM
People still talking about article marketing, but I don't think there's much if any value for it in terms of what it used to be, uploading articles to ezine, etc.

Whether content is duplicated or syndicated it's still doesn't make sense for search engines to present more than one version in their results. It's a poor experience to deliver the same content more than once in search results. Search engines will pick the version they think best to present. Ideally that would be the original, though unfortunately that's not always the case.

The marketing part of it has been done for links. However with the recent changes the only page that's passing link value is the one search engines decide to show in the results. It's no longer a write one article get dozens of links values. When you consider that it no longer makes sense to give the article to ezine and the like. Those sites ability to pass link value has been greatly reduced so at best your writing an article for a not so great link.

The better approach now is to find a site that could deliver a good link to you. Ideally that site would

1. Be considered an authority
2. Publish content related to what you publish
3. Have an audience similar to the one you're trying to build
4. Provides links that don't contain rel="nofollow"

Your job is to then write the best possible article you can for the audience of that site. Write the article for the real people who'll read it and let the links and seo sort itself out.

Article marketing's benefit used to be not the one link, but the many links from all the downloads. Those many links no longer pass value and so the value of submitting to the article directories is gone. It really hasn't worked in years, but people still talk about it. There are plenty of people who would rather hear "do this easy thing and get ton back" than "put in a lot of hard and get a reasonable return." People want to hear the former so you still see plenty of people writing about it. They always will.

Business Attorney
03-27-2012, 02:19 PM
Search engines will pick the version they think best to present. Ideally that would be the original, though unfortunately that's not always the case.

This is simply not true. The search engines index and report the same article all the time. Look at this search for example:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Justices+signal+possible+trouble+ahead +for+health+insurance+mandate%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


However with the recent changes the only page that's passing link value is the one search engines decide to show in the results.

If they have indexed multiple sites with the same article, even if they think that the LA Times is the original, are you saying that a link from Mashable has zero weight? I'd be interested in seeing where Google has said that.

Even if it has zero weight in Google's algorithm, I'd take a link from Mashable any day of the year. Not everything is about link juice.

vangogh
03-27-2012, 04:38 PM
Did you click through on the results. They're showing a lot of content with the same title, but not with the same article. Only the first 2 links point to the same version of the article by Noam Levy and it looks like they're getting pulled from 2 different places, the regular search (LA Times) and Google News (Petosky news). The 2 results could simply be a matter of the news story being fresh. See if both are appearing in results by the end of the week. The rest of the results I saw all mention the article, but don't actually publish it in full.

Are you seeing Mashable in the results? I'm not. Was it there or were they just an example?

I'm not suggesting a link from Mashable is bad. I'd want one too. However Mashable is not grabbing content from Ezine or any other article directory. Also the major value from having the link from Mashable is that real people see it and click on it. That has nothing to do with search engines though. For seo we have to think about what value search engines will see in that link and not just on day one, but sometime down the road. Would Google count a link from the same story that appears in both the LA Times and Mashable. Maybe. I doubt it would count the same as links from 2 different articles on the sites. My guess is the link wouldn't count much if any more than were it only one of the sites.

Again though this has nothing to do with article marketing as it's usually talked about. Neither the LA Times nor Mashable is scanning Ezine for articles to republish.

Business Attorney
03-27-2012, 07:17 PM
Did you click through on the results. They're showing a lot of content with the same title, but not with the same article. Only the first 2 links point to the same version of the article by Noam Levy and it looks like they're getting pulled from 2 different places, the regular search (LA Times) and Google News (Petosky news). The 2 results could simply be a matter of the news story being fresh.

When I posted the link to the search results (I probably should have made an image), almost all of the links on page 1 were verbatim copies of the LA Times article. At that point, there were 576 results (now up to 1,390). There were (and still are, buried among the results), many copies of the same article. Many of the rest are pages that feature a paragraph or 2 from the article and have a lot of other stuff to link to once they get your attention.


Are you seeing Mashable in the results? I'm not. Was it there or were they just an example?

Yes, Mashable was on page 1 when I wrote the post.


For seo we have to think about what value search engines will see in that link and not just on day one, but sometime down the road. Would Google count a link from the same story that appears in both the LA Times and Mashable. Maybe. I doubt it would count the same as links from 2 different articles on the sites. My guess is the link wouldn't count much if any more than were it only one of the sites.

My point is not to justify article marketing - you and I agree that it is not worth the effort. I do disagree that only one copy of an article gets indexed, however. I believe that the problem with article marketing is that the pages that the multiple articles appear on are typically nearly worthless. If the multiple copies appeared on authoritative sites, I believe the links would have some value.

You say that if the New York Times and Denver Post, two editorially independent publications, chose to publish identical articles (say, from a press release), that your guess is that the value of one of the links would not count as much because the other site chose to publish the same article, even though they both independently decided to publish. You may be right, but my bet is that a link from both the New York Times and the Denver Post is better than one link, and I'd love to have that problem.


Also the major value from having the link from Mashable is that real people see it and click on it.

I agree. I said "Even if it has zero weight in Google's algorithm, I'd take a link from Mashable any day of the year. Not everything is about link juice. " But I also think that is true of syndicated articles if they end up somewhere they are read.

For example, eHow was one of the content farms which apparently was targeted by Panda. A number of random people who have written articles for eHow have chosen to link to one of my sites as authority for one point or another. I may get no link juice from those articles, but I can tell you I get visitors. I think the same would be true of articles picked up and published on other websites.


Again though this has nothing to do with article marketing as it's usually talked about. Neither the LA Times nor Mashable is scanning Ezine for articles to republish.

When you qualify the statement with "article marketing as it's usually talked about" you are probably correct. Other than Alexa Smith at Warrior Forum, the only people who are interested in article marketing seem to be lazy spammers and the people who service them.

I remember a time when websites actually picked up articles from article sites. If you had a website on golfing, for example, you could find some good articles on ezinearticles or articlebase that were relatively well written and on topic for your intended audience. That was before the talk of "duplicate content" drove spammy websites to resort to running articles through article spinners to try to generate 100 "original" articles.

To some extent, we have come full circle, though. Now we have "content curation." The difference is that today's curator only assembles links to articles, with a headline and perhaps a short summary, and sends you all over the internet to read the articles. The gathers of old would actually copy and organize the articles in one place, which to me seems more useful for the reader.

But I digress. Again, my point is not to promote or defend article marketing. You and I agree 100% that "Neither the LA Times nor Mashable is scanning Ezine for articles to republish" and neither is any other respectable website. My only point of difference is that I believe that if a website of good reputation did choose to republish an article that was previously published on the internet, the resulting link is not worthless.

vangogh
03-28-2012, 11:36 AM
When I posted the link to the search results (I probably should have made an image), almost all of the links on page 1 were verbatim copies of the LA Times article.

David I think what happens is it takes Google a little time to sort things out. They tend to give fresh content a boost, which is why you saw the same article in the results. But look how quickly most of those results had been pushed further and further off the front page. It just takes some time for them to sort it all out. Where links are concerned we have to wait for the sorting out to take place before being able to determine the value.


you and I agree that it is not worth the effort. I do disagree that only one copy of an article gets indexed, however. I believe that the problem with article marketing is that the pages that the multiple articles appear on are typically nearly worthless. If the multiple copies appeared on authoritative sites, I believe the links would have some value.

We are in complete agreement that article marketing isn't worth it. I'm not saying the multiple articles wouldn't get indexed. However I think once Google realizes it's the same content I don't think the links from the article hold value beyond the first. Is it possible there's some value beyond the first copy of the article? Perhaps. I think more likely Google is smart enough to only count the links from the article they determine is the one to show in results. If they can't do that yet they're certainly moving in that direction. That doesn't mean having your article picked up by both the LA Times and Mashable isn't valuable, but I think the value (in the 2nd article) is more in people directly coming through the link than derived seo benefit.

I agree that not everything is about seo. In fact I think where links are concerned if you ignore seo and focus on real people when determining the value of a link you end up getting more seo value than if you did it the other way. One of the reasons I don't think article marketing is worthwhile is all the focus is on seo and none on people. It's amazing how often if you don't think about search engines how much more they send you traffic.


When you qualify the statement with "article marketing as it's usually talked about" you are probably correct.

I'm qualifying it because I know someone will say that article marketing means something like guest posting or getting some high profile site to publish an article of yours. Article marketing is vague term and I'm sure it means different thing to different people. I think here we're talking about the practice of writing a relatively low quality article and submitting it to article directories like Ezine.


I remember a time when websites actually picked up articles from article sites

It's how I started my blog actually. I didn't want to launch it without content and back then I wasn't really sure how to go about blogging so I grabbed about a dozen articles from the usual suspects. Once I'd written enough content I removed the free articles. Knowing what I know now I wouldn't do that again, but at the time it seemed reasonable.


To some extent, we have come full circle, though. Now we have "content curation." The difference is that today's curator only assembles links to articles, with a headline and perhaps a short summary, and sends you all over the internet to read the articles. The gathers of old would actually copy and organize the articles in one place, which to me seems more useful for the reader

Interesting that you mention content curation. I think it started with genuine intent. Someone reads a lot and wants to help others find the best of the best. I do think it can be useful. A few of the blogs I'm subscribed to point me to a lot of great content. They also tend to create original content, but much of what they do is point me to other things. They're also able to tell their story in what they choose to curate. Naturally they're pointing to their version of the story.

Of course if there ends up being seo value the practice will get spammed and we'll be having a conversation in a year or two on the value of content curation. :)


But I digress. Again, my point is not to promote or defend article marketing. You and I agree 100% that "Neither the LA Times nor Mashable is scanning Ezine for articles to republish" and neither is any other respectable website. My only point of difference is that I believe that if a website of good reputation did choose to republish an article that was previously published on the internet, the resulting link is not worthless.

We do agree and I think our one disagreement is actually minor. I agree with you that there's value in a link from a site with good reputation and authority even if the link comes from duplicate content. I think the value is the direct value of people visiting through that link as opposed to seo value the link carries. Maybe we even agree on that point too.

krymson
03-28-2012, 05:12 PM
Contrary to popular belief I think article marketing still works... it's the way you do it that gets you the links. Most people go out find article submission websites that get just spammed with articles no relevance to the parent site therefore Google passes it up. The way I do it is I write my article on my blog, then of course promote it through many different mediums and promote it on websites that are relevant to what my article is about. From there it's up to the reader to decide weather or not they want to share my post. If they share my post, I have a link to my website from another relevant website. I'm not talking about sharing on Facebook, Twitter or any social media sites im talking about forums, other small business/web design websites, sites that are directly relevant to what YOUR website is about. That's when article marketing works... Yes it's through your blog but in order for people to see your website then it's the best way because once they are reading your article that you wrote they have the freedom to view others on your site where they are already at... Then what comes next they're referring other people (in my case other small business owners) to your website. Then these small business owners (in my particular case) ask me to do work for them in which i get anther link back to my site for the credit and it just multiplies from there.

Is this method instant? No but does is it work? Heck yes it does. But my point is if done right article writing works if done properly and I rank pretty well because of it.

vangogh
03-29-2012, 11:05 AM
it's the way you do it that gets you the links.

Yep. What you're describing is something I agree with. However when people mention the phrase article marketing they mean writing for article submission sites. That's why we're saying article marketing doesn't work and isn't a good strategy. The term more often associated with what you're advocating is content marketing, which of course sounds like the same term.

After awhile all these terms get silly as they take on different meanings to different people. They become hard to talk about since there's no consistent interpretation of the term for conversation.

I do agree with your method. I do the same thing. I try my best to create the best content for my blog and provide the mechanism for my audience to share it on social sites. I'll also promote the content myself here and there where it's appropriate and acceptable, and I'll expand my reach by creating similar content for other sites with similar audiences to mine.