Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: How do you get links to your website?

  1. #41
    Post Impressionist
    Array
    vangogh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    15,061
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I should have known.
    l Join me as I share my creative process and journey as a writer | StevenBradley.me
    l Design, Development, Marketing, and SEO Tutorials | Steven Bradley's Notebook
    l Get my book about Design Fundamentals

  2. #42

    Default

    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.

  3. #43
    Post Impressionist
    Array
    vangogh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    15,061
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    l Join me as I share my creative process and journey as a writer | StevenBradley.me
    l Design, Development, Marketing, and SEO Tutorials | Steven Bradley's Notebook
    l Get my book about Design Fundamentals

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vangogh View Post
    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=%22J...ient=firefox-a

    Quote Originally Posted by vangogh View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Post Impressionist
    Array
    vangogh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    15,061
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    l Join me as I share my creative process and journey as a writer | StevenBradley.me
    l Design, Development, Marketing, and SEO Tutorials | Steven Bradley's Notebook
    l Get my book about Design Fundamentals

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vangogh View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Post Impressionist
    Array
    vangogh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    15,061
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    l Join me as I share my creative process and journey as a writer | StevenBradley.me
    l Design, Development, Marketing, and SEO Tutorials | Steven Bradley's Notebook
    l Get my book about Design Fundamentals

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Array
    krymson's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    219

    Default

    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.

  9. #49
    Post Impressionist
    Array
    vangogh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    15,061
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    l Join me as I share my creative process and journey as a writer | StevenBradley.me
    l Design, Development, Marketing, and SEO Tutorials | Steven Bradley's Notebook
    l Get my book about Design Fundamentals

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •