25 replies to this topic

[joker]

Hey Everybody!

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the idea of building incoming links to my clients' web sites with article submission.

With that in mind, can anyone point me to some good basic articles on how to put together an article submission campaign?

Secondly, does anyone have any suggestions for article submission services that they have used and liked?

Thanks!

[Jill]

Hi Joker,

Lots of other threads on  submitting articles[/hr] here. Have you looked at those?

[interval]

Gaining inbound links with articles is a kind of self advertising.
Are these links relevant for Google or other SEs?
I think that SEs are smart enough to make the difference.

[Jill]

The difference between...?

[Karri]

interval,
Do you mean the difference between a backlink from a relevant site and a back link from "any old" site (in this case, an article directory)?

A link is a link. But a backlink from a relevant site, preferably with keyword rich anchor text, is more powerful, at least to my understanding (jump in here Jill if I'm off base). It's powerful not just for SEO but because the visitors to that site may be more targeted.

So, if you are submitting articles to article directories for example, it is nice to use directories that publish or syndicate content relevant to the site you are optimizing.

There are a ton of places on the 'net to submit articles to, some better than others. And there are even websites that list many of these article sites. If you can get the content into syndication, even better b/c your exposure can grow almost exponentially. (Remember, it's not just about SEO / link building, but about generating targeted interest in the site.)

Oh, and make sure the articles are VERY well written or it may do more harm than good IMHO.

A few other things I've learned (the hard way of course):
-> Create a plain text version of each article with your word wrap set to 60-65 characters. Many article directories insist on this formatting.
-> Check out some of the listservs at Yahoo where members can post articles that subscribers will receive by email.
-> Have a summary written (1-2 sentences) for each article ahead of time.
-> Think about your headline. Then think some more. If the title is weak, no one will read what may be a fabulously informative article.
-> Keep the bio/resource box to four-five lines at most.
-> Use one or two choice key phrases within your bio if appropriate. -> Some sites will let you choose your anchor text - take advantage of this.
-> Proof read, proof read, proof read. Print it out if you have to as you will catch more errors and readability issues this way. There is honestly nothing worse for a "writer's" reputation than typos, bad grammar, and spelling mistakes.

Good luck!
Karri

Edited by Karri, 06 December 2005 - 12:50 AM.

[Brian Turner]

Are these links relevant for Google or other SEs?
I think that SEs are smart enough to make the difference.

I agree - I think building links via articles for SEO purposes is an invitation to duplicate content filters to kick in.

It doesn't mean to say that writing articles is wrong, nor that gaining SEO advantages for writing articles is wrong - but I wouldn't really recommend it as a main SEO strategy.

Personally, I've hired people before now after reading their articles...and a better ROI for them, IMO.

[Michael Martinez]

Google probably measures relevance in different ways for different things. I believe they look at how important a link may be for any given page. That is, I think they probably take all the backlinks for a given page and rank them in importance (not in terms of PageRank, but call it LinkRank for convenience' sake).

What makes a link important? Well, assuming Google does look at links that way, we can easily identify some good criteria:

1) Uniqueness (which would play into the concerns some people have about site-wide links, though there is no indication that Google knows what a "site" actually is).

2) Distinction (does the link occur in a list or is it embedded in an ad or is it embedded in a body of text?)

3) Age

4) Relation to sibling links (is it grouped with other links that point to textually similar documents?)

5) PageRank of the page hosting the link (I think this may play into what Matt Cutts refers to when he speaks about "reputation", but that's just a guess)

6) Relevance of anchor text (are there shared words between the anchor text and the indexable text on the target page?)

7) Type of link (text link, image link, link in a list, etc.)

So, what is the potential benefit at looking at how important inbound links are with respect to their target document? Well, you can measure the importance of the document with respect to similar documents by which ones point important links at it.

Now, that is a bit esoteric, but I think it's a sound method for quantifying the value of links. In other words, if Google wants to figure out which links are more valuable than others, then the most important links should be coming from good quality sites. If the criteria for importance (other than PageRank of the linking page) don't measure up, then maybe something is fishy.

[joeblstrn]

Well the duplicate content is only on a domain itself. I offer article submissions as part of my service. I have to agree that articles are the best way to build links and quality traffic. Articles are more then just BL. They are about building your reputation. Think about site's like PR web. They have thousands of Press release submitted on their site and then distributed all over the net. I think they have a PR 10.

[Debra]

I have to agree that articles are the best way to build links and quality traffic. Articles are more then just BL. They are about building your reputation. Think about site's like PR web. They have thousands of Press release submitted on their site and then distributed all over the net. I think they have a PR 10.

On my computer using the Google toolbar, prweb.com has a Page Rank score of 6/10 as an FYI.

(The bold above is mine) I think it's hard to make a blanket statement that "articles are the best way to build links..." Not all sites lend themselves to this tactic and not all industries are receptive.

The best links are long-term promotional links using keyword rich anchors and are placed on reputable, high traffic sites that host your demographic. How you get them is another story.

I'm not saying article creation as a link tactic isn't good or doesn't work - it is and it does. It's just not accurate to say this is the *best* tactic.

[BobetteKyle]

They are about building your reputation.

Yes, your business reputation. To me, the main advantage to article writing is the increased reputation in the eyes of the human readers. Making that the primary goal of article-writing will result in your articles - and Website links - being published on relevant Websites (i.e., the ones that will help your link popularity, or whatever it's called, the most), without having to worry one iota about the internal workings of pagerank, ranking formulas, dances and whatnot.

In the end, you've built your business in two ways. You've gotten the attention of more people in your target audience (1) through your insightful writing and (2) through more clickthroughs as a result of better search engine rankings.

Conversely, (in my view) writing garbage articles with links to a garbage site will kill your business.

[Debra]

Gaining inbound links with articles is a kind of self advertising.
Are these links relevant for Google or other SEs?
I think that SEs are smart enough to make the difference.

I'm interpreting your comments as a "content being discounted" type instead of what's a relevant link....hence my comments come from that angle.

Google has been publically poo-pooing paid links since they see this as a form of link manipulation (in loose terms) so it would be logical to assume they may also begin to discount sites/pages hosting articles embedded with links - self promotional or not.

We often ask how they know they're paid links and answers vary, but there are some ways they can do this algorithmically (where they're located, surrounding text topics etc). Since articles are usually formatted the same way and have by-lines it's not outside the realm of possibility they can algorithmically figure this out too.

Long shot? Perhaps...but their open dislike of paid links and the fact they know about this article tactic .....who knows?!

[meta]

There's more to business life than search rank. Site owners post articles because they judge them to be of interest to their visitors. Visitors who read the articles and find them useful will click the link and visit your site. Drawing targeted visitors - people who are interested in the content of your site - is valuable. It's a necessary step toward selling.

[interval]

Hi,

Thanks for the valuable feedback.

I was out of home for few days. This is the reason for this late post.

In my opinion Google or other SE count the relevance of inbound link. An inbound link is a vote for my site. It is more valuable if it comes from a relevant site and if the anchor text matchs the keywords from title (content). It is a kind of respect paid to target document (thanks michael martinez).

Sooner of later Google will 'read' that a link comes from another site but is contained in (my) article. They have enough money and smart people to build a such kind of algorithm. Then Google will consider this kind of link like a manipulation (thanks Debra) or an unnatural way of adverising close to spam.

Articles are also a danger for duplicate content penalty (thanks Brian).

Of course they build a reputation (in human eyes - thanks Bobette) and I have no doubt that articles were one of the best way to build links and quality traffic (thanks joeblstrn), but this way will be soon discredited by Google and other SEs. At least this is the tendency I 'smell'.

I can see that many people consider that link exchange is dead or will be very soon. I agree with this opininon considering that link exchange is (in many cases)mostly an agreement than a mutual consideration. Of course I am looking for a relevant site to swap links, but finally is just a bargain. And probably Google will disagree.

The content remains the king. I must concede that behind some valuable inbound links could be an agreement or a payment. This is hard to know even for Google itself. But what I feel is that very soon links coming from articles, swapping, forums, paid directories, free directories will be just links. They will be listed by Google but considered almost irrelevant because they are a result of agreements, manipulation, self-consideration,etc.

Sorry to be pesimist.

[interval]

Sorry to come again.

What could be funny is that a Google wage earner could read our posts and make proposals for future strategies.

[Michael Martinez]

I don't think natural link exchange is dead. I feel that organized, managed, industrialized link exchanging for the purpose of boosting search engine rankings is being successfully challenged by Google.

It still tends to work better for Yahoo! and MSN.