11 replies to this topic

[zweetpeaz]

I'm learning as much as I can, as quickly as I can, and I want to make sure that I do things the correct way.
I have a friend who hired someone to work on her SEO. I was going though the links to my friends site in her Google webmaster, and find links to the home page from 11 different irrelevant article sites. Pretty much the same article is posted with very little variance. The same anchor text going to only the home page. Is this the correct way to do things?
From what I've read (here and elsewhere) having links back to your site obviously is good, but they should be relevant to your site, correct?
Wouldn't these links to her site be more valuable if say they on a mom site, linking to a page on the website that has to do with a mom product?

[Jill]

Is this the correct way to do things?

No, it's not. It probably won't hurt, but it's unlikely to help much either.

Wouldn't these links to her site be more valuable if say they on a mom site, linking to a page on the website that has to do with a mom product?

Yes.

[zweetpeaz]

that is exactly what i thought:)
Thanks so much Jill for the professional clarification.

[Jill]

Just keep using your common sense and you'll do fine!

[zweetpeaz]

So, I was going through and loking at the links to my frineds site. I wanted to copy each artcle as a record of the work that the company she hired did for her. What i found is that though a few different article marketing sites show up as linking to the site, the artcles are no longer posted on the site. hmmm I went as far back as I could in posts (which isn't very far) and the article that WAS there is now gone.

This is bad, right? If that site is no longer linked to my frineds site, won't that lower her ranking later on?

[Michael Martinez]

If the links were not being counted by the search engines in the first place, it will make no difference to them if the articles go away.

[OrdAllenbea]

This is where many get article marketing wrong and when I say many I mean thousands upon thousands of marketers have been taught wrong about what article marketing is.

There is nothing wrong with using the same article on many sites but submitting to article directories that are content farms filled with ads will not help. You do not have to spin articles as many may claim (you can and doing it the proper way you can get actually readable and 80%+ unique articles). Your articles though should be syndicated and not mass submitted to adsense farms.

First and foremost all of your articles should be posted to your own site and then syndicated after. Your articles though must be high quality not only for readers but also search engines. In order to create quality content, your articles must contain proper spelling and grammar, semantically related words, and read at a proper grade level that corresponds to your niche, according the Flesch-Kincaid readability test.

Article marketing is not about getting that glorified backlink but it is about using quality content that will empower your site to have higher rankings. As for links being more powerful from related sites, this is true to a degree only! Think about this for a moment - If all your backlinks are from only related sites then do you think Google will really see all those links as "natural" ?

I'm learning as much as I can, as quickly as I can, and I want to make sure that I do things the correct way.
I have a friend who hired someone to work on her SEO. I was going though the links to my friends site in her Google webmaster, and find links to the home page from 11 different irrelevant article sites. Pretty much the same article is posted with very little variance. The same anchor text going to only the home page. Is this the correct way to do things?
From what I've read (here and elsewhere) having links back to your site obviously is good, but they should be relevant to your site, correct?
Wouldn't these links to her site be more valuable if say they on a mom site, linking to a page on the website that has to do with a mom product?

[Jill]

Think about this for a moment - If all your backlinks are from only related sites then do you think Google will really see all those links as "natural" ?

Ummm yes? How would that not be natural?

[OrdAllenbea]

How many people do you know that are going to only bookmark, syndicate, re-publish, or even post your links on only related sites ? I am talking about natural links from visitors and not from someone you hired to build backlinks. This reminds me of marketers that say "only post on do follow sites" - I must laugh every time I hear this, do they think Google is really that stupid ?

Ummm yes? How would that not be natural?

[Jill]

Real natural links are typically on related sites, imo.

[OrdAllenbea]

Here is my point. People have many different taste and do see things differently. For example I have game blog that pushes a starcraft guide. Which obviously would attract gamers but these gamers also have a wide range of taste and do see things differently. One may take a blog post of mine and share it on a forum that has to do with families instead of a gaming forum, one may take my blog post and share it on delicious but under the stack of building blogs and not a gaming stack.

This is natural link building in its truest form because the visitors with their different taste and how they see things differently are not going to always share on a "related" site.

Real natural links are typically on related sites, imo.

[thomasr]

Article Marketing in a POst Panda World is a bad idea. Those article site will soon be devalued....then all your time and effort will be wasted. Hey i could just scrape the entire web and make a site out of stolen or duplicate content....will is be valuable? No because its already been seen and published else where.

Your better off guest posting unique articles