1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Am I Being Unreasonable?

Discussion in 'Copywriting' started by Homer, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. Sutocu

    Sutocu Active Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    24
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #21
    High PageRank (or should I say TrustRank now?) web sites often rank above other sites that have published the same content. Getting in first helps, but isn't always enough. I don't know if any duplicate content penalties would be associated though.
    SEMrush
     
    Sutocu, Nov 7, 2007 IP
    SEMrush
  2. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #22
    I applaud you for your efforts and sticking to your listed policies.

    I have always questioned the SEO benefits of submitting the same article to a number of article directories. If things work the way they're supposed to, only one would count and the rest would be voided as dupe content. So what's the point?

    Besides, a free directory or even a paid one for that matter should never promise 100% submission acceptance. The web space and links are in exchange for at least a decent article. Something that is posted on 100's of other sites isn't a decent submission and would never rise to being a quality submission - at least in my book.

    I'd be much more likely to submit articles to your directory under your policy then to submit to the others without such a strong policy. I think your submissions may go down, but in the long run they will be of a much higher quality.
     
    YMC, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  3. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #23
    I actually have to say I'm a bit shocked to see so many people saying you're not unreasonable. I think your policy is flat out ridiculous, and not a great business model on your end.

    Let's look at this for a minute...

    1. Your site is absolutely worthless without "quality" content, so that's what you must be in the market for with submissions.

    2. You expect that quality content for free.

    3. You're offering absolutely nothing of value to the writers who are giving you their time and expertise (and don't pull the exposure and backlinks crap... it's a whopping PR3 site without any real branding to back it up on the exposure front - useless to people making submissions in contrast to quite a few competitors).

    4. You're not really asking for this free content to simply offer quality material to readers. You're doing it to make money... yet you have no intention to give any cut of that money (in addition to nothing else of value) to people making submissions. You make it sound on the site and here as though you have some kind of altruistic motive. If that's the case, run a non-profit site and rely on donations... in other words, get the ads off completely if you're going to play that as a selling point.

    Real writers don't go around giving up their work for free. That's what you want them to do. Even when submitting to large article directories, they're getting something in return - often much better backlinks and a better chance of exposure by using them as a sort of syndication-style tool. You don't even seem to offer that option. If you'd been a bit smarter in your planning, you would have worked more on building your own backlinks, dramatically improving your branding efforts, etc. before trying to eliminate any duplicate submissions (from legitimate sources) in the way that you're saying here.

    I'm in no way a supporter of big article directories, but the benefits some of the big ones offer.... exposure through syndication plus link juice from highly ranked sites. What does your site offer to justify you asking for people to submit their work and expertise for free (when compared to the ROI they'd get submitting it elsewhere)? Nothing. Even on the niche front there are far better outlets to submit to for real exposure and links, so it's not even a case of a quality niche directory versus a massive all-inclusive directory.

    I'm not surprised that only 2% get past your checks for approval. I can't imagine a larger percentage of professionals with anything worthwhile to say who would be stupid enough to submit under those rules given the current status of the site.
     
    jhmattern, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  4. internetauthor

    internetauthor Peon

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    I don't know that it's unreasonable to accept only unique content. Sure, there might not be much in it for the writer, but the writer isn't being taken for a ride - he's submitting of his own free will, regardless of his reasoning.

    One person complained via email that it was unreasonable and got nasty about not being accepted. With so many other sites out there that take duplicate content, what difference does it make that one small site rejected him?

    If that person doesn't like the TOS, there is no reason he can't find other places to submit - why take the time and effort to complain about the TOS he clearly violated?

    The rejected author can take his duplicate content to another submission source without any kind of penalty or loss. (Other than time which he wasted since he didn't follow TOS to begin with.)

    The question wasn't if the TOS are beneficial for the authors submitting work, it was if the TOS are reasonable. There is nothing wrong with requesting unique content. Obviously it's working to a small degree.

    If the authors want to submit to it, they can and do. If they don't, they simply take their work elsewhere. It's the authors' prerogative, but the site is not unreasonable - simply slanted in favor of the webmaster, but then what commercial site isn't?
     
    internetauthor, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  5. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #25
    But it is unreasonable for him to expect what he wants for what he's offering (or not) in return. He's asking about whether or not his business model is essentially reasonable. From a business perspective (and on the large scale) it's not. There's nothing wrong with asking for something like unique content when you have nothing to offer. But you'd be an idiot as an entrepreneur to sit back thinking you're going to get it.

    Am I making excuses for people not reading the TOS? Not at all. But it's the owner's job to know his market (doesn't appear that he does here). If he did, he'd know the bulk won't bother, because they've come to expect certain kinds of standards. If he did, he'd also know the motivation of these "experts" in submitting to article directories in the first place, and he would have put in the proper effort early to give them that before making demands, expecting exclusive rights to content. Instead, the OP is doing his market research on a webmaster forum after the fact. What's "reasonable" about that??

    Reality check for a moment:

    1. These writers have certain motivations for submitting free content to directories, ezines, etc.

    2. The OP isn't running a site that satisfies those motivations.

    3. There are no "official" TOS on the site at all... just a blurb above the submission form that the OP is assuming people will read. If you want to make rules, make them official. Otherwise, people are going to skip right to the form. Should they? No. But they ought to know their market enough to know that they will. If 98% of people making submissions aren't following your rules, it's pretty likely that the problem isn't with them....

    4. This rule isn't a long-standing one. Obviously the OP periodically changes the TOS (and in somewhat big ways, as the current message implies the site is arbitrarily expanding their rights over anything submitted to cover their blog as well.... is that retroactive? Who knows? Nothing's official, and no one's actually asked to agree to these terms before they up and do whatever the hell they want with your content). You can expect that people who submitted or saw the site in the past are simply going to re-read the submission page because you changed some things. The current rules definitely didn't always apply. As a matter of fact, it was fairly recently that they only rejected "heavily duplicated" articles. Well, ummm, what the hell does that mean? Rather than being responsible and laying out specific guidelines, he expects people to not only give him something for free, but to take their time to do it based on extremely vague language. Then he ups and changes it (although not that noticeable to the repeat visitor if you take a look at the archived page), and simply expects people to notice that.

    So no, it's not reasonable to ask for what he's asking for in the way that he's doing it. It's also highly unprofessional in its current state.
     
    jhmattern, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  6. hnanan

    hnanan Banned

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    Not at all mate
     
    hnanan, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  7. internetauthor

    internetauthor Peon

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    I think you've spent more time digging into the site than I have. I'm considering generalities, and you're speaking in specifics, which in this case makes the most sense. I'll concede the point. :)
     
    internetauthor, Nov 7, 2007 IP
  8. latoya

    latoya Active Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    73
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #28
    That's exactly what I was thinking. I assumed the OP was running a site similar to ezinearticles or another larger article directory, which, in that case, it makes complete sense to reject duplicate articles.

    I also assumed that since the site isn't so well known, that it doesn't command an audience who's at least willing to rewrite their articles before submitting. If that had been true, it would take some time for the OP to build PR and reputation to begin attracting the type of audience who doesn't submit duplicate content.

    Of course, these were some very huge assumptions, which might still contain a smidgen of truth.

    I didn't know the TOS were being changed arbitrarily or that there was nothing in it for people who submit articles, which change the scenario all together.

    The original post was presented in a way that would garner support. "I don't allow duplicate content on my site and one of my customers got mad about it." Seem like Homer knew enough about the DP audience to know he'd get support with that statement. I'm interested to see what he'll say in response to Jenn's posts.
     
    latoya, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  9. Homer

    Homer Spirit Walker

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    Thanks for your response. I was hoping to hear from the other side of this and now I have a new perspective.


    Agree

    Not true. This site has been online for a few years now. About a year ago it was a PR5 flirting with PR6. I have had authors email me and say your site brings traffic to mine, cool. That's the name of the game.


    Our feeling is that our PR has dropped because of heavy duplication and the latest update where many sites dropped, some more that others. I am not interested in competitors; I am attempting to do something very few (if any) article directories do.

    There are back links to this site
    I do pay for hosting this site
    RSS feeds other webmasters have on their site

    I do agree that you would get the exposure you would from the other article dirs like goarticles, ezineartcles, etc. I am not trying to compete with them.

    Actually making money will come naturally in time, but right now I want good content from good authors. Profit, the swear word you make it out to be comes in time. Why do you sell PLR articles> profit. I don't care if we are only approving 2% of submissions. Out of all authors, some are coming back after receiving our email of rejection (see previous post) with unique content...mission accomplished. I don't force them to do that nor do I force them to submit in the first place.

    We invested in some really cool software that checks for duping and human review each article. The directory of this site where all submissions are posted is litter free...NO AS, NO ADS, NO PROFIT.

    http://www(dot)createonlinebusiness(dot)com/wordpress/

    My motive is simple...provide content that you don't see everywhere else. Again, I don't force you to submit articles; you make the choice where you want to submit. If you're going to submit to us I don't want duped content, that simple and my prerogative.



    Not sure if you done as much homework as you think you have, please check...
    There are plenty of back links to this site as well as RSS feeds, email footer feeds
    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=li...ss.com&fr=yfp-t-471&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
    http://66.102.9.104/search?hl=en&q=link:+www+createonlinebusiness.com&btnG=Search

    FYI elimiting what is already on our site is not what we are doing, it stays. Once we accept an article it stays. What's coming in now is what we are focusing on...100% uniqueness.

    I am not twisting anyone's arm to submit to us.

    My feeling is that Google is upping the anti with new algos.
    • Heavy duplication is useless in the long run
    • Experts are being sought by Google
    • A webmaster is harming themselves by submitting the identical article to many directories
    • Crap PLR content is only good if you modify it (no offense intended)

    In a nutshell I am cleaning this directory up the way I see fit. The reason I posted here is to get exactly what I am getting now. I can see it both ways but am not about to back paddle on policy.

    I didn't post here to stuck up to anyone...honesty is what I wanted :).


    Thanks Jenn and others

    H
     
    Homer, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  10. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #30
    You're asking about a situation right now... not about a year ago. Right now, your site offers very little in the way of backlink quality to people submitting. What you've also just said here is that when you had something to offer in that sense your restrictions were less. Now that you have less to offer, you're demanding more. That doesn't make a lick of sense, especially if you don't want to be upsetting people submitting free articles for your use.

    I'd find it hard to believe that someone would get any significant traffic from an article posted on your site compared to other options. Frankly, you're targeting an online business audience, and your alexa rank is pretty low from a traffic perspective. I know all about Alexa's faults. I also know it's extremely easy to rank well with them when you're targeting a Web-savvy audience as opposed to most other niches, which certainly makes me wonder why the site is so low given the material and who you're targeting.

    That may be your feeling, but it's not likely the case. If it were, you'd have dropped long before this update, as your past TOS allowed for duplication, and as you've said, the site's not new. A lot of sites dropped recently because of the backlinks issues (where Google assumes they're either buying or selling text links). Like it or not, that's basically what article directories do... they pay authors with backlinks, meaning they have very little value to Google in the sense of improving their algorithm.

    What you've also just told us is that it's not really about decreasing duplicate content because your readers don't like it... you've just told us that essentially you made that decision only in your own self-interest... salvaging pagerank, because you think it's why you decreased. There's a huge difference there. Even if what you say on your site is remotely true, you should have done it a long time ago if that was your real interest. Your timing really speaks for itself.

    There are also a lot of backlinks to larger article directories. If you had a lot of high quality backlinks, your pagerank wouldn't have taken quite the dive it seems to have taken. Work on improving them, and maybe you'll have something to offer again in that sense. Then again, article directories may be on the chopping block of Google no matter what you do in the pagerank department long-term, intentional or not, based on their recent changes.

    I'm not sure what hosting your own site has to do with it. I'd be surprised to see any large article directory not hosting their own (same with any large niche site accepting article submissions).

    The RSS feeds aren't a good thing from the perspective of someone who could submit an article for exposure. All that does is increase likely traffic to your site. Straight-up reprints are the norm for a reason... some of the highest quality links and exposure these "experts" get is when an ezine picks up an article, sending it out to their large targeted audience. You've ruled out that whole group of users, again for something that serves your own self-interest. Am I saying that you shouldn't consider your business interests? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that you need to stop trying to tout certain motivations and benefits when the actions just don't back them up. If you want to know why some people aren't going to be crazy about your site, look at how you're presenting yourself in that sense.

    You are competing with them, and you put yourself in that situation the second you decided that you won't accept any duplicate material from authors wanting to mass-distribute their work. Why? Because you've created an all-or-nothing situation for yourself and the authors. Once you made it a "submit to us or submit to them" scenario, you put yourself in competition with them. If you want to understand your market well enough to appeal to them, you need to start grasping that quickly, and finding ways to deal with that when trying to persuade your target market to submit their content to you.

    I never said profit was a bad thing, or that you shouldn't earn money from your efforts. My point was that you're trying to use the ad placements as a benefit over competitors, when in reality they're not. Keep this in mind from the perspective of a writer who might be looking for exposure...

    Would you submit to a large, well-branded, high-traffic site that puts ads within your content (so you know they're earning a workable income, and not likely to disappear with your content in the next few years because they couldn't earn enough to stick with it), or do you submit to a smaller site where one of the supposed benefits is that they're not placing ads right in the content (non-optimized ad placements mean hurting income potential which means the site owner may not be able to cut it long term, and you'll lose your exposure and links if they go under)? From that perspective, the ads are far from a bad thing.

    While you're not forcing anyone to do anything, you are being extremely misleading, especially to repeat submitters, as you seem to arbitrarily change your rules.

    The number of backlinks is irrelevant if the quality isn't there. People simply posting your RSS feed aren't giving you the highest quality of backlinks - and frankly, backlinks are why most sites have been penalized recently (as I already mentioned). Dup content would affect rankings in the SERPs far more than something like pagerank. My point that you said this in response to actually had nothing to do with your own backlinks, but the quality of backlinks you're able to provide as pseudo-compensation to those submitting. Right now your site isn't offering much in the way of link juice to those looking for it (I'm not one of them, but you have to understand that's what many do things like this for).

    I wasn't trying to imply that you were going to eliminate content already on-site, but rather that you're eliminating the option completely in the future. Sorry if the wording wasn't clear.

    No offense taken on the PLR point. Mine are anything but crap; just a writing experiment that's ended (why they're off the market in '08) which I did for the benefit of other writers interested in pursuing additional income streams. I'm a professional business writer. My PLR content wasn't the BS regurgitated garbage many offer, but rather professionally-written short articles on topics in my area of expertise (nor are those of a few other high quality writers in that area here - like Latoya and Dee Power), and I certainly don't tout them as an "as-is" solution. ;)

    I do have to say, the policy comment was mildly amusing, because looking at archived versions of your submit page alone, you've back paddled on policy quite a bit with regard to submissions. You went from literally just using the article submission form as a contact form plus article submission form (with no TOS at all) to accepting no heavily duplicated content to now saying no duplicate content at all (and of course adding on new "rights" for yourself by saying you can publish to a blog as opposed to the main site, which would have been implied before)... all while what you're able to offer in return has just decreased rather than increased.

    If you have no intention whatsoever of seriously taking suggestions into consideration to improve your site's policies or practices, don't waste your time asking for it. :rolleyes:

    I'm certainly not taking this much time just to be a bitch. You asked for feedback, and in my opinion some of the feedback was missing several big points. I just don't sugarcoat honesty, especially when people ask for it.

    But if you do decide to take anything seriously, here are a few considerations:

    1. If you don't want to be competing with the "big guys" (general or niche), you can't make it an either or situation.

    2. If you want to be taken seriously by any real "expert" that could provide you with unique and quality content, you need to make some serious changes - a true TOS and not a blurb on the submit page (you should want something binding if you're really concerned - you current have no "rights" obtained for the content you're getting. They could submit to you, wait for it to go up, and then submit to a dozen other places anyway; some of which would be indexed before you... all after you approve something). You really need some kind of actual sign-up process where those submitting are bound to terms, including that they have the right to publish the material to begin with (otherwise, you assume full legal risk if you get illegal content - and remember... passing Copyscape doesn't mean it's legal; you can't legally rewrite someone else's work without permission, and most of those illegal articles do pass copyscape and similar tools).

    3. If you want something unique, and want to avoid competing with the big guys, there are much easier ways to do it. You don't have to stop people from submitting content to other places, even first. All you really had to do was revamp your submission form. Take a look at sites like Associated Content and Work.com, both of which offer real benefits to those submitting (one offers payment; the other real exposure). You can do anything from simply forcing them to add a subtitle or summary first (which adds some unique text to the beginning of the article, as well as giving you more keyword density where it counts the most) to being more like Work.com, where users are forced to submit articles within a very specific template (so even if they've used the same text elsewhere, it's not exactly duplicate, and they'd very likely have to add to it a little bit to make it work with your site format) - and for the record, both of those sites are doing extremely well, and both don't demand all exclusive rights... an example of how duplicate content isn't really such a site killer, and another prompt to look more at the quality of backlinks to explain the ranking changes.

    4. You offer absolutely nothing on your submit page currently to entice people to submit high quality work. You mention doing something for readers, but completely neglect the benefit angle to those submitting. They don't care about the readers on your site. They care about the links, the traffic they'll get (which they'll get whether it's unique or not), and the syndication to relevant targeted sites, blogs, and newsletters (RSS doesn't encompass that full spectrum). If you want to convince them that giving up unique content is a good thing, you need to rework the copy, at least on that page, to appeal to them, which you're currently not doing. For example... if you allow more direct reprints in the future, you can say something along the lines of those running newsletters being more likely to distribute their articles for them to targeted (and often large) audiences when they know it's not already in every article directory in creation.

    Good luck with it. I'm not saying the project can't, or shouldn't, be done... only that there's a lot from a business perspective where your current rules / submit page are off the mark for the type of audience you're trying to reach, and that it might be highly beneficial to take some of the suggestions to heart rather than simply saying that you're unbendable on your policies (which hasn't been the case, and shouldn't be when they're at least somewhat based on misguided info - regarding the potential reasons for the PR drop for example).

    Jenn
     
    jhmattern, Nov 8, 2007 IP
    Homer likes this.
  11. Gimi

    Gimi Peon

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    Your right dup content is a waste of time for everyone, if people like you didn't exist, then the net would be crammed full of rehashed stuff, just to get self interested people a few rankings. But your dup software is only accepting 2% ?, can this be true, can 98% of articles submitted to article directories be duplicates? hard to believe, what software are you using? and how do you know it's never wrong, i.e. how do you check its right?, do you google a line for example?
     
    Gimi, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  12. YMC

    YMC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,787
    Likes Received:
    404
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #32
    Jenn, I find it interesting that you appear to be advocating that it is OK for websites to post duplicate content and for writers to promote themselves by plastering the web with it. While I know it is the way many do things, it disappoints me that you seem to be such a strong advocate of the practice.

    I don't fault Homer for changing his TOS. It would appear he is learning as he goes. Not the best way to do business for certain, but it does reflect that he is interested in providing a quality resource. I agree that he needs a well-thought out and highly visible TOS and should get that done before he does anything else. As with most TOS there should be a section about the TOS being subject to change (can't say as too many sites don't give themselves the ability to change the rules mid-stream). Doesn't your article directory have such a clause? (I remember you started one, but don't remember if you still have it or not.)

    This issue does seem to be something of a hot button topic for you as I seem to recall another conversation where you didn't like the way an article directory owner was running their site. Homer simply asked the DP community for feedback after receiving such an anger-filled email. Some of us don't agree with the e-mail writer and you do - fair enough.

    I do, however, agree with the first 2 of your suggestions.

    Associated Content has it's own share of issues with Google and may not be the best site to hold out as an example of how to do things.

    And while you may dismiss it, I appreciate the traffic a directory can potentially send to me. Any directory that can send traffic directly is much more valuable than one that simply passes PR juice. Your points about the benefits to newsletter owners are excellent and something Homer should implement in his sales pitch/TOS immediately.

    I give Homer credit for asking questions and trying something new. Will it work? Only time will tell.
     
    YMC, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  13. Homer

    Homer Spirit Walker

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #33
    Hi Jenn: Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly look at this. I have learned form your post and frankly is what I was looking for.


    Your words and explanation speak volumes and are obviously from a seasoned verteran's perspective.

    When this site was registered it was a fun project that has nothing to do with our mainstream business. Over time it has grown and become a good article submission source for some. It was never intended to compete with the bog boys, but now you're saying I am. The truth is I have never sat down and created a formal business plan for this site. That needs to be done now. I can see, if I wish to take it to a new level!

    Jenn, you are obviously very knowledgeable with content and article directories, I don't mind saying I am not at your level in this market :eek:. So I am trying to do the right thing...absolutely to, selfishly improve the ranking of this site. Because I SAY NO DUPED CONTENT or CHANGE TOS, I am sorry I don't see what the problem is? I am certainly not trying to pull a fast one but rather improve quality of content and improve rankings of this site. There is no hidden agenda here. I am not a snake in the grass but want what everyone else wants...success.

    Getting back to the Alexa rank (for what it's worth), 3 months ago the red arrow was way down. Today the green arrow is up. Although the ranking sucks it appears to be on an upswing. It is hard to know what to attribute that to, but displaying unique content has to factor in, no?

    Please don't misunderstand me! The time you have taken here is really appreciated :). Unfortunately, this site has never had top level priority with me and now I am seeing that it has great potential. I personally get sick of reading the same regurgitated crap, whether it's authoritative or not. Selfish or not, if there's anything I can do to make that happen I will.

    We actually are an online graphics and print company, which is where we generate most of our revenue. At the same time we do test/ market ideas and products that have nothing to do with our area of expertise. This is one such case. You have told me that I am attempting to compete with the big boys. We have done absolutely no marketing drill-down's on this site, no research and have created it from the hip.

    As far as the DUPLICATE content...NOPE! I simply see no long term benefit to this at all. But you have given me a unique perspective which I gr8ly appreciate...time to do some homework!

    I was misleading when I posted this. The software goes out and finds sentences that match exactly. Then a human checks to see if the URL contains the entire article as it was submitted to us. If the FULL article is exact it is rejected.

    This really does lend more to Jenn's opinion, but I am not changing the way we are handling it. Although Jenn has thoroughly and meticulously looked at my post the majority still support my policy. What Jenn has pointed out is my short-sighted-ness in planning this out (guilty)...and I don't disagree with some of her points.

    Anymore to say around this is appreciated. I am a big boy and can take whatever opinions are posted. It's all about improvement, which is why I posted this :)


    Cheers,


    H
     
    Homer, Nov 8, 2007 IP
    jhmattern likes this.
  14. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #34
    I'm not an advocate of it in the slightest, and believe I even stated that in one of my posts in this thread. I don't agree with writers promoting themselves through article directories at all actually, because frankly, there are better ways to take advantage of article marketing. What I agree with less however is for a site to demand exclusive or first rights to content when they're offering next to nothing in return. It's all about the cost/benefit ratio for the writer. In this case, there's really nothing in it for them. As I thought I made it clear previously, the case wouldn't be the same if they wanted unique content but could offer higher quality links back or a significant amount of traffic (although I've written rather lengthy posts in this thread, so I can't fault you for not finding that). :)

    I don't run any article directories. I do run an article link directory, but I don't get any content from writers. I give them a free link to their content, for absolutely nothing in return, and I point people to the article on their site; not mine. ;) I even allow people making submissions to submit the same article to multiple categories, if it's relevant. I just don't allow two sites to submit the same exact article in the same category.

    You're right. Any time I see someone trying to take advantage of writers and gloss it up with pretty language (in this case about it being all about the readers, when the actions said quite differently), it's a hot button topic.

    They're just one example of success. Their problems have also been less to do with duplicate content and more to do with paid links (something I addressed already in the thread) and the involvement of a Google insider with the company. I wasn't implying he should follow their exact model, which is why I gave another alternative... it was simply to show that by imposing formatting requirements, people can reuse content they have the rights to for promotional purposes while he doesn't end up with duplicate content because at least minor edits or additions would have to be made.

    I can appreciate them as a traffic source as well... but not when that same content can bring more traffic through other article marketing tactics (which is why I mentioned both traffic and link juice, and not just one or the other). It's all about the ROI. If a writer isn't getting a decent return for their effort in comparison to something else that would take similar resources, they're not being smart in the business of their writing. If he wants to appeal to them, he needs to be able to address that issue to make his site viable as a marketing tool, as that's the primary reason people are going to part with content for free to begin with (which I'm sure he knows). ;)

    I'm happy to give him credit for asking. It was the implication that he had no intention of actually listening to suggestions to consider changes that I can't give him credit for. With any luck though he'll rethink a few things. As I said... there's nothing wrong with the business model in theory... but in a practical sense, as it is now, much of it just doesn't make sense in this case.
     
    jhmattern, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  15. Homer

    Homer Spirit Walker

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #35
    K, I was going to leave and go back to my day job...then this crap!

    That was not my intent. I posted for opinions not personal criticism.

    Keep it constructive and I am happy to engage/ rebut. Don't start accusing me of crap that is nothing but your perception of why I posted.


    Gueesh, some freaken people :mad:


    H
     
    Homer, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  16. KunkVentures

    KunkVentures Peon

    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    most people submitting articles purchased them somewhere as a PLR package or something. Stick to your guns and you'll have a good quality article site.
     
    KunkVentures, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  17. jhmattern

    jhmattern Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,910
    Likes Received:
    794
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #37
    You're asking for perception when you ask for opinions. From the perspective of someone who would be on the giving end and not the receiving, that's in fact how it comes across (nothing different than I already mentioned in a previous post about stated intentions on the site versus those you've stated here). Wasn't intended as an attack, so sorry you took it that way. I took the information you provided and drew a reasonable conclusion from the perspective that you seemed to be asking for... that of a writer and not the owner of the site.
     
    jhmattern, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  18. usasportstraining

    usasportstraining Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    363
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Articles:
    4
    #38
    All very good points!

    You have the right to set your own Terms and Conditions, however you must consider it's effect on you, your resource (the writers), and your customers. If you are wanting well-written, original content, you should try to find as many methods to benefit your writers as you can.

    Some ideas:
    1. Pay them with money, gift certificates, discounts, whatever
    2. Offer Revenue Sharing, such as Adsense
    3. Include backlinks to their site in the footer, along with a description

    The value of these above is probably in that order as well. A link in the footer would probably be the least valuable for most writers that may be trying to earn some money from it.
     
    usasportstraining, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  19. Homer

    Homer Spirit Walker

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    I suppose, maybe a bad hair day for me :).

    So far what I've Learned here...
    1. I am going to work on very clear TOS.
    2. I also need to take this site a little more seriously than I do
    For starters

    Good point I will also take that into account. It won't be AS though. I am not really sure why I feel this way but AS is a turn off for me. I think it's the best program of it's sort but is being abused by webmasters. When I go to sites that are laced in AS it has a negative effect on me. Although I still run it on some sites, I feel like a bottom feeder.

    But your point is well taken...A reward for uniqueness. As Jenn suggested back links are not enough. I will also think about a creative rewards program for writers.

    So far I have got more than I bargained for starting this thread. To be honest I was a little taken back by the nasty email I rec'd from an author and couldn't see his point of view, which initiated asking the DP nation what they thought. Now I see a bigger picture!

    An absolute great bunch here ;)


    Thanks all,


    H
     
    Homer, Nov 8, 2007 IP
  20. Suziq

    Suziq Peon

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    Hi
    It sounds reasonable to me also, I cannot understand why people find original content SO hard to do.:eek:
     
    Suziq, Nov 8, 2007 IP