Hi, Just finished a post on a few things in my head about Article Directories and the direction I want to take mine. Wanted to ask what you writers think of the current state of article directories. Do you use them and how do you view their effectiveness for your purposes? Thanks in advance for your views. Matt PS. I am looking for any writers that know about T-Shirt designs and printing.
As a writer, I really don't like article directories. I kind of view them as a tool for hacks who want to pretend to be an expert on a subject or build links, and I very rarely take articles from them seriously unless I'm pretty familiar with the author. But that's just my view on them, and I'm sure plenty of others disagree. For me to take one seriously, there would need to be pretty vigorous editing / checking / approvals to be sure it wasn't littered with the typical low quality crap just written for easy links, and often ripped from other content in one way or another.
yeah JH, you've pretty much summed up why I am unhappy with my Article Directory. We actually do quite vigorous checking but it gets so disheartening rejecting 10 articles to find one that is average. What would you think of an Article Directory that rewards the author based on a few factors with a kind of revenue sharing? I am thinking of using this so that I can impose a revenue sharing penalty to authors to try keep the quality high and have a point for writers to write good content for the directories.
It gets to the point where they're really just all the same half-assed, poorly-written content, usually assembled from generic Web research... yuck. I did see that your site in particular is supped to be checking them for quality a bit more, which is good. I didn't actually look at any of the articles there though. I feel your pain though, but from a slightly different angle. I run a more typical link directory, but it's only for articles. The idea is to let people add article links for free, for the purpose or cataloging articles across the Web. It definitely sucks when the majority are garbage or spam. One of these days I actually need to go and weed a lot of them out for quality issues after more thorough inspection. So I do get where you're coming from with the frustration a bit. I think if you add revenue-sharing you'll certainly increase submissions. But you'll also increase those poor submissions and "spammy" articles from people not only wanting free links, but now also revenue. If it's only available for certain writers, it might be a good idea (such as if they've published a certain number that passed your quality standards, etc.)... as long as it's not based on something (like visitor "votes") that can be manipulated pretty easily. It might increase submissions from the good writers (although not likely from ones using them to promote bigger business models for them... revenue sharing won't be enough of an incentive for that group). It won't do anything to cut the bad submissions though, so it will just be more to sort through at first. Any way you cut it, managing an article directory with any focus on quality is always going to be a huge undertaking. I'd love to see someone really do it well though and prove me wrong.
I'm allergic to half-ass, poor content......I just declared it to the masses of DP. Hahah once again great thoughts JH.... love reading your comments.
Well I was thinking the revenue sharing is actually cunningly disguised to encourage writers to ONLY submit good articles. If they submit something that doesnt comply with our guidelines, then they get a penalty to their revenue. So someone that has a couple of articles approved is gonna be extra careful when submitting. We get no problems with the number of submissions as we rank generally from 1-5 for terms like articles directories. So I was thinking of limiting submissions to say 1 or 2 a day per writer. Also requiring address and details of writers will put a lot of people off. I know that there are good writers out there, because we have a couple of writers after submitting a quality article to the directory asking us what is the point in submitting my article , lol, obviously there left the resource box blank except their name. Thanks for the replies JH, actually given me a few ideas already - sometimes it helps to talk things through.
I doubt most would go improving their articles just for your directory though, to be completely realistic about it. I can think of three main groups that use article directories (for publishing): 1. Writers who can't get clients and honestly think they work as portfolio pieces (probably the smallest group of the three). 2. Company / Site owners who either write or hire cheap writers to put together quick articles they can tack backlinks or affiliate links into in some way. 3. Industry professionals (the group most likely to submit quality, original pieces), who are doing it for exposure to lead people to their company sites where they'll let their marketing copy do the talking to make some sales. This Group one won't worry too much about changing articles, because they usually don't realize when their writing sucks (and don't want to hear it from anyone). Group two won't create better articles for your site if all of the other free article directories will take the lousier content and still give them backlinks. Group three makes their money from selling their services, products, etc., and much more then the revenue sharing would actually make them, so they'd have no real incentive to work harder than they already have to. So what you really need to do is decide who you want your directory targeting, and how you'll weed out some of the other groups. For example, I'd love to see a directory some day (and not saying it's the right business model for you) where the authors are screened themselves as opposed to the articles, so only actual industry professionals can publish, which would finally add some legitimacy to an article directory. I'm sure this happens with niche sites that accept articles for promotional purposes like that, but I haven't seen anything like that covering a really broad range of topics. OK. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm rambling now...
Revenue sharing "may" work, unless it's AdSense related. I think the more professional among us will look the other way. Throwing your AdSense account info on a site that's not yours is a great way to get smart priced or worse. If you want to increase the quality, you need to do some of these things: 1. Promote your site and don't just be a crap in, crap out directory. Get your site's PR to 6+, get tons of GOOGLE-recognized backlinks and commit to the site. 2. Focus on getting webmaster and consumer traffic to the site. Don't buy traffic and do other BS traffic techniques. Put in the work and make a name for yourself. 3. Have a system that's easy for webmasters to get content, writers to submit content and readers to view content. 4. Don't just say you want quality, prove it. If you waver on this and start accepting junk, good writers will see this and not do a good job. In the end, you'll spiral downward. 5. Realize that your submissions will take a serious hit. You may even go to zero submits and you'll need to market to and for pro writers. The biggest problem will be you trying to explain to a pro writer what you do and why they should spend time for your site. Writers are notorious for being crappy marketers (as this forum shows daily). Even if they understand how it works, most will be too narrow-sighted and you'll lose them. Article marketing has its uses. I ran an article directory for about two years. I started out with the ideas I mentioned. However, in the end, I realized that it was easier for me to just click the APPROVED button and watch my revenue climb. Plus, there was the question of why? With so many profitable things to do, why kill yourself trying to reinvent a wheel that ultimately won't lead anywhere? It's like the stupid investor that buys a troubled stock on a 52-week low when there's a darn bull market raging. [Loose translation: your money sits there while everyone else is making money hand over fist]
There are so few that have enough link juice to make it worth while submitting to. I would much prefer to get a link from a blog than an article directory.
Jenn, Thanks again and I agree with your 3 groups being the bulk of the writers on directories, but is that because article directories are what they are? I want to do an exercise in thinking outside the box a little. What makes a good article? I would say something along the lines of a well researched and organized piece of writing from an industry professional or writer that has spent time to research the subject matter that provides true information or a point of view. The question would be why would someone spent the time to write that piece and submit it on your article directory. At the moment the only thing that comes to mind is for money and/or for reputation. Marketjunction, Thanks to you too. I have also considered Adsense to be a poor choice if that is the only revenue stream. I have a few in mind but it needs some working out. 1. I agree, as with any ideas that stray from the accepted norm, it needs work to bring to the masses. 2. Agree, ideally the directory should have synergy and writers and webmasters and visitors all play a part in promoting articles, the directory and providing great information. This is where Jenn's comment on having authors or industry professionals to have input is great. 3. Noted. 4. Agree, this also brings up the point above. Unless there is a team of reviewers that are experienced in all fields... its too hard to do a proper general article directory review job. Alternative method is required. 5. Noted .. some cunning initial marketing angle and launch plan is required. Maybe we can take advantage of this. I know how you feel, but I think that it is evident that Google does award good content. Also, a directory known for good content will get additional benefits such as link backs, etc. I am thinking why have an Articles Directory that ultimately wont lead to anywhere. I also would stay away from the troubled stock, sell off my current stock at what I feel to be near the end of the bull run and invest in a NEW emerging market. mad 4, This is why i feel the Bull run is ending apart from maybe one or two strong stocks.
I agree with those being points of good articles. But you also then have to be able to tell those types of writers why they should submit to your directory over others that might be more established. Keep in mind that people don't usually submit their best work to directories... they keep it on their own sites and write shorter or quicker pieces for directories to promote their main work and projects. Just make sure that you have some solid selling points on the "why" issue for submissions, aside from the basic things all article directories spout if you want to differentiate yours from theirs.
Make sure you stay diversified. If you put all of your money into an emerging market, you're just asking for trouble. mmmm oil
lol, I agree. Stumbling block number one .. For a general article directory with many categories, the biggest problem to keeping quality is approval. Without a team of editors with a wide range of experience in different fields, it impossible to review articles properly. The only way I see how to resolve this is to have the writers, reviewers or users review the articles somehow. Apart from the technicalities of how its done without people manipulating the approval. I am trying to resolve the problem of how to show articles to these reviewers without them copying it before its released on the directory lol. The chances of this happening would be quite big and the damage to the directories reputation would be immense. Hmm ... a trusted bunch of reviewers? If DMOZ cant do it, I dont think we can. A problem indeed .. any insight?
I used to waste my time and articles on such things. Mostly badly written articles, over SE optimized, most of the times same content rewriten, many "informercials" .. articles created just to promote a site. My articles are most of the times uniques and I don't like seeing them in other places. Exclusive and unique content were always better.