Most people in this forum are familiar with the standard factors that make an article achieve good rankings for a designated keyword: good keyword density, appropriate title and tags, relevant links, etc. However, some of us have noticed that the exact same article published on the exact same website may sometimes achieve quite discrepant SERPs. Occasionally, the carbon copy version of an article may even rank higher than the original, in defiance of all logic and reason. So, I propose we join our heads and try to come up with some possible answers here: what might the X factor be, in this equation? Maybe it's somehow a matter of timing, maybe someone just happens to republish the carbon copy article while the original version goes by unnoticed? What do you think? Sometimes I wonder if bounce rate and average time spent on a page are relevant factors for the google search algorithm. Hmmm....
It's bog standard off-site simple SEO. Backlinks. Work it out for yourself. Search for the keyword 'backlinks'. Now take the URL of the second result (a goarticle) and put it in Yahoo site explorer... http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/ Look at the inlinks, go to the URLs of those inlinks and look at the anchor text. I could take any article from any article directory and put it on one of my sites and build a ton of links to it and I will out rank the directory. It's as simple as that.
Hmm... link building is indeed a well-known factor in search engine optimization. I have heard the stories of how starbucks ranks #1 for coffee even though the word "coffee" was nowhere to be found in the actual website; I am aware of how GW Bush Jr's biography ranked highly for "miserable failure". Further, I heavily suspect the exponential growth of article directories and article marketing was correlated with link building around specific anchor text becoming one of the most important SEO elements in the past years. Regardless, I'm talking X factor here, my friend. Although I understand what you mean, and despite being a logical argument... on rare occasions it looks as though a copy of an article will somehow rank higher than the original, even without having any off-site SEO.
Sorry, that sounded rude. I didn't mean for it to sound rude. I can appreciate what you are saying but trust me. It is off site SEO. Even when an actual article in one directory has less links than an actual article in another directory it's because the site has more authority in the first place. Examples of what will rank well: Article Directory A. Has hundreds of thousands of links to various pages in it's directory. Add your article and it will rank quite well based on the authority the article directory had in the first place. Article Directory B. Is still reasonably new and doesn't have so many links to various pages in it's directory. Therefore it doesn't have as much authority in Google as Article Directory A has. It would require some backlinks in order to outrank the article on Article Directory A. My Brand New Site. Has taken the article from Article Directory A. It will rank no where. But if I were to build a substantial amount of backlinks to the article on my site I would eventually outrank Article Directory A. Examples of what will not rank well: Article Directory A. (The Google authority site). I write an article targetting the keyphrase 'pink fluffy widgets in green wellies' and put in Article Directory A. You'd think this would do well... but if someone else has also submitted an article targetting the exact same keyphrase but they have built some backlinks to their article they will outrank me. Article Directory B. (Not so authoritive site). I put the same article here but don't build any backlinks. My Brand New Site. I just copy an article from an Article Directory and don't build any backlinks. If you are new to SEO it's worth building a one page website and learning how to make it rank (by using free resources on the net, don't buy anything) - this will give you a huge insight on why certain sites and pages rank better than others. Again, I don't mean this rudely. It would give you an understanding and advantage over other marketers
I also agree with Jane, and I actually refuse believing there's any element of randomness in google's algorithm. However, I started wondering whether there would be some kind of X factor in SEO from my other thread, were I asked people how they reacted to article swipes. Despite of the fact that getting our articles copied by someone else is very annoying, I think it's unlikely those copycats will find much success using those shady methods. I mean, someone who's too lazy to write their own articles probably won't put much effort into link building, right?
This is an interesting thread. No I do see the article swipers' aim is just to make a quick buck for a particular keyword by copying publishing and move on..and exploit another keyword ....by submitting more and more articles....the more they swipe....they have more chances to get indexed by search engines...and I have seen that those copycats do backlinking, social bookmarking and other SEO stuffs also. But I guess, the search engines algorithms change everyday and sometimes they love duplicated content too !!!
Personally, if someone had swiped my article and replaced my link with theirs and put it on another article directory, I'd report them to clickbank (follow the link to the payment page and get their ID). It takes two minutes and Clickbank are very helpful and will ban them. You will need to show them where your original article is to prove that it was posted online first etc. Do it, don't ignore it, if we allow them to get away with it the situation will get worse. If they are putting your articles with their own links in on other article directories, all they have to do is an XRumer blast or something to 'their' article and they will outrank you. It would take 15 minutes of their time from start to finish and they'd move onto the next article and do the same. I know we are always one step behind but if we don't stop it then more and more people will swipe articles because they know they can get away with it. If we keep reporting it then eventually they will see that they are wasting their own time more than ours.
I can't agree with that. If someone could somehow find out exactly what ranks well, he would possibly be too difficult for Google to handle. There is definitely an element of randomness in Google's algorithm. Seems like they gain a lot by getting as much unpredictable as they can, otherwise people (even noobs) will just exploit them to achieve rankings. Another thing to note is that they keep changing the algorithm with time. They adapt pretty quickly to any behavior they see & its hard to spam Google. A few months ago i found many similar spam sites getting good rankings for some keywords. I talked about that here too. But all that spam was gone in less than a week. So they are very quick and its hard to threaten them. The best thing is to confuse the people and that is what they are doing to some extent (what i believe) Of course, anchor links are the most important to rank well but there's definitely an element of randomness at least for new sites or web 2.0 pages (i believe, its for everyone) About your X-Factor question, the reason why a "copied" article ranks well is due to the internal link structure of the article directory. Your article is probably older, but when that article is posted again on the same or another article directory, it gets a lot of exposure (links) on that article directory (think of recently published articles, front page featuring, Google caffeine, etc.) and achieves better rankings that the original article in many cases. Eventually, it may die down or stay better than you.
@janecompersnews: Yup, I'll definitely report that affiliate to Clickbank but I'm not sure they'll quickly take action. If they banned people over such accusations, anyone could easily get their competitors banned. Still, I'll make sure to write them a note; also I'll contact the vendor and ask him if the affiliate who´s been robbing my articles has been making any sales. @jacky8: That's a great point you made! Only very recently have I started to realize how internal linking may be a powerful SEO element, especially in modern websites featuring dynamic lists of posts/pages/users. I still don't think Google leaves anything to chance. When I use the term X factor I mean to suggest there are elements most of us won't usually dream of, or easily control - such as bounce rates and the actual time a visitor spends on a page.
jacky8, I respect your opinion but we'll have to agree to disagree Smitten, clickbank are really helpful, I had a problem recently.. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1408426 Just provide them with a link to your article online and point out the date, the link in the article pointing to your site and how your hoplink is incorporated... then provide a link to the new article and point out the date, the link to their site in the article and their hoplink. It will take a few days for them to come back to you but they will sort it out. This guy has probably swiped loads of articles so having his account blocked will wipe out all of his 'work' in one go Good luck!
What about some examples of building backlinks to an ezine articles? Since an article itself is used for building backlink/traffic -- wouldn't that be more redundant? Like, do I go comment on a blog with an anchor that links to my ezinearticle page?
You can take an article from, Ezine, post it to your blog, add some pictures, a video etc, build some links to it, and it can out rank Ezine easily. There is no "X-Factor" it's Get Content - Get links - Rank high - Make money. Over thinking this kind of crap is what bogged me down when I first started, I used to be a stat junky, looking at all those things, visitors, bounce rate, rankings. Now I make a site, shoot for 15 keywords, get links for those 15 keywords, out rank my competition, and make money. I used to run a cabinet shop, and had a guy that pointed out every tiny detail, things that "did not matter" and his production was slow, and didn't accomplish alot. His work was good, but was just way to worried about things that didn't matter. Think of it this way, your running a "business" and every one of these things that you are investing time in, is an additional weight, worry about all the little things and you are soon unable to move forward.
@Faclez: That's actually VERY good advice, and I personally believe it's a sureshot way towards affiliate success: to focus on building the campaigns despite the apparent results. Regardless, I'm always curious in trying to figure out the SEO puzzle, and even though I try to keep such activities on a secondary plane to actual getting some work done, I cannot help myself from wondering how things work every now and then. Concerning the whole concept of an X factor in SEO, something happened today which further reinforces this impression. For about a month now, I've been somewhat obsessed in ranking for a 2-word phrase. I'd written 3 main articles and built links heavily from several sources. No results. Today I'd noticed I finally got #2 rank for this keyword. Not with the articles I'd been extensively promoting, but actually with another article I wrote just 5 days ago, targeting a related 3-word phrase. An article I just bookmarked through onlywire following publication, never to think of it again after that :-/ How's that for chance triumphing over diligence, eh?
I agree with the points above about SEO, and about Google's algorithms being perhaps intentionally "mysterious". For me, the "secret X-factor" in article marketing, is a very simple one: it's using article directories well and wisely for their original purpose. I write all my articles with a view to maximising the chances of widespread re-publication, using article directories as article directories, i.e. as a depository for available content for their own websites of the highest possible quality and the most original possible material. This can be partly achieved by two additional things: controversy and humour. If you do this, you get your work re-published all over the internet, and others are effectively doing some of your SEO and some of your backlinking for you. For me, this is a real source of longer-term income, and it's why I dismiss all the stuff you read about "getting your resource-box above the fold" as the irrelevant nonsense it really is.
@alexa: that's also a very good point. Many people speak about beating google in their game. Personally I believe in just the opposite. Affiliate marketers who learn to think like google does and strive to creating the kind of content users enjoy reading will reap most benefits in the long haul.
Maybe they randomly move sites around on the results pages and see what pages have the best click through. Algorithms are not random in nature and computer are defantly not random. Any randomness is programed and would have a propose I would think. Maybe there equilvent of split testing of sorts.....
This is definitely a good thread. I had thought about this for quite some time too. How come You struggle to build backlinks of an article but is doesn't rank, then you submit another article on the same article directory targeting another related keyword and it ranks very high without you doing anything! Keep the ideas coming.