Article sites - the new directories?

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

__/ [Big Bill] on Monday 21 November 2005 12:24 \__

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB

What /is/ an article? What is a blog item? What is news? What is dross? If
Google intend to distinguish between one and another, they are yet to face
big challenges. mainstream media like the BBC or the New York Times rarely
link. Any blog these days can pretend to be a news site too. I see many
sites that are driven using blog software underneath, but have been modified
to disguise that. Moreover, such sites have link bars, which often contain
blogrolls.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Bottom-post: as English goes from top to bottom
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:45pm up 18 days 9:39, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.07
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:52:20 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [Big Bill] on Monday 21 November 2005 12:24 \__

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB

What /is/ an article? What is a blog item? What is news? What is dross? If
Google intend to distinguish between one and another, they are yet to face
big challenges. mainstream media like the BBC or the New York Times rarely
link. Any blog these days can pretend to be a news site too. I see many
sites that are driven using blog software underneath, but have been modified
to disguise that. Moreover, such sites have link bars, which often contain
blogrolls.

Blogrolls, eh? Maybe that explains all the crap that's written on
them.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

__/ [Big Bill] on Monday 21 November 2005 14:31 \__

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:52:20 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [Big Bill] on Monday 21 November 2005 12:24 \__

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB

What /is/ an article? What is a blog item? What is news? What is dross? If
Google intend to distinguish between one and another, they are yet to face
big challenges. mainstream media like the BBC or the New York Times rarely
link. Any blog these days can pretend to be a news site too. I see many
sites that are driven using blog software underneath, but have been
modified to disguise that. Moreover, such sites have link bars, which often
contain blogrolls.

Blogrolls, eh? Maybe that explains all the crap that's written on
them.

Not quite. My point was that an article is 'decorated' with a variety of
links, which can even be selected at random. It would be hard for search
engines to pick up just the links within articles without wrongly accred-
iting external links that are automated.

If articles were written in a well-structured manner e.g. under <div
class="article"> as opposed to <div class="links">, all would be simpli-
fied, assuming the Webmaster isn't deceitful. What a search engine /could/
also do, on the other hand, is decide to just stick to a small number of
'trusted' sites and pick up all links from there. This will lead to prob-
lems with niches and rarities though. It's a similar issue to training of
a spam filter using collaborative flagging. You must establish trust.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:20pm up 18 days 11:14, 4 users, load average: 0.16, 0.25, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?

Some articles are used more than others and the more popular articles should
have the best and most useful information. From my point of view Google is
using the popularity of the article to determine which website has the
better information. Seems reasonable.

Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

Big Bill wrote:

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

The benefit is that a traditional article (as in submitted to a Web
article site) has a lot more keyword-rich content while it only has one or
two outbound links (plus whatever the site template links there are, but
usually not too many). This very favorably compares to directories that
have A LOT of outgoing links and very small telegraph-style descriptions.

Article spam? Of course. Every good thing will get abused by someone, but,
since you have to come up with more content and article sites are usually
moderated, the efforts are too much for most spammer. Those guys are after
a quick buck and articles don't lend themselves very well to get rich
quick schemes.

If you have not bothered yet, I suggest that you try ;-) Everybody else
does...

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------


-
##-----------------------------------------------#
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archiv
http://www.1-script.com/forum
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 19611 messages and counting
##-----------------------------------------------##

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:04:38 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com
(www.1-script.com) wrote:

Big Bill wrote:


It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories. Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!
I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?
Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.


The benefit is that a traditional article (as in submitted to a Web
article site) has a lot more keyword-rich content while it only has one or
two outbound links (plus whatever the site template links there are, but
usually not too many). This very favorably compares to directories that
have A LOT of outgoing links and very small telegraph-style descriptions.

Article spam? Of course. Every good thing will get abused by someone, but,
since you have to come up with more content and article sites are usually
moderated, the efforts are too much for most spammer. Those guys are after
a quick buck and articles don't lend themselves very well to get rich
quick schemes.

If you have not bothered yet, I suggest that you try ;-) Everybody else
does...

I know they do, so it's going to get de-weighted, so why bother? It'
working towards a short-term fix, not a long one.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:24:39 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

It looks as though Google are favouring inbounds from article sites
and ignoring them from freebie directories.

That's not true, the reality is directories tend to have pages filled
with way too many links (also your link tends to be on a low PR page),
whilst article sites tend to have a lot less links. Less links means
more benefit past assuming PR is equal. Not to mention when a
webmaster adds your article to his site you get another link, this
doesn't happen with directories in general (DMOZ is the exception).

Early analysis has it
that, despite article site not being exactly choosy about what goes in
them, Google are affording their links a decent weighting.
So then, prepare for article spam. Sheesh!

What analysis?

I've never bothered to sit down and do articles because really, so
many of the existing are no-brainers, wrong or both so where's the
point? Where's the actual benefit?

I'd never tried articles either, the benefit is the links back to your
site.

Pooh.
That's all I can say. Probably repeatedly on approximately an A4 piece
of virtual paper.

BB

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/