“If paid links that subverts [sic] search relevancy algorithms shouldn’t count on the web graph, then why should Google trust paid content that subverts search relevancy algorithms?”

Aaron is concerned specifically with the recent USA Today / Demand Media deal, which will see thousands of what he calls ‘backfill’ articles placed on the USA Today website. He urges Google to crack down on this approach before “…the search results start filling up with similar sounding misinformed content ranking for 1 then 3 then 8 of the top 10 search results”.

If you’ve read any of my previous rants, you’ll know I’m no fan of crap / filler content. But I still can’t say I agree with Aaron here. You see, unlike paid links, which (supposedly*) present a black and white case of ’subverting search relevancy’, the paid content situation is a little less clear cut.

• Is a site subverting search relevancy just because it uses paid content? I certainly hope not! Most sites contain paid content — whether the webmaster paid a copywriter, incentivized a guest-blogger or syndicated a paid journalist. Even if they just got their web designer to write the copy. For that matter, the design, itself, is a form of content, and just about every website uses paid design.
• Or do they have to be using a content farm to be penalized? (And to be fair, content farms are the main target of Aaron’s post.) Trouble there is, how does Google decide what constitutes a ‘content farm’? Is a single copywriter a content farm? What if I write really quickly? What if I employ other copywriters? What if I outsource to other copywriters? What if I outsource to journalists? What if I outsource to would-be copywriters and journalists? Is a big web development company a content farm? They regularly outsource copy to people like myself (and probably you). If the job’s big, they ask me / you to call in other copywriters, or they engage numerous copywriters, directly, to get it done.
• Or do you get penalized only if your quality is crap? I checked out a few of USA Today / Demand Media’s articles (here’s one), and they were… OK. Nothing earth-shattering (or link-worthy), but they definitely weren’t auto-generated, nor were they written by someone with absolutely no writing or English skills. They were mildly helpful (if a little boring and simplistic) ’step-by-step’ articles. What’s more, they were no worse than the non-paid mildly helpful ’step-by-step’ / ‘10-things…’ articles found on competing media websites (like this USNews.com inhouse mashup, or this by an NBC columnist).

Ultimately, what USA Today is doing is no different from what other media sites (and non-media sites) are doing: they’re paying for content. Some of it may be crap, but some of the content on other sites is crap too (including their stories, however well written!).

Aaron asks:

“How will Google be able to filter out the Demand Media content without filtering out the rest of the media sites?”

My answer is that it shouldn’t even try. Google should be concerning itself with identifying relevance and quality, based, not on the source of the information, but on the information itself. And let’s face it; if Google does outlaw ‘content farm’ arrangements, those arrangements will simply go underground**, and Google will be forced to assess each case on its merits (relevance and quality).

I think Aaron’s over-reacted a little to the situation. If USA Today publishes crap articles:

1. Readers will stop reading; and
2. Google will figure out that the articles are crap, and — solid domain authority notwithstanding — will deal with them appropriately.

Anyway, I have to go and write some paid content for a client now. I hope Google’s not reading…

* Some paid links do, in fact, provide value to readers, and should not be devalued or lead to penalty. For example, I gladly link to a variety of products and services, and I only ever link to things that I believe in. My readers benefit, whether or not I make money when they click on these links (which I don’t).

** You may argue that Google successfully outlawed paid links, but people are still making money from links. The deals have just gone underground.

Comment on this post

The question

“I’ve built up a load of articles written for my clients on the topic of wellbeing, a few magazine articles I’ve written on the same topic, and a smattering of assorted articles on a whole bunch of topics. I would like to submit these to article submission sites such as Ezine Articles.

I’m unsure how much editing I should do on them to avoid search engine black-listing and in relation to acknowledging my clients (most of who are quoted in the articles).

Have you ever submitted an article that you’ve written on behalf of a client and, if so, how you’ve discussed it with the client? Do you think it would be wise to ask their permission and leave in their quotes? Do you foresee any problem/s with this?”

The answer

Ask the client’s permission?

Yeah, I’d definitely ask the client’s permission. Although, technically, in Australia, copyright remains the property of the creator unless otherwise agreed (sometimes agreement can be implicit), most clients are unaware of this. They think they own the article ‘cos they paid for it. So if you don’t request permission, you could find yourself in trouble… if not legal, then at least client-relationship-wise. By requesting permission, on the other hand, you’re showing respect and courtesy, and clients will like that. Most often, you’ll find your clients will be happy for you to include the article as is, so long as you link to their site as well as your own in the article. After all, they’re featured in the article, and it will ultimately help their SEO too.

A few of my earlier articles fell into this category:

• http://www.divinewrite.com/agentfees.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/architect.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/fengshui.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/negativegearing.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/propertymanager.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/customerservice.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/surf.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/livelife.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/adhd.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/fraser.htm
• http://www.divinewrite.com/fingerfone.htm

Note, however, that in most of the above articles, I DIDN’T include the client’s details (all the real estate and lifestyle articles). I spoke with the client, though, and I remember he was very dismissive of the whole thing. “Yeah, yeah, that’s fine. Whatever…” Didn’t care at all. Most clients won’t be like this.

Getting best SEO value out of your articles

As to where and how to post the articles in order to get best SEO value out of them… If they’re on topic (i.e. closely related to the subject matter of your site), I’d be inclined to post them on your blog first, then a few days later, distribute them to the article directories. This way, you get the social media benefit of the articles (the subsequent editorial links if the articles are good — these links are worth more than the author bio links you get from article PR), as well as the SEO benefit of the article PR. Know what I mean?

Note also that when you post them on your blog, you should also announce them to your social media following(s), etc etc. so that people are actually aware of them.

And do all of the above one at a time, though, not all at once. Drip-feed style. Otherwise you’ll use up all your blog content in one fell swoop.

About duplicate content

Re duplicate content: Firstly, be aware that there’s no such thing as a ‘duplicate content penalty’. There’s only a ‘duplicate content filter’. This is a Google filter that seeks to ensure that Google’s search results aren’t dominated by the same content over and over again. When Google identifies two identical articles, for example, it applies some intelligence to decide which one to display in the search results. E.g. It might choose to display the version that was published first, or the version that’s hosted on the site with the highest ranking, or the version on the site that’s most closely related to the subject matter of the article.

In other words, your article may not actually be returned in the search results, and unless you change the article pretty significantly, there’s not a lot you can do about that. Google decides. Especially if the article has already been published elsewhere.

That’s not a huge problem, though. You still get the full value of the backlinks to your site. So the articles still help your site’s ranking. If I were in your shoes (and I have been), I’d leave the articles as they are, cop it on the chin if Google displays another version of the article, and just be happy about the link juice you’re getting.

Comment on this post

C’mon! I know blogging is hard work and takes a lot of time, but do you really think the answer is outsourcing to someone cheap? How good do you think the result will be?

Let’s think about the logic for a second: it takes YOU about half a day to write a quality post, right? And you’re the subject matter expert. How long’s it going to take a copywriter? They have to get their head around your offering, your customer, your target reader, the purpose of your blog, the purpose of the post and the fundamental message of the post. Then they have to research and understand the details, plan the post, write numerous headlines and choose the one that’s most engaging, then write the post and optimize it for search. All the while, ensuring their terminology is credible!

At least, that’s what they’ll have to do to write a quality post!

Now I can’t speak for everyone, but it takes me a good day or two to get through all of that. And I’m no slouch. I’ve been writing professionally for 15 years. I’ve run a business for six years. I have a Bachelor of Arts in English Lit and Linguistics. And I have a Master of Arts in International Communication. So I research effectively, I learn fast, I understand business and I write fast. This isn’t a sales pitch, it’s all fundamental to my argument.

So if it takes me a good day or two, let’s be generous and assume it’s going to take most SEO copywriters about the same. Let’s say 1.5 days per post. Now if you’re paying $10 – $25 per post, that equates to around $7 – $16 per day for the writer. That’s only $2,555 – $5,840 per year, assuming they work every day! There’s no way in the world that any decent SEO copywriter will work for that! (Well, there’s a miniscule chance you’ll find a great junior SEO copywriter who’s just starting out and desperately needs the money. But finding an SEO copywriter like that is like finding a needle in a haystack. And they won’t stick around for long. Trust me, I’ve been down that path.)

I know it’s tempting to say, “Send it to India,” but that’s not going to solve the problem, either. A cursory scan of Indian job search site Nakuri reveals that a half-way decent copywriter can earn around 4,00,000 to 8,00,000 Rupees per year. That’s around USD $9,390 to $18,780 per year + benefits. So why would they work for $5,840 (much less $2,555) per year?

No. What you’ll get is a blog post that was written in an hour (two, if you’re lucky). Poorly written, rehashed rubbish with no subject matter expertise, and certainly no relevant opinion or thought leadership.

Be honest. Would you subscribe to, return to, talk about or link to a blog like that? Of course not!

And after all, if you’re blogging for SEO, it’s all about subscriptions, return visitors, buzz and voluntary backlinks. Which means you have to repeatedly offer original, helpful thought provoking blog posts. Blog posts that people consider worth bookmarking and worth sharing with their own visitors and networks. What’s more, if you’re touting that sort of rubbish in places like Twitter and Plurk, you’ll quickly lose all credibility, and stand no chance of developing a following.

That’s why it amazes me when I hear so-called ‘social media experts’ suggesting this tactic. They should know better!

My contention is that if you’re serious about your blog (and not just blog-spamming – which is no better than article spamming), you have only four options:

1. Write your own blog posts;
2. Write your own blog posts and have a good SEO copywriter with social media knowledge edit & optimize them;
3. Have a good SEO copywriter with social media knowledge ghost-write your blog posts (which will cost a lot more than $10 – $25 per post); or
4. Try to attract some good guest-bloggers who’ll do it for free (and who aren’t competitors).

If you’re not up for any of those options, then you can forget about blogging. It’s not for you.

In blogging, there’s no quick and easy option. Just as there’s no quick, easy way to write your corporate web copy (Home, About Us, Products, Services, etc.). Would you settle for $10 Home page copy? If you’re serious about your blog, then you have to treat it with respect. You have to value it as highly as you value your other promotional material. It may not be selling your product or service, but it’s selling something, nonetheless. Something much more important, in the long run: your brand and your reputation. And if your purpose is SEO, it’s selling to a very jaded audience: social marketers.

Social media is the key to SEO these days. And it will remain the key for a few years to come. Certainly blogging is going to be massively important for years. WHAT we blog about may change, but the ACT of blogging will be critical for a long time. The key is expertise, usefulness, credibility, frequency and accessibility. And you’ll never get that paying $10 – $25 per post.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys! And that’s all I have to say on the matter ;-)

Happy blogging!

Comment on this post