Page 3 - Matt Cutts at PubCom

Sorry, dont have AIM. But we posted them here in this thread. scroll down to the 2nd list (it is our two lists combined). WilliamC created a site that will submit to the majority of these. It is AWESOME!! we are still BETA testing it right now but it should be available before too long.

Heres the thread: http://forums.seochat.com/t56410/s.html

In regards to duplicate content.... We are adding articles to our site first, waiting for them to get indexed, then blasting them to the world. that way Google will see that we had to content first and if they DO ever consider it dup content (which I have heard that they dont, based on other aspects) they will see that we are the original owners of it.

I absolutely agree that what works in 1 industry may not work in another. And I have several clients in the highly regulated financial services industry, so I understand that as well.

If my prior statements were interpreted as me saying getting earned links was easy, then I did not communicate effectively. I am not suggesting at all that it is easy. I am only suggesting that for long term success, and no need to panic every time Google does a major update, it is the best solution, in my opinion.

I will still use reciprical links. But recips don't make up a huge percentage of my links and they only come from high quality, related sites. I will now be even more picky. (BTW, I have an ecom site and link to a couple dozen other ecom sites in the exact same parket - it has worked quite well for me).

I'm not so sure that's wise. I'd keep the unique stuff on your site, and write a second, unique piece to put out to the rest of the world.

I think that there are one or two clever people working for G. I think that the recent update and it's complexity shows a change in their methods.

I think that they may be able to find patterns - they certainly have an enormouse base on which to work and experiment.

I'd say that it may well be possible to cover ones tracks, but that you would never be sure of success.

It's all rather fun. isn't it?

it took me a while but I finally found the right thread... read this one to answer this question

Ah, but you see, brandall is not talking about article submission. He's talking abou it writing an article so compelling, so damn sexy, that every man, woman, child, and their dog will want to link to it.

brandall, can you come up with any examples in the mortgage/debt consolidation/credit card industry that fits this bill? Only one that I have seen that comes close to this, in the end result of having people link to it, is a page on mortgage refinancing, and to be honest the article is not that good. It's just because it's a .gov article that it gets it's links.

Do a search for debt consolidation. 90% of the listings are front page, not articles on sub pages. People are linking to these sites because they have an advertising budget. The links are bought or results of professional seo's gathering them through other trade means. The sites themselves are not so fantastic as to make them irresistible to link to.

-Michael

thanks Jason...I guess i got some work cut out for me tomorrow...

You said there was a submitter out there to do this for you
:-)

Until next update when articles dont count.

Well i guess game plan is to re do link structure

You think so? A few people had said the same thing. I guess i have a hard time hearing that cuz im a little lazy and i: a) need more content on my site and b) need more back links that article submissions produce. I hate to have a good article and not have it available to my visitors AND share it with the rest of the world.

I was told to just change up the article a bit before sending out to the world and I have tried that. The question is tho... how much is enough??

But thinking of the whole duplicate content thing, if a well established site had a page up and i stole it and published it, as well... Google wouldnt (or shouldnt) punish us both.

On the other hand, even if a well established site stole content from a newer site, the newer site shouldnt be punished just because it is not as established.

So it would seem that it would have to come with who was indexed with it first... i would think.

Even then, high PR sites that get indexed everyday could easily steal content from low PR sites that have not had their new content indexed yet and get credit for it.

hmmmm......


sorry, just thinking outloud

Actually, I was talking about both submitting articles and having them on your site. Again, I am NOT saying that all of the methods I mention are appropriate for all sites. I am suggesting that if your site has no content that people actually want to link to, I expect it to get harder and harder to rank well over time. Maybe I'm wrong, but when the head of Google Search states as much, I consider it at least worthy of consideration.

Thats true... and overtime those 1,000 results dwindled and held strong at about 200. But they DID grow so people that read that article liked it and published it somewhere else or linked to it.

Without submitting to it, you would have to have it on your own site and get the right traffic to it that may want to link to it, right....?

I wouldnt expect that I could rely on the visitors to our site to find the article and link to it

my question about article submissions as a way to gain BLs is will they last?? Can you have a 2-year-old BL from an article that you submitted?? If not, then you will continuely have a lot of new links but never any old, long-tem links. Isnt that a big factor in the value of a BL??

>>>Do a search for debt consolidation. 90% of the listings are front page, not articles on sub pages. People are linking to these sites because they have an advertising budget. The links are bought or results of professional seo's gathering them through other trade means. The sites themselves are not so fantastic as to make them irresistible to link to.<<<

Thank you michael
that was my point exactly.....Most top sites have bought links.

My site doing same as others has dropped by the wasteside...

Lets assume Jagger devalued purchased links it knows about.

If all sites in a market have purchased links, those which have other "value" in Google's eyes will still beat out those that don't. Also, Google clearly has not identified EVERY site selling links, and thus have not devalued them all. My point is simply "buyer beware". you may not be getting what you are paying for.