Sometimes I think we all rely too much on Google and its sub-divisions of organic search, Adwords and Google News for traffic. I know I certainly do.
I was speaking to someone earlier today and he mentioned that I should distribute our content in return for links and residual traffic. I have no idea why I didn't think of this before as the content on one of the sites I manage is of a pretty high standard. As far as I can see there are no downsides and lots of upsides to such a distribution deal. We get free links and residual traffic while the site we give content to won't outrank us post-Panda as we published the articles first. Plus, the sites we distribute to are happy as they get free, on-topic, good quality content.
Anyway, a very simple idea that I'm sure has been discussed many times on here, but one that made me sit up so thought I'd share it.
Cheers,
Ed
>> the site we give content to won't outrank us post-Panda as we published the articles first
could we get a vote on that?
>>>the site we give content to won't outrank us post-Panda as we published the articles first
You absolutely sure about that? I would hesitate distributing my quality stuff.
I'm definitely not absolutely sure about it. But then I'm not absolutely sure of anything! I do think it's moving that way but I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks.
Concept of giving away content for links is great - couple of services out their doing this to a high standard(ContentNow + PureContent) - but i wouldn't let someone else have my best content need on my own sites :)
If there's a chance Google will screw it up then its too risky(or at least a risk to consider) - someone may take your content, add a few extras, improve it and creates better content but still very similar - who does Google pick then
>the site we give content to won't outrank us post-Panda as we published the articles first
They may be better at this, but it ain't fixed yet.
So getting back to the core idea it is content for links,
We all agree that this part is good right?
ContentNow
PureContent
linkvana
how many of these are there?
Quote from: JasonD on July 01, 2011, 12:35:53 AM
I own contentforlinks widgetcontent and similar sorts of domains if anyone wants to run with it for the benefit of us all ?
Jason, that may tie into something I have in my mind of late. I'll need to think about the angles, but may be interested in contentforlinks based ideas. Sorry to be vague, but this idea is at too early a stage to be public yet.
Going back to the OP, yes, there is
huge value in good content, and value can be taken in whatever currency you want.
However, I wouldn't be giving away the USP of your own content, but rather, leverage the damn good content creation that the company obviously have. Create a new 'shareable' version of the content that is different and distinct, but of equally high quality to the content the company use themselves. That way they retain the uniqueness and authority, come whatever changes may.
Thanks for all the feedback on this. 8 months on, do you think it would still be unwise to distribute original content that you have on your website or have Google improved their algorithm enough to categorically know who published first? I think Black Knight's suggestion to create a 'shareable' version of the content is a good one but has the downside of costing a lot more to pay people to re-write articles.
A company in London has lifted the news content from one of my news sites. Despite including an attribution, they have completely replaced us in Google because their site is stronger than ours. Pfft.
So, be careful with content distribution, and ensure any is an edited version of your main content. However, in doing so, you may create an extra overhead, and the benefits may not really be that great.
The issue is one of similarity. If 2 identical, or near identical versions are available, a canonical struggle is triggered, and whatever G say, it's overwhelmingly likely that the "best" domain wins. If you're *really* sure you'll win any given struggle, go ahead, and distribute your content like confetti, laughing gaily as you go.
If not, I'd be inclined to produce "export quality" versions of older content (and rejig your new content process to produce it automatically), with fewer words, less information, or something to make it distinct, and let that version out. If that gets copied from a 3rd party site, it's the republishers with a fight on their hands, not you
I'd do it but with absolute agreement that they have to publish it verbatim beginning-to-end without any added spaces, inline styles, nbsp, comment tags, image tags, function calls, etc. used to break up the text into a veiled rewrite. In short, the source code has to match your source code within the content wrapper.
I'd also use Rumbas' date problem to your (possible) advantage by requiring a later republished date in the content header.
RC, that's exactly what I wouldn't want, because of the possibility you'd be supplanted in the results for your own content. What's the rationale behind that?
>> Couldn't you deliver content to competitors so they have a dupe content issue ?
That's more in their power than yours, surely? Even if they lift something char for char, they can avoid all dupe content issues by adding enough extra stuff to a given piece of content to escape the dupe filters
Surely you would allow content dist, but get the article rewritten 100%.
If you have % similarity as you say Brendon, I would not be happy. It's like the people that create datafeeds the same as their own descriptions. Big problems for the merchant, I outrank several this way, across a lot of products.
>Even if they lift something char for char, they can avoid all dupe content issues by adding enough extra stuff to a given piece of content to escape the dupe filters
>>rationale
My thinking assumes that the dup filter along with a prominent first-published date would keep the distributed articles subordinated. I'd force an absolute duplicate just to keep them from adding extra stuff.
This is all good advice, cheers.
Am going to go down the re-written route as syndicating our original content seems to carry too many risks. One thing I am unsure about though is what type of links to demand from the publishers of our re-written content in return for the free content. I was thinking of saying that they can only publish our content if the article includes the following line at the end:
"For more blah blah blah, <keyword link>, and blah blah blah, head to <home page link>."
Problem with this I feel is it's going to be the same anchor text for the incoming keyword link that Google sees over and over again and may look suspicious.