South Florida Artist Entrepreneurs

Article By Carl Hruza (c) 2011

I was sketching out two marketing plans over the holidays for
a couple of new clients and decided it was time to incorporate
some of the research data/results I’ve collected during the
latter part of 2011. Generally I’d spend more time testing
things on my own sites first, but I’m confident enough with
the results of basic testing that I’ve decided to put the ideas
into live production.

There are two basic interrelated concepts that I’ve been working
on – content length, and establishing ownership of new content
in a way which minimizes the chance of your content being
considered ‘dupe’ and increases your page authority and SERP’s.

The web is all about content, it’s basically one large article
directory. The task for a search engine is to provide an
efficient indexing system so we can connect with the information
we are looking for in the fewest possible steps.

In the old days, when we bought our ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’,
we’d flip to the front to find a broad index of content, then
flip to the back to try and find a specific piece of content.
It was and still is a pain trying to find something specific
in a large hardcopy publication.

Obviously, search engines automate that task pretty well on the
web by recording billions of documents and serving up the most
relevant to our needs in a few milliseconds.

However, Google has taken it all a few steps further. With the
advent of their Page Rank algorithm a few years back Google
demonstrated its capacity for collecting multiple sources of
information and building actionable data profiles. Google has
since added to its profile arsenal by recording the specific
surfing habits of its users and the websites on which they land.
Combining the personal data it records about us with the data
taken from a website (via analytics or just simply from standard
Google searches), Google can now match us with content deemed
even more relevant to our needs.

So Google has become a very intelligent content indexing system,
delivering more and more ‘personalized’ results based on our
surfing habits, our demographic and the performance of the websites
to which we are referred.

Duplicate Content

It is no secret to any webmaster that one of the main technology
hurdles for Google is duplicate content. But why should Google
care about duplication if it’s large enough and fast enough to
index pretty much everything on the web? Well, actually it isn’t
(large enough or fast enough). And therein lies the problem.

Google needs to know the source of published content. As the
author of a piece of content I should have precedence over
everyone else who publishes it. Google needs to know who owns
the content so it can give preference and prominence to the
source and not to someone who has merely replicated it for their
own self-interest or gain. It’s one of the most critical
yardsticks that Google has to judge us by. If it gets the source
wrong in its algorithm, all other measurements will result in a
false or negatively weighted outcome. It can’t reward quality
content fairly, if it doesn’t know who has authored it.

Unsurprisingly this isn’t something that we hear Google making
a big deal about. Why? Because they don’t have and never will
have a perfect working solution. But it’s clear from some of the
algorithm and policy changes during 2011 that Google is working
hard to improve its chances of determining the true source of
content.

The first step in a series of new steps was for Google to make
a basic assumption about Article Directories. Article Directories
contain a lot of content and fared well under the old system of
ranking. We all know by now that some of the key directories,
EzineArticles for example, have taken a major hit under Google’s
new system of ranking. In a certain sense the hit has been more
about sending a message than it has been about cleaning up the
web of duplicate content. In a way Google has behaved like a
newly elected Government. When you’re trying to introduce a new
way of thinking, it sometimes helps to make a few high-profile
personnel changes. So Google has basically announced to the world
that duplicate content is on its radar – learn the new rules or
face the axe.

When you look closely at the results of Panda it’s fairly easy
to work backwards and reverse-engineer the thought processes
involved. Article Directories contain primarily duplicate
content, but not entirely, so Google must have factored other
information into its decision to devalue AD’s. If you look at
the whole scenario, it can give you valuable clues as to where
things are headed. There are two clear problems with Article
Directories and the type of content they provide a home for:

1 – Duplication. Clearly, people create content, often for their
own sites, then use multiple article directories to re-publish
that same content, either in an attempt to gain backlinks,
attract direct traffic or appeal to niche re-publishers of
content (syndicators). Either which way it is duplicated, and
the Article Directories are the catalyst for making that happen.

When you look at everything else contained in an AD (all
non-duplicate content), you see the second problem -

2 – Poor quality content. When you search an article directory
for something unique, what you’ll often find is something that
doesn’t read too well. In many cases that is because it has been
mechanically spun from previous content. So in terms of value to
the searcher, it’s even less useful than the original, which has
already been tagged as a dupe.

So clearly the Article Directories, and the way in which they
operate, are not going to garner sympathy from Google, who’ve
taken on the task of improving the quality of the web.

So where does this leave us WRT content publishing? What are
the rules and how do we play the game?

Google can’t announce the new rules yet, because they haven’t
finished writing them. In a way Google is just like an
intelligent marketer trying to optimize his own business. Google
makes changes, tests the results, realigns its approach based on
gathered data, then tests again. To stay at the top of its game,
this process is perpetual – it has to be.

How does that affect you, or how will it? First off you must not
hide behind ‘well it’s worked for me for the last 5 years so it
must be OK’ or by sticking your head in the sand and doing
nothing. iFrame cloaking, IP cloaking/switching, Xrummer
backlinking, etc. all worked for a while. These were strategies
that worked and have since been marginalized (or are far along
that path) by the Google team. So you need to take a look at
your approach to publishing content. Even if you don’t use
article directories or don’t provide a mechanism for people to
republish your content, the new rules are still going to affect
you. The good news is that if you’re smart enough, some good
opportunities will start to appear.

There’s a new system of ranking search results being worked out
right now which combines Site Authority and Page Rank, along
with the newly collected data that Google has at its disposal.

So how exactly does it work?

I’ll be going into detail of how you can structure your content
to achieve what I term a ‘High Google Credit Score’ in part 2
of this article, to be published soon. Or visit my website at
(http://webdesigndoorcounty.com/spn.html) and request part 2 via
email.

================================================================

As an author and business owner with almost 14 years experience
in the field of Internet Marketing, Carl Hruza has developed a
number of successful web-based enterprises, and now makes his
living by training other entrepreneurs to do the same. Learn
more about the author at (http://webdesigndoorcounty.com/spn.html)

================================================================