SEO Authors

There are two types of authors that engage in Article Marketing as a strategy:

1) Info or Expert Authors – Have real expertise on the subject matter that they write about.

2) SEO Authors – Have no real expertise about the subject matter but know how to produce highly keyword intelligent titles, keyword dense articles and these authors do article marketing purely for the SEO play.

Let me share a distinction between the two:

While most authors are somewhere along the continuum depending on their SEO awareness, we prefer authors that are in the first category with about 25% of the knowledge of the second category.

Authors that are purely in the SEO Author category don’t deserve to be called “Authors” as they are SEO experts.

An expert author with no SEO intelligence is not desired either… as they are wasting the ROI they could be getting if they just cleaned up their article TITLEs going forward.

Anyone who is considering going to the dark side of the SEO Authors category should go read about the wordpress fiasco a month ago — and then you’ll know why we don’t want to see article marketing to lose its credibility purely for the sake of a cheap SEO buck.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

4 Comments »


1
Julie Pierce writes:

What if the information is not bunk?

Comment provided May 16, 2005 at 10:18 AM

[Reply]

2
Dina Giolitto writes:

Chris,

You just said it way better than I could ever say it!

Yes, folks who have discovered how to use SEO keywords to falsely position themselves as experts, are like impurities in the water, clogging up the pipes.

Unlike the days when the internet was young, if you want to find good information, you have to filter out the dirt first. When I do web research using keywords, I generally have to read anywhere from 4-7 articles on one particular topic before I find one written by an intelligent human being who actually has valuable insights to offer.

A lot of the time, in addition to keywords, I use specialized terms in my web searches. This helps me scope out someone with real knowledge.

So I would say that if you’re an author who knows his stuff, keep on writing – include keywords, include specific and specialized knowledge, include it all.

If you’re a reader who wants to FIND such an article, I would really add a highly specialized term to my web search, in addition to the keywords.

If you listen to those who believe in the Laws Of Attraction as applied to internet business, they’d probably say “People with higher aspirations and creative solutions will find each other,” and I can only hope they’re right.

But I like that Chris is here to remind us that it’s a growing concern.

PS- it’s okay if I take some of what I just posted here and turn it into an article, right?

Comment provided May 16, 2005 at 11:22 AM

[Reply]

3
John McCabe writes:

Even more insidious are all of the so-called “article generators” that snip a little wiki here, dip in the dictionary there and scramble it all together into some keyword loaded BS omelet. Yes, they’re optimized and they pull traffic for now. Yes, a casual reading leaves the impression of simply an unskilled writer. But as was mentioned, these articles leave the reader feeling cheated.

Comment provided May 23, 2005 at 11:49 AM

[Reply]

4
michael murdock writes:

Yes, it’s the people out there that claim to be the experts that makes the job of those of us who do this for a living more difficult. “Well they said they could do it for $29.95!” I get that all the time. My simple answer to it is “when you get it done by them for 29.95 and they mess it up, when you come back to me, take my fee and double it!” Because I have to clean up their crap first and then get the real listing done. Nice to see you address the issue here. There are too many people doing it wrong. There are those of us out there trying to clean it up and do it right.

Michael Murdock, CEO
DocMurdock.com

Comment provided May 30, 2005 at 8:50 PM

[Reply]

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.