We would never mirror our site or host a separate copy elsewhere… as that is exactly what Google and others are trying to avoid (that would be a true duplicate content penalty box thing).

The closest we may ever come to this is distributed webserving where we serve up closer to our userbase; but never in a fully duplicated content fashion as that would/could destroy trust with every search engine.

Our job is to make the search engines look good when they refer thier users to us. Duplicating content would not make us or them look good, so we won’t be doing it.

I can confirm that the inclusion of blog posts in Google Alerts has had an impact on incoming traffic!

In fact, I’m blogging about it later today as we noticed the lift and couldn’t figure out the source right away but now it seems apparent.

Being Part of the Top Online Article Submission Site is where you want to be with your articles IE Ezinearticles.com and therefore since we are all here already, that is a good thing right? Yes.

There are differences in many things such as Blogs seem to be getting better treatment on the searches now for some reason. Google has also added Blog Entries on thier News Alerts too if anyone subscribes to those. This helps article marketing too, as Blogs have picked up our articles and posted them and now as they do they will be sent out on News Alerts.

Mirroring this site on another set of servers hosted in a different region of the Internet backbone in Blog type script could also prove good for EzineArticles.com and the authors too. There are lots of ways to counter act the balance of changes. Personally, I am happy with the web traffic, number of inward links the articles could add to websites and the article views no matter what size the article.

Hi!

Changes in Google are affecting web traffic in a new way. This will impact our article effort in the long run.

I’m not going into the details on this blog.

Bye!

Your articles have had longer to cook due to the rate that you have written them, also you are extremely careful with your key words. If you were to increase your articles by 15% per month then you would see the average drop until it caught back up. In fact if would go down by quite a bit if you added 15% per month. So, your premise negates fact. Lets deal in facts.

Nevertheless Google is the main Search engine and for EA it accounts for the lion’s share. Yes lazy people do not scroll and yet lazy people also are those who do little and are most likely to pay someone else to do it for them often enough. Indeed most lazy people are not the best targeted traffic, but they are traffic and the discussion is about traffic too. First you have to get the traffic to your website, next it is up to you to focus on taking that traffic and making it into something. Just because you do not want lazy customers does not mean others do not. Having previously been involved with consumer auto appearance services these people would have been my target market, although now I am retired.

Changes in Google Traffic patterns are not affecting my article views much and I have written on many subjects. And if it does not affect my articles and we are discussing its affect on online article submission sites then I stand by my points of contention, as the changes you see do not affect me, with shorter articles you see. Thus this 400-word article debate is irrelevant. It is an arbitrary call by the owner of this website. It is a preference, whereas I agree with the preference due to personal taste, I still believe the premise for the debate is irrelevant.

My article are 2 to 7 times longer than yours, I have written 1/20th of the article volume that you have, and my views are averaging 636 per article.

Even so: I don’t think my data relates to your data anyway, there are too many variable differences.

Don’t compare what I said about Google traffic to your inernal article data analysis; it’s not related. You don’t know who out there is linking directly to your EA hosted articles. Or maybe you do. Regardless - traffic could be coming in from a number of alternate channels besides the search engines. Google is just one factor that I brought into the equation.

Regarding scrolling: I have a theory that lazy people don’t scroll. If someone is too lazy to bother putting their hand on the mouse, I don’t want them reading my stuff OR calling me up for copywriting jobs.

I have another theory that the Most Popular Articles category creates a page view momentum. Think about it - what if instead of articles, they were plates of cookies? And suppose that this was set up so that the plates of cookies which were getting eaten the fastest were placed in closest proximity to the viewers. If you were passing by and saw that everyone else was eating the Oreos, would you grab one?

Getting back to Google - Lance, I’m telling you that Google traffic patterns are different now, because I KNOW THAT THEY ARE. I watch Google every day.

Have a great weekend yourself.

10,001 Active articles, resulting in 2,948,596 views and when dividing it we see that is 295 article views per article and climbing and therefore I am on exact target for my previous statement of 300 article views per article by October 31, 2006.

Until you take all the shortened articles posted on the same dates and the same subjects and break down the data to prove otherwise my data stands, because I have over 10,000 articles online now and they cross literally nearly all categories. High traffic and low traffic subjects, some using the long tail theory with titles and key words and some not. In fact half of my key words are just the titles broken by commas. Still 300 article view averages over all. Now then when all these articles have had time to cook, what will the average be? I bet 450-500 or something of that nature.

I believe if you want a better hook up with Google you need an older website, This is site is one of the Oldest Online Article Websites and therefore gets the most traffic. Also links coming in are also high an bump up its advantage. With the new MSN live search I believe that their artificial intelligence scouring system might prove your comments correct and getting love from Yahoo or MSN is not a bad thing.

The desire to go to a 400 word minimum is completely a preference call over-all I believe and whereas I guess I agree and have a similar preference myself when reading articles, I am not sure that an article much over 400 words is a smart idea, because it makes the reader scroll and the author loses traffic on the byline, because that is at the bottom of the article and you have to scroll to get at it.

The empirical data that I see is not jiving with the move to larger articles from a search engine strategy sequence flow tactic. But a lifting of potential higher end articles and a preference for it does, I agree. Larger articles have MORE information, usually, but not all, to arbitrarily say that larger articles are better is a misnomer completely.

If it makes people FEEL GOOD, fine, and as an average overall larger articles do have more info; yes they would be correct. In reality some of the best articles I have ever read were quick, too the point, got the information, thank you, NEXT! And really the preferences of the readers in the click happen over loaded world of information ON AVERAGE want exactly that; “Give it to me fast, tell me what I need to know and SEE YA!”

It is simply not wise to make a blanket statement that the new data shows something different that what I have suggested and if it does; I am from Missouri! I will not accept any other comments to the contrary based on my proof and data already collected and on-going. Thank you and have a great weekend.

Oy.