Help For Accidental Keyphrase Abuse

As you may have heard, we’re walking away from members who send in keyword and keyphrase repetition abuse because it provides for a poor user experience and destroys credibility.

This week, we opened up one of our proprietary article review tools so that our members can see what our editors see when our automated repetition-abuse system identifies a potential keyword or keyphrase abuse.

If your article was soft-rejected for keyword/keyphrase abuse, you’ll be able to immediately see the excessive keywords or keyphrases or both are highlighted.

I’ve purposely made the image on the right very small to protect the member who abused a 3-word keyphrase (10) times in a ~390 word count article [that’s excessive].

We were hesitant to turn this information over because we didn’t want to encourage gaming of the system; yet if we didn’t turn this info over, we’d have to manually tell the member the same information when they emailed asking for help as to why we didn’t accept the article.

In 2008, one of our larger member-user-experience priorities is to provide more information when an article is soft-rejected so that the member can solve their own problems faster.

BTW, since I’m using the words “soft-rejection”, I thought I’d define it: It means we like you and your article and think we could possibly still accept your content if you were able to fix one or a few small issues to make it compliant with the spirit of our editorial guidelines. “soft-rejection” is more like “not accepted yet…” and we’ll help you discover what needs to be done to get it accepted.


mark writes:

Excellent news and even more excellent that you have told us. Thanks for the heads-up on this.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 10:12 AM


Derek Dashwood writes:

That’s great communication, Chris, thanks. I know I am still puzzled, because somewhere I read to power pack with those 3 key words, but then to make your point and make it a readable title is something I for one am still puzzling through. What hurts me is the fear that I am kind of giving up getting my maximum GET to at least get the article up. So, any advice on this will really help your better GIVE people to receive, like Oliver, please sir I am still hungry, how do I get my porridge while we GIVE. Thx. Derek

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM




There’s plenty of porridge left in the kettle.

Don’t worry about all this keyword and keyphrase non-sense and just write a quality 400-750 word article that delivers value based on your expertise.

Becoming “TOO OPTIMIZED” in your article writing or [paralysis in analysis] is like having eaten too much porridge…and getting sick on your own word soup.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM


Allen Graves writes:

Hey Chris,

How many articles are getting soft-rejected because of this? Can you say?

– AL

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM




Too many…

But, the percentage has not climbed since we made our position clear last month and we manually re-reviewed every single one of the 2000+ articles in our keyword/keyphrase abuse status to make sure our editors didn’t improperly reject an article.

I’m seeing positive signs that the small percentage of wayward keyword repetition abusers have moved on to do their business elsewhere.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 11:32 AM


Allen Graves writes:

Man…I wish I had the resources you’ve built for yourself!!! Congratulations on everything.

Yes, the wayward abusers will definitely find somewhere else to do it.

Shame that there are directories out there that will let this type (and all the other types) of abuse go without issue. :-(


Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 11:58 AM


Jim writes:

I appreciate having access to this tool. Many times we are in the dark when comes to finding out specifically what the editor is referring to. The editors have made a lot of mistakes as far as keyword spamming goes. In the past 3 months we have had at least 7 articles rejected with less than 3 keyword phrases in 600 plus word articles. When have contacted support they are approved. This situation has greatly improved recently. I thank you for all the assistance you have provided to us in improving our articles.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM


Carol Smith writes:

I am new to everything so obviously I am a beginner article writer. I had heard so many conflicting things about what you do and don’t do and allow. I decided to come to the boss and see what was going on.

The articles that I have been reading (and saving in my “learning bank”) have been extremely helpful. Thanks!

Does having access to this tool mean it is something we can do before we submit or does it mean that if an article is “soft-rejected” that our email will be similar to the example?

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM




Good question and I was wondering how long it would take before someone asked it.

No, we won’t be providing this tool [before the article is submitted] because we fear it will lead to the very thing we’re trying to prevent.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM


Greg writes:

Thanks Chris.

I’m a newbie – and my web coach was pretty specific about the website content keyword inclusion – but never made a big point of it on article submissions.

Just for the record – what would be an ‘ideal’ number of repetitions for any given keyword in a solid article?

I struggle enough with the website content recommendation of 10, while still making the content blatantly obvious of the fact. There’s a trick to it, that’s for sure.

Comment provided February 20, 2008 at 9:22 PM




I recommend what I’ve already recommended earlier in this thread: That you forget about all of this keyword and keyphrase density issue.

Just focus on producing quality original content.

If you want to obsess over any key element of the article writing/marketing process: Expand your article TITLE to longer than feels comfortable and test that.

Comment provided February 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM



Hi Chris!

Interesting tool.

If an author uses synonyms he or she can have better results, besides being able to repeat the basic many times with different words.

Comment provided February 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM


L. Lin writes:

I’ve read a lot of comments here. And I agree with one thing — everyone needs to submit original content. Describe your articles in detail and more specifically so that everyone knows what your article is about.

By submitting only original content you might feel better about your article and you will not have to use key-words too often. (I am still not clear on specifically what keywords you are speaking of).

Hope that helps. If not, sorry about that. Just one opinion here.

Comment provided February 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM



I recently saw an article (not here) that sold some sort of glove (I googled Grysczk Gloves and there are no listings).

Title: Grysczk Gloves.
H1: Grysczk Gloves for the working man
Body: Grysczk Gloves are the glove of the working man, the real man. The Working man knows that his Grysczk Gloves will last him years because Grysczk Gloves….

I actually read the text just to see if there was any real value beyond keyword saturation, and the article would not have been bad if written without his keyword so heavy.

The writer had a keyword saturation Grysczk Gloves in 100% of the paragraphs, greater than 75% of the sentences and overall – probably over 20% saturation.

Like I said. Painful.

Comment provided February 26, 2008 at 3:57 AM


Vinod Singh writes:

Its really great tool.

Thanks ezine!!

Comment provided March 6, 2008 at 11:46 AM


William Petersen writes:

I have another article “Some Simple Tips on Anti Aging Skin Care Reviews” (1291025).

The keyword phrases are:

anti aging skin care review
anti aging skin care system

Yet I am being told the offending phrase for key term abuse is anti aging skin care.
This is anot one of the key terms but part of both key terms phrases.

Comment provided July 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM




I sent you a private email to help this issue along.


Comment provided July 3, 2008 at 8:42 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.