EzineArticles Editorial Guidelines Updated

The EzineArticles Editorial Guidelines have been updated to reflect the most recent change from allowing up to (6) links to allowing up to (4) links. I listed what the guideline was and what it is now.

WAS: 2.f WEBSITE LINKS/URLS There is a total limit of (6) active or inactive links allowed in the article, which consists of both the BODY and the RESOURCE BOX.

Maximum of (3) “Self-Serving” active or inactive links/URLs to a website that you own, control, or have an interest in.
Maximum of (3) active non-self serving links to a website that you do not own, control, or have an interest in which adds value to the article.

IS NOW: 2.f WEBSITE LINKS/URLS There is a total limit of (4) active or inactive links allowed in the article, which consists of both the BODY and the RESOURCE BOX.

Maximum of (2) “Self-Serving” active or inactive links/URLs to a website that you own, control, or have an interest in.
Maximum of (2) active non-self serving links to a website that you do not own, control, or have an interest in which adds value to the article.
In addition:

WAS: 2.f. xiii. If you put all 3 of the active self serving links that we allow in the body of your article, we will reject it.

IS NOW: 2.f. xiii. If you put both of the active self serving links that we allow in the body of your article, we will reject it.

The Article Body is where you GIVE;
The Resource Box is where you TAKE.

I know change is hard for some folks; but I expect this will not have the negative impact that many have feared. I’ve seen the numbers and expect to prove this change will be a positive thing in the months to come in terms of how much total traffic we’re able to send our members per month.

10 Comments »


1
aris writes:

thanks cris

Comment provided June 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM

[Reply]

2
Jim Drummond writes:

This will not be a problems with us but we beg the question Why?

Why are you doing this? Is it a server problem?

I have read most of the threads on this but have not seen an explanation as to why you are making the change.

Jim

Comment provided June 2, 2008 at 7:20 PM

[Reply]

3

The why:
http://blog.EzineArticles.com/2008/04/2-self-serving-active-links.html

The notice that we’re moving in this direction:
http://blog.EzineArticles.com/2008/05/6-link-max-becomes-4-soon.html

Less than 24% of our members submit articles with 3 links, yet the CTR that the average article received over the past year in our study is identical at the 13.97% average. This means we do not expect our members to take a material hit on traffic from this change.

Please see the other threads mentioned in this comment for more of the issues that help explain the ‘why’.

Comment provided June 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM

[Reply]

4
Aaron Ballantyne writes:

Saying this might get my account closed but I feel someone need to speak up. I would be willing to give up having links altogether if EzineArticles would start sharing adsense revenue. I’d also be publishing about 50 times as often here. The trend and future is with sites that share revenue. The sites that refuse to I’m sorry to say are eventually going to have a very hard time finding contributors.

Comment provided June 3, 2008 at 4:43 PM

[Reply]

5

It won’t get your account closed.

If that’s true, why doesn’t FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace, and name hundreds of other top sites share revenue?

I’m not saying you’re wrong… but we’ve made a decision on the model we want to run with and our members make their decision as to whether they want to participate in the content for traffic & exposure model.

Comment provided June 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM

[Reply]

6
Lance Winslow writes:

Interesting, but I protest this rule. It limits my ability to give information to my reader. And I am deeply disturbed and need a Frappachino to mellow me out. I’ll be at Starbucks the rest of the day writing articles the Lance Winslow way, without the extra links now.

Comment provided June 5, 2008 at 6:27 PM

[Reply]

7
Keith writes:

Now, here’s the question …

I both direct to my ezine sign up page AND to another
article on the same topic (by me) on my site.

It “seems” that my article is being marked as self serving,
even though I don’t sell in it. It’s more of the same.

Any hints on how to make sure the editors see the
difference?

Keith

PS Also, the limitation of number of words in the
text link to so few, seems a little harsh. Some
book titles really are 6 words long.

Comment provided October 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM

[Reply]

8

Keith,

Self serving active links is any URL we perceive that you have an ownership or controlling interest in. Whether you sell stuff from it or not doesn’t matter.

As for your specific situation, ask our member support team for a specific answer and I’m sure we could give you one privately.

Comment provided October 22, 2008 at 11:54 AM

[Reply]

9
marsha writes:

i’ve been using EzineArticles since FOREVER and this new rule is currently making me very angry. i will try to adhere to the rules but i can’t see why my articles are being rejected….sometimes they tell you something like spelling/grammar or something and it’s just a different term in a different language.

i have 2 stuck because i APPARENTLY have two links to somewhere which is disallowed.

frustrating….

Comment provided September 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM

[Reply]

10

Marsha,

Sorry, we’re unable to comment publicly about private account matters.

To fix the articles, just edit them so that you only have a max of two active links.

This change in policy is more than a year old now. While I’m sorry that you don’t agree with it; I’m happy to report that we’re delivering 100% MORE clicks per month today (6 MILLION PER MONTH) than we were a year ago when this decision was made. In other words, it had no adverse affect on our performance or ability to deliver your website with traffic.

Lastly, if you’ve got a beef with our Editors, contact us via email and make your case. We’re not unreasonable when it comes to accepting different ways of expressing or saying terms.

Comment provided September 15, 2009 at 8:28 AM

[Reply]

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.