Peter Coughlin writes:

That’s an interesting view Chris…

I believe the relationship starts when the reader begins to read the article, at which point they already know the author’s name.

The relationship should be cultivated throughout the article until a point is reached where the reader is encouraged to do something, and the place for this is in the resource box.

Please don’t penalize authors for not sharing your view of the article’s ultimate purpose. For many of us this is simply business, and we want to get the readers to our website to begin building the relationship in earnest.

Regards,
Peter.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Peter,

You’re not penalized… It’s just a recommendation.

It’s a clear pattern to us that low value content fails to restate the authors name in the Resource Box…as if they were too embarrassed to repeat their name, or the article was ghostwritten.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

What’s in a Name? Everything!

Real experts and consultants doing article marketing use their name, their real name, their whole name and nothing but the truth so to help them god!

[Reply]

Peter Coughlin writes:

I guess I’m not clear whether the “us” in your original statement means EzineArticles or the reader.

So just to clarify – will you will treat an article any differently if there is no repitition of the author’s name in the resource box?

Thanks,
Peter.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Peter,

We will think less of authors who don’t include their name in the Resource Box… but it won’t impact whether an article is approved or not.

However, if the content being reviewed is already on thin ice, this may just be the factor that tips the Editor into the soft rejection decision.

If your content is so unique, so valuable, so expertly written from yourself personally… and we can tell that you’re an authority in your market, then you have nothing to worry about if you don’t include your name in the Resource Box. Thin content writers are who should worry.

[Reply]