Resource Box Enhancement

New Resource Box Databasing Functionality EnhancedA new site update has been made live that improves the Resource Box database features/functionality for everyone and expands the total available from 3 to 12 for Premium members.

What? You didn’t know you can store your DEFAULT and up to (2) more Resource Boxes within your account?

To find this Resource Box management feature:

  1. Log in to your EzineArticles account

Here, you can give a name to each type of Resource Box and if you click on TOOLS, you can Set it as a Default, Duplicate it or copy it for use by another alt-author name within your account (it’s faster!).

Important Notes:

  • All Members have access up to (3) separate Resource Boxes.
  • Premium Members have access up to (12) separate Resource Boxes.
  • When you click on “SAVE” to update your new Resource Box, it’s done via AJAX and that means we don’t reload your entire page to perform the save function.
  • You can include the same approved HTML code tags that we allow in the article body, but we’d ask that you don’t use < p > tags.

I know this question is coming, so I’m going to head it off at the pass: This feature update has NOTHING to do with mass resource box update service. At this time, we do not have plans to offer that functionality.

This feature saves you time by having us database your top (3) (Premium members get (12)) Resource Boxes so that you can create new articles faster knowing that you don’t have to re-create or copy/paste your default resource box in each time!

Do you like this feature and do you currently or would you use it? Any feedback?


Angela Booth writes:

Yes, I’ll be using it more than I used to. I write in several different categories, and having up to 12 default resource boxes will be a real time saver. Time saved means more articles written.

Many thanks.

Comment provided October 13, 2008 at 6:18 PM


George writes:


While it’s a useful feature and a step in the right direction, I’d still prefer to see a full-blown URL link editor for the resource box.

In the ideal world, I’d just highlight the phrase I want to turn into a link, click the “Create Link” button and enter the URL; the highlighted text will automatically function as the displayed text (if that makes sense).

It would save me a LOT of trouble having to copy and paste my A HREF links every time I create a new article, since I tend to customize my resource box for every article I write to create a more seamless experience for the reader and better outline the content of the destination site as it relates to the article.

With that said, I think, as it is right now, it will be a great tool for people who use pre-set biography boxes for their articles :)


Comment provided October 13, 2008 at 7:12 PM



I’ve been cutting and pasting alternative signatures over the weekend for different draft articles. Yes, I find this very useful, already use it and will continue to.


Comment provided October 13, 2008 at 8:50 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

This is a great feature for those of us that many websites and write on many subjects.

Also, this is definitely a great thing for anyone that is heavy into the online article marketing. If you truly wish to make money in online marketing, you need to leverage your time and have tools like this available to you.

For those who choose not to join the premium service here at EzineArticles and still call themselves Internet Entrepreneurs; well, they just are not really serious. Perhaps they should call themselves Internet Hobbyists instead?

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 5:46 AM


George writes:


With all due respect, I take exception to your statement above – namely, that those who choose not to use the Premium service are somehow less serious about Internet Marketing.

I, for one, feel that it is an unfair – and terribly inaccurate – generalization. Personally, I am not convinced that the current features offered by the Premium service justify the $97 price tag. This is not a criticism of the EzineArticles offering; rather, it reflects own cost-benefit analysis of the service.

Unwillingness to incur additional costs for a range of features that I, for one, consider to be secondary does not, I think, make one any less serious about Internet Marketing; if anything, it makes one a prudent business owner who is careful about incurring additional unnecessary expenses.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 5:54 AM




I think most of our members who only include anchored text links in their resource box are missing the point of the medium and I’m not saying this is you; but if we made it super easy to do anchored text links in the Resource Box, I fear it will lead our members to *only* include anchored text links.

When your article syndicates, newbie webmasters and ezine publishers who send to ASCII text newsletters would most likely give you NO traffic when they use your content because of your failure to include a full URL in your resource box.

It’s my recommendation that EVERY member of EzineArticles should include a full http:// URL in their resource box. To ignore this recommendation will result in lost traffic attraction possibilities for sure.

As for whether you’re a Premium EzineArticles member or not: It’s not perfect for everyone. If you remain a non-Premium member, rest assured that we do NOT give Premium members any Editorial bias of any kind and will continue to prove that with our actions daily.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 6:16 AM


George writes:


First off, thanks for replying and for editing my earlier comment – sorry for the mess.

Also, thanks for the heads-up about the http URL issue – so far, I’ve actually been using exclusively anchored text links as you described. I’ll see how much extra traffic is generated. Perhaps I was wrong all along!

As for anchored links, I generally try to use them for power phrases, such as “click here”.

Will try it out with my next batch of articles – thanks!

All the best,

P.S. Almost entered my Name as “Chris” this time around – what on Earth is wrong with me today?!

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 6:20 AM



Hi Chris!

I know about the 3 resource boxes we have at our disposition! Wish we could have more than 2 links to our sites there!

I’m glad I don’t need to be a premium member for any reason, because I don’t need to change my resource box besides writing for many different categories and I only write one to 5 articles per day, so I would not be able to submit many at once! but I’m sure that for many people 12 resource boxes is a great advantage!

Thank you! Everything helps!

And I may decide to become a premium member some day! Who knows?

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM



I couldn’t figure out why members needed more than (3) resource boxes either until I found out that some authors write for multiple niches with the same author name instead of my recommendation of unique author name variations for each niche of expertise.

So if you write for up to 12 different niches, you could setup 12 different resource boxes to choose from during submission OR they could choose up to 12 different resource boxes PER unique alt-author name to test different strategies.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM


Mark Thompson writes:


You seem to be in a pretty disingenuous mood again today!

Why would anyone be an internet hobbiest just becuase they feel that at the moment the standard membership options suit them fine?

I was kindly given a months free membership of the premium service by Chris and it was excellent. I would recommend it to anyone who writes and distributes lots of articles BUT I wouldn’t resort to questioning their commitment if they didn’t sign up.

If like you I had lots of 250 300 word articles relating to current events to send out every day then I would also use it. But please don’t offend everyone who decides that it’s currently not for them.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM


Audrey writes:

I write in two very different categories. I’ve always used 2 resource boxes, each one with a link to a different site.

I just submitted articles today and the new interface is much quicker and much more user friendly. Great job Chris.

I am not a premium member. If that makes me “not serious” ok that’s fine. I’ll still keep submitting articles and preaching to others what a great way article marketing is to reach others. I just won’t tell them I’m not serious :)

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM


Tom writes:

Multiple boxes has always been a great feature and made the process much simpler when writing content for different categories, which happen to correspond to separate niche websites.

Another nice feature tweak from EzineArticles – Thanks

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM


Lance Winslow writes:


It takes money to make money. It takes money to build websites. It takes time to write articles that one could use to dig ditches, sit in an office or drive a cab and make money. It takes money to be in business.

Internet Entrepreneurs that are trying to make money, have to spend a little to make money. Efficiency of time is what it is all about. Do more in less time, invest in the resources you need to make it work.

Me disengenious, not a chance.

$97 for Premium Features is nothing. Think about all the money you spent for software, computer, internet, website domains, etc. etc. And here you have the tools to really make it all work, and yet, some folks balk at a measly $97 per month, that’s insane.

Having extra templated resource boxes saves time, lots of time, it also allows you to cater your exact article with the right message.

If your article is an indepth research piece you are targeting a different buyer than one that is a pop-culture piece on your subject. If you have the right resource box to match you’ll get more click-thrus, more targeted traffic to convert to sales. That’s just obvious.

With the other features you will know how and why the internet traffic is coming to you and Get Into the Minds of Your Customers (a title of a best selling marketing book).

And George, if you are going to challenge me, then why not use your real name and uncloak yourself, I do not take kindly to attacks on my personal character, let’s compare resumes. Don’t you dare call me disengenious, and don’t anyone tell me I do not know what I am talking about.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM


Loren writes:

Another excellent idea. Speeding the writing process is always a welcome benefit.

Off subject…it is nice to receive an email notice for a problem article from an editor that references the guide code number and letter. That can save a great deal of time in correcting the issue with the respective problem article.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM


Rick Lomas writes:

Yeah that’s a cool feature, although I really plan out my resource box by hand each time as this is the real gold of EzineArticles for me, a carefully planned and structured resource box deeplinking back to your authority site is well worth spending half an hour on – if it syndicates well you’ll be very glad of all the lovely juicy backlinks with proper anchor text!

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM


George Chernikov writes:


First of all, this is my real name – and, indeed, I believe we discussed the issue of real names vs. pen names at quite some length already.

Secondly, if you read carefully what has been posted above, I did not call you disingenuous, and neither did I attack your personal character at any point in the discussion so far (if I came across as doing so, then please accept my apologies – it was purely unintentional). So please take a moment to acquaint yourself with the blog entries just above before you start attacking people for no good reason.

Thirdly, I agree that it takes money to make money – but simply throwing money in random directions for no viable financial gain isn’t an investment, it’s a waste.

Fourthly, concerning efficiency – as you know, efficiency is based on the amount of resources consumed vs. output produced. You’re correct in that efficiency what it’s all about – which is why I still stand by my original assertion that if I can accomplish the same results without investing $97/mo into Premium membership, then, logically, the extra expenditure would actually contribute to inefficiency rather than reduce it.

You don’t need Premium features to “make it all work”, as you have put it – so far, all Premium features that I see are nice-to-have, but definitely not mandatory. In fact, that’s precisely what I like about EzineArticles so much – the fact that Premium membership is strictly optional, allowing people an opportunity to compete purely on the basis of their expertise.

Lastly, and while I’ve already said that I did not attack your character at any point in this discussion, you must truly think me unreasonable if you honestly believe that I’ll start sending out my CVs to random people around the world, unless there’s a possibility for gainful employment involved! There’s a reason why, inside organizations, personal files are kept confidential. With that said, I can assure you that your resume will certainly contain a more impressive track record than mine, if only due to the age difference; however, that alone does not invalidate my opinion and it certainly does not entitle you to making the kind of sweeping – and inaccurate – generalizations found in your original post!

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM



I like this feature, however, I would have to memorize what info was on what info box if I did prescribe to premium.

I LOVE all the wonderful new additions added to EzineArticles, LOVE,LOVE them.

Yet for me? The $$ cost of Premium is way out of the ballpark to make sense for my efforts online %wise.

Great for people hauling in the moola though and hats off to them.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM



ALL: Please, let’s move on and discontinue discussing whether you are a good entrepreneur or not if you do or don’t become a Premium member. :)

We appreciate every member regardless as to whether you become a Premium member or not. It’s not right for everyone, nor was it designed to be perfect for everyone.

Let’s keep the rest of our discussion on topic please.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM



I think you defined it well: the premium membership is not perfect for everyone. For me now it would be wasted, because I hardly have time to write 1 or 2 articles per day ‚¬€ and only when I’m not doing anything else I may write 5!

But for other authors, depending on their field, the possibility of having all the advantages of the premium membership is a real salvation.

In the future, perhaps everyone may decide to upgrade, for one reason or the other. I think we must be glad because it exists, even if we are not using it yet.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 5:49 PM


Rick Lomas writes:

Oh right I just got this – when I read Premium I saw Platinum! I just had a quick scan over the deal and ….. really at the end of the day …. when you have your article up there it’s as good as a premium dude’s one as far as I can see! The art is in making something that is going to syndicate like crazy. My two most successful ones have been about “How to receive UK TV in France for free” and “How to repair body damage in motorhomes” which have been providing me with traffic for years, so I guess the secret phrase is “How to”

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 6:05 PM



When I first learned about the Premium membership the first thing I said was that ‚¬“I will never pay to have my articles approved faster!‚¬ but now that I learned that if you are a premium member you can see 30 keywords through which your visitors found your article, I like the premium membership. Only for this reason, perhaps in the future I may upgrade my membership.

Other authors may have many advantages using it now! One cannot judge them without knowing why they prefer to pay for this service.

Comment provided October 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM


roger haywood writes:

What is this all about? I cannot be alone in simply not understanding what you are talking about or the service you offer? I am not stupid. I am a professional writer with five successful business books to my name, one of which is a world top seller in its sector. I appreciate you have a sophisticated service buty it is simply not accessible to me. I want to sell my expertise on line – my first site is up, advising young people on how to build a great career in public relations – on

But I want to understand what you are offering. Could you not put explanations (say in an optional choice box) in lay terms? What IS a resource box? How would it help? What are AJAX and codes, HREF links, EzineArticles etc?????????

I have advised some of the largest and most successful companies in the world; without exception, if you do not understand what is being said by any ‘expert’, then those explaining do not have what it takes and are going nowhere. I have never come across a sector where their is so much jargon and gobblydegook. Is this to create an exclusive inside club, possibly of no-hopers who have mastered the jargon but have nothing else to offer? Is this to disguise the incompetence of the many? Have you forgotten that you were once a begginer? Would Apple/Sony/Mercedes/GE/Vodafone irritate their customers or even refuse to sell them their products because they do not understand the industry technology?

Can we have it in plain English, please?

Roger Haywood

Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 3:31 AM




Conceptually, the article body is where you give of your expertise; the resource box is located immediately below the article body and this is where you are able to pitch yourself and your business/website.

When an article is created for syndication on a site like ours, here are the base components:


My advice: Ignore this entire thread as it means nothing if you’re wrapping your mind around the components of an article in terms of how it’s used in a site like ours. My bad for not qualifying this latest site upgrade as intermediate.

You don’t need to know HTML to engage in this process. No HTML knowledge is needed.

As for what AJAX is… I thought I was clear on defining what that was or is as some of our members will no doubt freak out when they click SAVE and the entire page doesn’t reload as they are expecting. The FUTURE of the Internet is AJAX and we’re stepping in it more every day. I’m hoping there will be a day when you expect websites to act like applications and I won’t have to talk about this transition period in terms of what to expect in terms of how the membership interface interacts with you.

Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 5:17 AM



Thanks. This is a great feature especially for someone like myself that juggles a lot of online projects. I appreciate the improvement!

Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM




Another data point for you:

Out of 124,114 live & active members, 4,136 expert authors are using all (3) resource boxes that we database for you… 15 of which are Premium members.

Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM


roger haywood writes:

Many thanks for some very helpful advice. Much appreciated. I am sure I will learn and one day I will be using the technical terms and forgetting that once I had no idea.

Also, I will also be reading this site’s useful guidance – and I have been getting some great advisory emails, so be patient with novices like me.

I am glad you were not upset by my irony which was a bit heavy, on reflection!


Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM


Thaddeus Ferguson writes:

I love the idea of multiple resource boxes as I only write in about 4 or so different cats however my articles are on 30 different subjects in those specific niches so this helps.
Although I imagine I could go the whole route of using multiple names but a part of me likes seeing my name on the top of the author lis which has been removed in the dating cat because a part of me wants to write like the top author in it but I dont believe in the long term it would be much value

Comment provided October 15, 2008 at 8:32 PM



That does make it easier. Like someone else mentioned, I’d like to be able to make the link to my website live.


Comment provided October 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM




Not sure what you’re talking about?

Any valid URL in the Resource Box is auto-made-live for you without any HTML code needed.

If you want to do an anchored text link, then here is how to do it:—7-Tips&id=7185

Comment provided October 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM


Deb writes:

I have a Q about links in the Resource box – for regular members.

This may be discussed elsewhere, but I was unable to find it.

I want to create a domain name that I can use for a variety of purposes for article marketing — to direct to different optin pages, for example. This domain name would not be my main website or blog, but would link to pages on a site that I own (not an affiliate site).

Ex. Let’s say my main site is: – it has a blog, etc.

But I want to send people to a squeeze page from my article, not to my blog. So…

I want to purchase a domain such as and then use it in my articles (and other places) like this: or

Each of these links would go to a different targeted optin page, with an appropriate gift for opting in available on that page, or with the download link provided in the autoresponder linked to that optin box.

So, can I use the format in my resource box if I am NOT pointing to an affiliate link, but using it as described?

Sorry for the long question…and thanks for the answer!

Comment provided October 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM




First, there is no Editorial difference between regular members and premium members. I wanted to get that point upfront. Editorial bias is never for sale.

Second, we don’t think squeeze pages deliver a positive user experience for our site visitors, but we’re currently not rejecting on that issue alone.

Short answer is yes to your question.

Third, we monitor your links with automated checks and human checks ALL year long, every year for every article. If you decide to play a redirect game, we may suspend your account, reject any article that no longer meets our guidelines even long after it was approved when it originally met our guidelines.

Fourth, we’re just not friendly to affiliate marketers for a lot of reasons… mainly because the percentage of aff marketers who write high quality original articles is in the minority; shelf life for how long they are committed to their content is 6-14 months at most for many aff marketers plus we think our users are better served by genuine experts in the topic discussed in their article content.

Comment provided October 30, 2008 at 12:53 AM


Gisele writes:

I’ve just created a second resource box, but it didn’t show up when I submitted a new article afterwards. Does it have to be approved first? I didn’t received any notice that it has been received for review. I am, however, told that I only have (1) more left when I go to the resource box page.

Comment provided January 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM




Your resource box does not have to be approved prior to using it upon submission.

When creating more than one resource box, you will want to select the most used one as your default. Your default resource box will always be selected unless you manually change this upon submission.

You can create up to 3 resource boxes per author.

Note: Premium members can create up to a total of 12 resource boxes per author.

Comment provided January 26, 2009 at 8:05 AM


Gisele writes:

Thanks, Penny,

So I guess my question is- where is the new resource box? I don’t see it displayed in the drop down menu under “Default” in the Resource Box section on the Submit Article page.

Comment provided January 26, 2009 at 10:49 AM




I will address your questions personally via email. :)

Comment provided January 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.