Google's Universal Search - The Death of Article Marketing

I just read an article from SitePro News called "Search Engine Optimization For Universal Joint Search - Back to Square One?" and have got got some remarks to make.

I have noticed a immense tendency for Google to travel reduplicate syndications of articles into their auxiliary index at the oculus blink of an eye. This cannot be good for the article directories because, like my ain at Backbone Drive Expressions it do a dramatic lessening in Adsense income and exposure of the article across the internet. My inquiry to Google is, when you travel to purchase a book or make up one's mind it is clip to travel to a book shop to peruse the volumes, make you always travel to the same bookstore? The reply to that is no. We probably travel to the 1 that is the closest. If I as an writer have got published a book, I would wish that my readers could happen my book in whatever bookshop my reader takes and I would wish it to demo up on every shelf in every bookshop in the world.

Google is not thinking this way. They desire one "original" copy, from one article directory screening up in their hunt engine, and the remainder of us with a syndicated transcript acquire thrown in the "Google Dungeon". This do room for all of the other "videos, blogs, images, news articles, and other mass media available online".

Apparently Google makes not see that the article directories still have got value with regard to content on the web. At least person believes so as scrapers still abound and many look to be dependent on Adsense as a beginning of income. The article directory bes for that reason, to do money from Adsense, as well as supply an author's exposure for their articles. I believe that Google have mistakenly included article directories in the class of Master of Fine Arts web pages (made for Adsense), and that is what have caused the precipitous autumn into the auxiliary index for all article directories and more.

Matt Cutts states that the solution to this job is quality content (no duplicates) and back linking. First of all, there is no such as thing as an original unless the writer submits an article to one and only one article directory. To make this would intend much less "direct" traffic, that is non-search engine related and coming directly from the article directory in this case. This was the original method of getting traffic on the cyberspace before the coming of the hunt engines. Second, even the writer makes not have got control over which copy of a syndicated article acquires chosen by Google to be the "original". It looks to be random. Go ahead, submit the same article, with the same author's box, to half a twelve article directories and see if you can think which one Google doesn't throw into the auxiliary index. Third, How make you acquire back-links for the one thousands of articles submitted to an article directory? Socializing them is a great hazard because of what is called "source hopping". You may not be socializing the "original" transcript of the article and subsequently pissing the writer off. This volition acquire you banned from the societal sites. The lone option is to socialise only your ain personal content.

As marketers, what can we do? I would state change, but how when it looks ill-defined what Google is up to? Then we wait and gritrock our dentition as we watch our content driblet into the auxiliary index, our Google praseodymium disappear, and our traffic statistics travel the manner of the dinosaur.

I have got a forum friend who have experienced an 85% decrease in Adsense income since this started happening, I state in January 2007. He was making a few thousand a month. This wise man proposes Web 2.0 tactics to hike your readership and addition your visitants for your original content. Swapping original blog stations and articles would also be a great plan.

If Google makes not desire to collaborate in helping us do money on the internet, and assist them do money through their Adwords program, maybe it is clip to change tactics. I can't assist but believe that they are shooting themselves in the foot. Time to optimize for Yahoo, and MSN?