Interesting Article on Content Spam

[edgarf76]

I can across this article seo-theory.com/2014/02/10/what-does-content-spam-mean/ and found it interesting. It is basically stating that there will be penalties in the future for webmasters that post "useless" and "spammy" content quickly. The thing that I found interesting is that the author mentioned that content spam consists of one or more link advertising something.

What do you guys think about this? I usually have at least one outbound link in my posts, in the format of url.com/visit/afilliatesite. If I change it to direct to the review page like this url.com/review/afilliatesite, is this still an advertisement? I am interested in hearing what everybody things about this.

[-Shay-]

1. The thing that I found interesting is that the author mentioned that content spam consists of one or more link advertising something.

That is not the conclusion I drew from the article and I strongly suspect MM did not intend that to be the conclusion or even a conclusion to draw from his article.

I'll write what I "got" from his article later.

[Jokerman99]

I would take everything the author of that site says with a pinch of salt.

[sweetbet]

I would take everything the author of that site says with a pinch of salt.

My thoughts also

[edgarf76]

I'm surprised to hear you guys would take that with a pinch of salt. I always thought he was a top Seo guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[freebetking]

i think he has contradicted himself by writing the article + thats a nice big banner he's got there in the left hand column.

[universal4]

Yep agreed,

He even said he wrote the article so he would have some content full of the leywords people have been searching for so.

Rick
Universal4

[-Shay-]

My take on the article is that MM is maintaining that hanging a page/blog post with the sole purpose or main purpose of dropping a link is considered "spam" no matter how you want to justify it.

For example, if you have an article you've done on "how to choose the best hosting company" - most people have nothing of substance to say that has not already been said (good support, damn near 100% uptime, blahblahblah, drop affiliate link here after the words "I personally like").

Then you take said article and you reword it and change the order around so it leads with the affiliate link drop, then follows with good support, 100% up time, etc.

Then you reword it again and reorder your justification on yet another website.

His claim is that none of those articles offer anything original and they provide little value because others have already cited to death the whole up time justification and reliable support team and most of the "etc" that you'll throw in there. Why is your saying it any different than the other 500+ people who are using the same affiliate program?

Would you write that article "in general" without ever advertising a specific hosting company to educate your visitors about how to use the search engines or "yellow pages" to find a hosting company by themselves without clicking an affiliate link? If no, he's saying it is probably content spam.

If you have nothing that is truly new to say and truly of value to the reader, he's saying it is probably content spam.

I have been saying similar for quite a while in terms of how "writers" do their research. By reading my reviews and rewording them or taking notes for use in your article - that is not research. When writing and publishing based on my findings, you're not doing the world any service at all.

If you actually play at the site you're reviewing and you actually have something new and of value to say and you're an expert in your field (legitimately an expert) - your findings and words probably will have some value and you probably should publish and you probably should drop your affiliate link. However, the majority of the webmasters/blog post writers are not true experts at all. They're doing nothing more than pretending and they have other webmasters pretending right along with them so they can all pretend together and collectively believe they are something they're not. Basically, you say it, I swear by it, and together we'll believe and hopefully everyone else will too. That mindset, that method of operation - is content spam.

[Jokerman99]

I'm surprised to hear you guys would take that with a pinch of salt. I always thought he was a top Seo guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Based on what?

[-Shay-]

Based on what?

Not sure whether he is a "top" SEO guy. His opinions are often (in my opinion) common sense based - which much of what is published regarding SEO is not (in my opinion) common sense based.

Likewise, he is one of the writers most likely to disagree with the "mainstream opinions".

For those reasons, he is one of the few (very few) SEO's that I read regularly.

[edgarf76]

Based on that I found his blog here and I have heard people mention him here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk