Wonderful information.  Thank you for sharing.

Glen you have advised this before and I appreciate the reminder. Putting the same information on multiple sites help no one. Each published articles on the same topic should be created with providing more and different information on the topic. This way both the author and the readers benefit.

I used to write one genuine article and publish it on 3 -4 sites. That wasn't very wise. I now create a new article for every site that I publish to. Don't know about the traffic, but personally I do feel better.

SusanVillasLewis wrote:

The pictures are really worth checking out. I need to get better with the pictures over there because that really is what people like.

Question about the backlinks, though. Are they no-follow (or some other terminology I don't know)? Just wondering because they never show up in my Squidaholic reports. And they've certainly been around long enough to do so. I haven't done a lot over there as yet because I haven't seen traffic come through, nor do I see where the backlinks are credited. Without one or the other, I'm uncertain as to the value.

They are "dofollow" or not "nofollow".  There's no rewrite that I saw either.  However, there are multiple ways to manipulate the search engines, unfortunately.  There are other ways to block a search engine or nullify the "linkjuice" from being passed along.

Rajays wrote:

Glen you have advised this before and I appreciate the reminder. Putting the same information on multiple sites help no one. Each published articles on the same topic should be created with providing more and different information on the topic. This way both the author and the readers benefit.

I used to write one genuine article and publish it on 3 -4 sites. That wasn't very wise. I now create a new article for every site that I publish to. Don't know about the traffic, but personally I do feel better.

This is true.  Rewrite the article, provide more info or whatever, so it's not seen as duplicate content and is of benefit to the reader.

**Very nice article/lens!!  Fascinating actually. 

Last edited by triathlontraining (05/18/2008 3:01 pm)

SusanVillasLewis wrote:

The pictures are really worth checking out. I need to get better with the pictures over there because that really is what people like.

Question about the backlinks, though. Are they no-follow (or some other terminology I don't know)? Just wondering because they never show up in my Squidaholic reports. And they've certainly been around long enough to do so. I haven't done a lot over there as yet because I haven't seen traffic come through, nor do I see where the backlinks are credited. Without one or the other, I'm uncertain as to the value.

They're not nofollow (just checked).

I know I can see Gather as a referrer to my hubs. And I also see it in my lens stats.

Really appreciate the tips. Especially regarding the placement of any links...sometimes it's the more subtle things that elude me until pointed out. (I'm a social marketing retard) I signed up at Gather and have read and commented but not written thus far. I've used Zimbio a time or two.

Percherons (as well as Clydes) are another favorite of mine. I wouldn't have guessed huge draft horses would be a favorite but once you stand beside these creatures nothing else compares. Beautiful.

poddys wrote:

Great article Glen, I can tell you are really passionate about horses.

Actually, I'm not.

That is to say, horses don't invade my every thought and conversation. I never grew up with them. But now being so close to them I do felt drawn to them.

Though denying that I'm passionate about horses may all be in vain, as I done a quick count and I've published 8 articles recently on horses, and a few more in the works as well as a some more ideas