Posted: 2 years ago Quote
QUESTION: Do you feel like giving me a reason for rejecting my article, considering all the other major article sites have published my article?


There are a dozen of reasons why I could have chosen not to publish your article. Without knowing which of your articles I rejected, it is a hard call to make from memory.

I own and manage more than 150 article distribution groups. I own and manager seven websites that are either article directories or websites that print reprint articles. I own and manage one article distribution service. Soon to be two services.

I see tons of articles.

Any and all article directory managers are free to make their own choices about what to publish and what not to publish.

On my distribution groups, so long as you follow a few basic group rules, your articles will be permitted through the systems.

1. 2 posts per day maximum.
2. Not subscribed to the group in NO Mail mode. If you want other people to read your stuff, you should at least demonstrate the same courtesy to others.
3. No straight advertising.
4. No press releases.
5. Nothing that reads like a sales pitch.

In my services, the only rules that apply:

1. Nothing that reads like an ad.
2. No press releases.
3. No foul language, or disreputable business practices.

In my directories, I follow the same basic rules above. I also follow many other internal guides.

* I don't want any of my sites to look just like all other sites. So I reject some at will, based on an urge or based on nothing.
* I don't want to be a sheep who does exactly what everyone else does.

* Bad formatting in article will get it rejected.
* Perceived advertising in body of article could get it rejected.
* Certain topics are generally always rejected.
* If the website listed in your resource box consists mostly of information scraped from search engines, and if I catch it, I will usually reject your article --- no matter how good your article might be. I know other directory managers who have the same policy.
* All acceptance and rejection decisions are made in just a split second.

Chances are that your article has been published in 90% plus of the reprint article resources I own, primarily the reprint article distribution lists.

Do you need 100% exposure across my networks? No.

Do you want 100% exposure across my networks? Probably.

If all article directory managers accept all of the same articles, then your article on their site will be nearly worthless. If there are five to six sites with exactly the same content on them, then chances are that the spiders will eventually figure that out, and then they will stop indexing the "mirror" sites.

Your article 100% across the board is the worst thing that you can hope for. On the surface, it may seem good, because you have that many more links. But, these "mirror" sites with 100% the same content will come back to bite you in the arse. They will hurt your SEO rankings in the end, because these sites will be penalized by the search engines, AND the articles on those sites may be hurt as well.

I am happy to reject articles "at will" on my free article directories, because I definitely do not want to be seen as exactly like another 30 article directories.

Let's face it, few article directory websites are the same. Some are simply better than others and they are recognized as such by the general internet community.

The site where you are complaining your article "was not included" is a new directory with little recognition in the marketplace. I set it up to test out and play with its article directory software.

When we get to the end of the day, each article directory or website that hosts articles is part of a democracy. The webmaster can accept your articles or reject your articles. It is up to you to provide an article that the webmaster will want to use on his or her website. This business about expecting people to use your articles is totally off-base, and could net you the result of being forever barred from participation in the offended webmaster's website.

Tread carefully and wisely.