what would be better for SEO: Link DB or article DB?

[pood]

Last night I just came up with a new idea for a site. There's 2 ways I can do it, through a link directory type site or have the whole content or at least partial (with an link back of course).

Which one would be better for SEO? I'll probably put Adwords or some PPC ads on their once it gets a following.

I've been reading Aaron Wall's SEO Book and i remember in one of his early chapters, he said google doesn't like it when their is duplicate content and especially when the site that has a duplicate content is linking back to the original and the original isn't linking back.

[Black_Knight]

Better for SEO - something different.

A few years ago, people regarded forum software as some magic bullet to SEO because several forums ranked very well for competitive terms. But it was not the platform, it was the user-base. The content. The USP.

Another bandwagon people jumped on was the old Link Directory, because they worked well. For a while. That got fixed. But the really special links directories are still doing well - not because of the platform, but because of their editors. The content. The USP.

Article directory? Yawn. Seen a thousand. The engines have seen millions. None succeed because of the platform. For an Article Directory to succeed and stand out from its millions of boring others it won't be due to the platform. It will be down to the content, the unique, high-quality, fascinating, writers and the strict, focused, reader-focused editors. The content. The USP.

When you hear the old saw that "Content is King", it doesn't mean 'on page copy'. It is nothing to do with word-counts, keyword frequency, or keyword density. It is about supplying with high quality and unbeatable value, the information for which there is a strong demand.

[pood]

Originally Posted by Black_Knight

Better for SEO - something different.

A few years ago, people regarded forum software as some magic bullet to SEO because several forums ranked very well for competitive terms. But it was not the platform, it was the user-base. The content. The USP.

Another bandwagon people jumped on was the old Link Directory, because they worked well. For a while. That got fixed. But the really special links directories are still doing well - not because of the platform, but because of their editors. The content. The USP.

Article directory? Yawn. Seen a thousand. The engines have seen millions. None succeed because of the platform. For an Article Directory to succeed and stand out from its millions of boring others it won't be due to the platform. It will be down to the content, the unique, high-quality, fascinating, writers and the strict, focused, reader-focused editors. The content. The USP.

When you hear the old saw that "Content is King", it doesn't mean 'on page copy'. It is nothing to do with word-counts, keyword frequency, or keyword density. It is about supplying with high quality and unbeatable value, the information for which there is a strong demand.

SE traffic isn't going to be my primary source, but I would like to set it up so that I can get the optimal traffic from all the SEs.

It's not going to be an ordinary article directory, they're not going to be conventional articles at all. There's already sites that use these type of "articles" already, but they're all just niche specific, I plan on making a repository of all niches. I'm actually very surprised that there isn't one around. Not even a small one;X

[Black_Knight]

Originally Posted by pood

I plan on making a repository of all niches. I'm actually very surprised that there isn't one around. Not even a small one;X

hmm.

A repository of articles on every topic (all niches) and you've never found one?

Try a search for 'articles' or 'article directory' etc, maybe? Looks like tons of 'repositories of articles of all niches' to me.

But as I was saying in my previous post, it isn't what you do, but how you do it that matters. It isn't the articles, but who writes them. It isn't the articles you have, but the editorial choices in which articles you don't have, that make the value.

[pood]

Originally Posted by Black_Knight

hmm.

A repository of articles on every topic (all niches) and you've never found one?

Try a search for 'articles' or 'article directory' etc, maybe? Looks like tons of 'repositories of articles of all niches' to me.

But as I was saying in my previous post, it isn't what you do, but how you do it that matters. It isn't the articles, but who writes them. It isn't the articles you have, but the editorial choices in which articles you don't have, that make the value.

they're not exactly articles, I don't know what word to use without giving it away. anyway, I have a good idea how I'm going to do it.

[bhartzer]

Better for SEO - something different

He's right, it's got to be something different, something that hasn't been done before. The problem is that a links directory leads to lots of duplicate content and can look like a link farm and an article directory leads to lots and lots of duplicate content.

they're not going to be conventional articles at all

Unless you are planning on writing unique content then it will end up being duplicate content in one way or another.

Overall, none of those things are better for SEO.

Unique content is better for SEO. Focus on that.

[Black_Knight]

Originally Posted by pood

I don't know what word to use without giving it away. anyway, I have a good idea how I'm going to do it.

It sounds like you may have something different then, some USP, and so it can work.

The next thing to address is the barrier to competition. Is there anything to stop some other company with more resources from seeing what you start to do, and then copying it - perhaps even managing to launch first/bigger because it has more resources? Is there anything to stop 100 competitors doing that?

Having a unique idea is the first and usually hardest part of the puzzle, but holding onto that idea and being the one to realise its potential is the other, and often more valuable, half.