Not so long ago, article directory scripts were sprouting up all over the Internet marketing scene along with promises of AdSense riches using nothing but other people’s content. Adopters had seen the success of the likes of EzineArticles, ArticleCity and GoArticles to name just a few and now was their chance to sit back for an easy ride on semi-autopilot.
What these adopters didn’t realise was that maintaining the type of article directory that authors and publishers would visit again and again took hard work.
First there was the set-up. Unless the directory was customised, it would look and function just like any of the hundreds of other directory based upon the same script.
Then there were the bugs. The people who had sold them their article directory systems were marketers and not programmers who appreciated the importance of concepts such as testing and maintenance. Their primary concern was to get their scripts developed as cheap as possible and ready to market as soon as possible. The signs were that the pent-up demand was about to be met by a wave of similar scripts so time was of the essence. Thorough testing would have only slowed things down and the rush was about to begin.
Of course, this eventually led to the inevitable; exploits. Like dominoes, the directories succumbed to the will of the web hosts who pulled down directory after directory as they were being compromised through the same weaknesses. Instead of distributing syndicated content they were sending out masses of spam and consuming large amounts of server resources in a runaway fashion. The fact that so many directories hadn’t been customised and so could be searched for by the default text made it almost too easy for the crackers.
Those who were determined enough to get their systems fixed or to seek out better supported systems were then faced with another hurdle; the articles! With so many people wanting to syndicate their content, owners of directories with even a whisker of PageRank would quickly become swamped with an endless number of submissions.
At first, the novelty of reviewing articles was enough to keep them going. Once this had worn off, the process of reviewing would become a chore that would ultimately culminate in a number of choices:
- Open the flood gates and accept articles without a thorough review.
- Abandon the directory for something less time consuming.
- Stick with it. Perhaps even hire some people to carry out the review process.
It’s my opinion that most people who rushed into the directory business settled for the first two options. Those were the easiest choices, but also the ones that would sound the death knell for the directory. Publishers weren’t interested in empty directories or those filled with articles spun so many times over that they read like they were composed by soul-less machines. And genuine authors didn’t want to submit content to sites which wouldn’t result in their work being read and so all that was left was the automated, spun content submissions.
So, if you ever feel like complaining about article directories having quality requirements that are draconian, remember that maintaining an article directory isn’t easy and that maintaining a directory where people will keep coming back is even harder.
If the review processes are keeping your articles out then perhaps they’re doing their job as they were meant to!