The question has come up several times in the past few days due to my last posting which discussed a tool for helping you to create multiple unique versions of a single article. Is rewriting and publishing your own articles ethical?

I talked a little about the ethics of this particular article factory tool in that thread, and ultimately I really believe it comes down to each individual’s perspective for themselves.

However, I also think it only fair to again point out that the tool I discussed does not create or add words to your own writings on its own. The machine is not writing the articles in this case. The user is creating every word, jot and tilde being put out in the multiple versions, so it is really no different than the user sitting down and manually writing multiple versions of their own article, it’s just faster.

And after some of the discussions I’ve been having with others on the subject recently I think it’s also only right to examine why exactly such a tool even has a purpose. In other words, if there wasn’t a need for publishers to have multiple versions of the same content then maybe they wouldn’t create them, manually or through automated tools.

You see, as I view it the publishers aren’t the problem here. Not even marketers who are shooting for sales.

The problem begins with the search engines, specifically the “how and why” of their index results ranking systems.

Here’s an example of what I mean. If you search Google for “declaration of independence” (without quotations) and check out the first result displayed (I’ve linked to what it was at the time of this writing since rankings do change regularly) you will see that nowhere on that page is there a readable version of the Declaration of Independence. What’s up with that?

The top result is relevant to the term, I’m not disputing that. And it even links to a text version of the right document, but that’s an added step for the user who was most likely expecting to find a copy of the text when they made their search, yet it didn’t appear in the top result… why?

Because the ways that Google and other search engines rank what’s the most relevant or important content for any given search term are severely lacking.

That isn’t to suggest they aren’t doing the best they can, I think they probably are, but there are limitations on just what can be done and on how intuitive an algorithm can be designed; not to mention that there is after all, only 1 top spot for any given term.

And that’s where the breakdown between search engines and publishers occurs. Search engines want to serve the best results to their users, and publishers who feel their content is the best result for a given search term want to have their page served first.

Unfortunately, because the methods being used by search engines to determine “the best” or most relevant content have flaws; publishers are forced to take additional steps beyond just creating great content if they want their pages to appear first. They have to also wear the hat of promoter for their content.

Publishers have to publish great content, AND then apply some strategy to that published content for assisting it in climbing the ranking systems of search engines. Which might explain why I didn’t find a text version of the Declaration of Independence in the #1 spot on Google… since Jefferson isn’t around to do any link building for his document.

If he were then surely the 2nd result from Google (at the time of this writing) would have been propelled up to #1 with just a tiny effort. Heck, if Jefferson had just had a Delicious or Digg account to bookmark the second result from it probably would have jumped up to the top spot easily.

Of course the flip side to publishers trying to promote and aid their works in ranking better is that the search engines are at the same time trying to prevent them from aiding their works to rank better. Because the search engines, despite the flaws in their systems, don’t want outside interference or “manipulations” being applied–which is completely understandable on their part.

It isn’t that they don’t want the best material reaching the top, they simply don’t want individual publishers each determining what is or isn’t the “best” material.

The whole thing is an ugly catch-22 where publishers and search engines act like opposing candidates in a heated election race. They shake hands and smile warmly to one another for pictures, but deep down neither trusts or likes the other very much.

And this all brings us to the real reason of why a publisher would need (not want) to create multiple versions of the same basic content.

As a publisher and having been online since the early 90’s I know of a lot of ways to help a piece of content rise in the search rankings. But, most of them are dubious at best, and some are down-right nasty; so I tend not to use them in my business model.

On the other hand, there is something publishers can do to improve their chances for reaching searchers looking for a specific topic (by keyword term) that isn’t nasty at all, and doesn’t seem very dubious either. Instead of trying to “game” the search rankings they can try to saturate them.

As long as each piece of content is topical, relevant and somewhat unique it’s possible for a publisher to reach more searchers in this way. So, by creating multiple versions of the same core content publishers gives themselves a wider and longer “reach” among searchers for their topic.

That doesn’t mean publishers want to waste their time rewriting the same thing over and over, and it certainly isn’t helpful for the search engines who are trying to “get it right” for their users… it’s simply an effective method for publishers who believe searchers for a specific term and their content should be connected.

I’m sure some puritans will say that rewriting and creating multiple versions of the same thing is spammy, but I think that’s a silly argument. It’s like saying that Ford should only be allowed to run the commercial for their latest car model 1 single time only.

A better argument against creating multiple versions of the same content, and the one I stand behind, is that it doesn’t actually benefit anyone in the end. Publishers waste their resources creating it. Search engines waste their resources filtering and indexing it, and the end user searcher only needs to find a single version of it to be happy. The entire dance, regardless of being effective for connecting content consumers with material, is horribly inefficient for everyone.

Still, publishers, whether commercially motivated or not, are just trying to reach people to consume their content. Just as Ford is trying to reach the most people possible with their commercials. And just as Ford will purchase as many runs for their commercial as they can budget for, content publishers can and will place their content in as many venues for exposure as they possibly can as long as that’s what it takes to make those consumer to content connections.

Publishers aren’t intentionally trying to overload networks or platforms with multiple versions of the same content with any malice. Trust me, as a publisher I’d like nothing more than to spend all of my time creating truly new content.

But unfortunately, everyone must live and work within the rules and parameters of their environment, and as long as there are flaws which prevent the perfect match of search index results to search term publishers are going to need to continue playing the duel role of promoter for their work and using whatever methods that exist and are effective for helping them reach the largest audience.

And tools, like the one I spoke of in my last posting, which don’t change the process but do speed it up and save publishers a little time in their promotional work will continue to have a purpose.

Email this post

Technorati Tags: Articles, publishers, rewriting, search engines