Content Production - Motivation

I'm about to launch a huge web 2.0 campaign, and it requires a vast amount of unique content - I set the target at 10,000 words.

I was able to create 10,000 words of content in 2 sessions, each lasting for 3.5 hours. That's the length of an average university dissertation.

My content is:

* 100% unique
* Product focused
* Syntactically correct (gramatically correct)
* Structurally consistent
* Enriched with a good mix of simple and complex words and numbers
* With a perfect keyword density

In other words, it is top notch high quality content. So how was I able to blast out so much in only 2 sessions lasting little more than 3 hours each?

The content is complete nonsense.

Google's content filters can detect all kinds of red flags such as unusual concentrations of rare words, poorly spun synonyms and broken, machine generated sentence structure.

However, Google is far, far away from being able to accurately detect the actual semantic content (meaning) of a document. I have written absoulte rubbish which has no grain of truth and is at points bizarre, but it reads beautifully.

To do this, you need:

1. Dragon naturally speaking (fully trained)
2. A newspaper

Dragon is simply excellent if you train it correctly and have a clear english voice. I spent less than 2 hours training it. Mistakes were very rare.

I read through the newspaper to get inspiration for topics. Using the articles for a framework, I interwove my product with the topic of each article I selected. This is useful because you don't have to think up topics yourself. Any stretch of the imagination can be used, depending on your product. My articles were about environmental impacts, energy costs, financial downturns etc - you can take anything and easily make it specific to the keyword you are promoting.

This isn't a silver bullet for all your content problems, bit I think that 10,000 words of content in a few sessions is an ability that many here would find useful. Imagine how much content you could amass if you spent 3.5 hours every weekday doing this.

Of course, the reason it was so quick to produce was that there was no real content in anything I dictated. This is not a way of producing content for humans, but it's an excellent method for those who want to rank in Google for a term and don't want questions hanging on their mind in the event of failure to rank (for example: maybe my content wasn't high quality enough?)

If I fail to achieve the ranking goals I am shooting for in this project, I will know for sure that quality of content was not to blame.

I wish you luck in reaching your objectives with this. I too am a fan of Dragon and have been using it to pump out unique articles for some time. I find it useful to purchase one of those cheap and cherful books from the cut price bookstore and dictate my own steer of the content using the software. As you point out, once it is fully trained mistakes are few meaning you can easily whip through content in no time at all. It would be useful to many if you can keep this updated in terms of your objectives and how they pan out using this method of content production.

How are you breaking it down as far of size of articles/posts?
Some long and others short, or all kinda the same length as far as word count?

So are you basically reading an article word for word and just throwing your keyword in randomly whether it fits in the context or not?

Is this 100% a test? Are you not planning on monetizing your traffic once you do rank in google? If you are planning on monetizing it what are your plans if the content doesnt make sense to humans(if thats not a secret)?

chano420 said:

Is this 100% a test? Are you not planning on monetizing your traffic once you do rank in google? If you are planning on monetizing it what are your plans if the content doesnt make sense to humans(if thats not a secret)?

Click to expand...

I don't think he's making the content to be read. It's just for the backlinks that will be pointed to his "money" website.

vodkapat said:

I don't think he's making the content to be read. It's just for the backlinks that will be pointed to his "money" website.

Click to expand...

Yes that's right.

The content isn't for humans, it's for Google.

beatuplunchbox said:

How are you breaking it down as far of size of articles/posts?
Some long and others short, or all kinda the same length as far as word count?

Click to expand...

The whole emphasis is on being fast and not having to think too much. I just made all the content in a few bursts and then carved it up afterwards.

The whole idea behind what I'm doing is to make a fool-proof linkwheel - except it isn't really a linkwheel at all. I've tried many in the past and I believe they have started to fail for 3 main reasons:

1) Google is getting better at identifying machine written or spun poor quality content

2) Google will often ignore web 2.0 blogs which have only 1 article uploaded.

3) The sudden appearence of 10 web 2.0 blogs all trying to rank for the same thing is highly suspicious if the time period is too short. If they are interlinked, detecting the network is a no brainer.

So I'm taking no chances that Google will ignore or reject my new sites. I'm spreading the 10,000 words over 8 sites, so each one gets about 4 article uploads. Rolling it all out over the course of several weeks to avoid the timestamp red flag.

Critically, I do not plan to have all of the sites linking to my money site until a 4-6 week period has elapsed. I'll interlink them avantually, but not for a while after they are all indexed.

Why is this still blackhat-ish?

1) The content is meaningless and therefore 5x faster to create than genuine content.

2) I'll be using the full range of BH linkbuilding techniques to give the new sites some power to send on to my money site.

3) Because Google will most likely be fooled into thinking my content is indistinguishable from normal high quality content (long, complex structure, no grammar mistakes etc), it may end up ranking some of my new sites for my keyword. If this happens, I can quickly modify the page that searchers come across, and monetize it. That's the easy part.

This is a great re-run of the concept to use Dragon Naturally Speaking software for article creation before submitting to Associated Content et al sites.
Just find old magazines/journals that won't be onliine & read the info replacing your keywords into the txt.

vodkapat said:

I don't think he's making the content to be read. It's just for the backlinks that will be pointed to his "money" website.

Click to expand...

So really hes just trying to get these nonhuman pages to rank well so that when he links to his money site from them the links will be more valuable?

Sorry if my questions seem stupid, I just want to make sure I fully understand as I may give this a try.

chano420 said:

So really hes just trying to get these nonhuman pages to rank well so that when he links to his money site from them the links will be more valuable?

Sorry if my questions seem stupid, I just want to make sure I fully understand as I may give this a try.

Click to expand...

I have a highly profitable money page (already ranks but concerned about rank slippage) that needs rock solid support.

Therefore, I want some strong link sources that I control. I will later direct them at my money site.

These "assets" may also rank in their own right, and if they do, it's great news for me. However, that is not the main aim.

I want to create 8 content rich sites that google "likes", and trusts as sources of information. Google can detect duplicate content, poorly structured / fragmented content, content with an unusual distribution of words etc - basically they are getting really good at determining the quality of content. This is why I'm making my content in the way described above. Google can do a lot but they cannot tell that this passage is meaningless:

"In most research circles, the arbitrary presentation of results from experiments performed on <keyword> cannot be overlooked. However, this has hilighted many political divisions and has set the media alight with claims of false pretenses. Having a scenario like this play out more than once is unprofitable for the majority of <keyword> shareholders"

I just made that up and it was fast -but Google is none the wiser as to the complete lack of semantic content.

Basically, the whole thing is a linkwheel but taking no chances whatsoever. I am prepared to wait a few months for the sites to mature - then I'll think about interlinking.

why not just turn on talk radio, place the mike nearby, and leave the program running all day?

DianeFrenzel said:

why not just turn on talk radio, place the mike nearby, and leave the program running all day?

Click to expand...

You would get gibberish

Dragon has to be trained and I don't think Rush is into training for free.

Has anyone tried doing this with a document scanner and decent OCR program? Just thinking aloud... this might be even quicker?

good information, i subscribed.

Interesting.....tell us how your experiment goes.

It may just well work.

The only problem that I see is if a human reviewer from Google takes a look at it....

I have done something like this with Search Engine Cloaker........it is kind of like Markov but harder to detect, because you won't have the same repetitive footprints.....or will you?

Sounds cool, I wish you luck and tell us how it goes.

What kind of web 2.0 sites would accept this kind of content and yet have enough authority to pass on PR etc to your money site?

For instance, would wikidot, squidoo, weebly, zimbio, vox, xanga or wordpress be ok - or are there more suitable sites?

Which sites would allow this content and include suitable links for this technique?

Sunhat said:

What kind of web 2.0 sites would accept this kind of content and yet have enough authority to pass on PR etc to your money site?

For instance, would wikidot, squidoo, weebly, zimbio, vox, xanga or wordpress be ok - or are there more suitable sites?

Which sites would allow this content and include suitable links for this technique?

Click to expand...

Web 2.0 sites do not moderate their blogs in the same way as ezine might.

They will sometimes check to make sure the TOS isn't being breached, but there is no rule against talking rubbish on a blog, as long as it is not offensive.

Hey Micallef - I am preparing for a simular experiement with this type of content which makes sense to adapt to fit your profile for the benefit of testing this theory. However, to ensure we are all starting from the same baseline can you answer a few questions;

1. How many web 2.0 properties are we using here - all of which have 4x 500 word articles..

2. Are you using any automated software to construct the sites? - I am currently trialing XgenSeo which makes short work of the account creation, bookmarking and creating and pinging the RSS feeds...

3. Are you targeting your money site keywords (longtails for the web 2.0?) within the articles or something completely different?

Thanks in advance, hopefully if we are all adopting the same format we can really test this with a degree of 'control'.

Usually i am fucking good at seo, but it's just a lenghty process and i don't get the rewards for the energy i put in. That's the reason why i am searching for a good voice to text software. I know dragons naturally speaking is quite good, but that's only for americans. Somehow i just can't train my dragon.

Whilst I think this is a very original and clever idea I also think that 7 hours is too long to spend on 10,000 words of gargage.

In 7 hours I think a lot of people who are good at article writing could probably blast out between 15 and 20 500 word articles (giving you between 7500 and 10,000 words). This would be providing you have all the article ideas/titles prepared before hand.

The advantage of this is that you could talk about your product niche and not only generate a good backlink but also be able to 'presell' to people who stumbled upon your web 2.0 / article.

Of course if your no good at article writing or it takes you a long time to produce a single article then Micallefs idea could be very useful.