What is the difference between content writing and article writing? Is it the same or they each have differences with each other?
Well, article writing is a part of content writing. Contenting writing is a generalized term used for activities like blog post writing, article writing, writing press releases or writing product reviews and writing page content for the website etc.
I just knew I was going to be reading something like this from your corner! LOL!!! (Notice the THREE, yes THREE exclamation points!)
Ah. Are you saying this is inappropriate for this section? if so, I apologise, dawg. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place entirely.
I am intrigued about the invalidating the first part of sentences with the last part. Sounds great but what does it mean?
I am not at all sure you're allowed to advocate for quality writing in this section. Apparently it's being used as the auxiliary SEO section.
You may make a vapid comment, like "Of course quality matters..." but you must then immediately go into an SEO discussion. I believe your message has to be at least 95% SEO for every 5% about content writing.
If you can't invalidate what you said in the first part of any sentence with the last part, you're not trying hard enough.
Let’s get back to basics. Google exists to promote the best – to put the best at the very top of its search results for a particular search query. And over 70% of its decision of who’s best is based on links. Why links? It's a matter of reputation.
If you ARE passionate, really and genuinely passionate about what you do, you will succeed. And the good news is Google is governed by one basic principle above all others: YOUR REPUTATION WILL DECIDE YOUR FATE.
If you are wholeheartedly into what you do you will bring life to it. If you are doing what you were put here for, if you have found your niche, your vocation, you will be the very best at it. Truly. That's the way it works. Always has, always will. If you consistently deliver something outstanding you will build something real - a solid reputation. You will ‘create a brand’. And you will have word of mouth on your side. Real word of mouth is the most powerful weapon there is in the social networking arena. And in a competitive world, this is where Google looks for assurance. And every time Google's algorithms get refined, they reflect the real world of reputation ever clearer. Google is being developed to safeguard its own reputation. The only way it can do that is by consistently backing the best. It needs to be the best at promoting the best or it will die, because its own reputation will be shot.
If you are committed to providing the best solution. If you ARE the best answer to someone’s search query, it looks like you're destined to be number 1. Yes, you will need the right web help to develop your site and its content as the best resource in the business. Just make sure you employ someone with the same passion as you.
SEO is reactive. Give the real people what they want. Be the best. Content and usability win.
I know you did not ask me this but I will tell you. Part of On-Page SEO involves content writing on your site. Therefore, YES you need to optimize your content within your page in order to make it more search engine friendly.
Web content is much more than just text. It's everything that lies under your page header (and navigation), between your side sidebars, and above your footer. As well as text, it can be photos, illustrations, graphs and charts, tables, and video.
If you're writing for the web, then yes, SEO certainly does come into play. Keywords need to be in your title, your headings, and your META description as well as appropriate for the reader within your text. Images should be defined with appropriate alternate text (alt=). Anchor text should be clearly distinguishable to the reader and contain appropriate title attributes.
There's a whole lot more to good web content than just words on a page.
Linda, I think it's a bad idea to write anything FOR search engines, filling your site with keywords in almost all cases I see reduces the legible content into some half baked recycled mess of junk that isn't intended for humans (my experience of such content abuse). Also It's a VERY bad idea to mention SEO and alt attributes in the same sentence. Alt attributes are intended for humans which cannot access the image due to things like vision loss, implying in the slightest that you should SEO your alt text up in any way IMO constitutes a total violation of accessibility in that you're literally putting the search engine before the human.
PS: I'm well aware that content design is more than text
I didn't say to write the content for the search engines. In fact I specifically said [keywords] "as appropriate for the reader within your text."
Still the keywords ARE THERE. Without them, as a rule, the visitor couldn't find your content to read it.
I definitely hope you know that content is more than text. However, that isn't what you said and when you generalize, it leaves the impression that you are a proponent of the generality.
The point of search engine optimization is purely to make your site look better than it really is. No matter how you look at this, to a search engine that is cheating.
—Search Engine Optimization – Just forget it; by Thomas Baekdal – Jul. 12, 2006
Good content isn't stuff you write for the search engines. …Being creative isn't looking at what your competitor is doing and copying them. It's being a leader, not a follower.
—Realistic Search Engine Optimization Expectations; The Conversion Chronicles
From a technical standpoint all articles can be content. All content isn't an article.
Content is an interesting word. Content fills a container, and no more. It could be called information, but it's not because that would imply you had some idea of who you're writing for.
In working practice, content need not live up to any standard for quality. Content does not have to reach any objective. What's more, all different types of content need do is share a common container. These content types need not acknowledge each other or work together, they just have to be neutrally generic in noninteraction.
Words don't have to refer to the pictures on the site. Slap in a Flash header? Why not? It's not going to conflict with anything.
What we're talking about are human factors stripped off leaving technical components. Articles are content when they are considered alpha numeric strings. Any string will do.
Unless they're keywords. And here we have the complete SEO perspective on writing.
You children's children may one day read an article with a photo that relates to the writing on the internet. And the article shall use the photo to explain a story. And the photo shall have a caption beneath; and lo, the caption shall describe the photo.
Forsooth, that image will not be an emoticon. And those future internet hipsters shall marvel at its novelty.
And your children's children shall see this, and revel in the sheer genius of this cutting edge content. For surely, that far flung future will be an age of wonder and trendy self-satisfaction.
Everyone else living today will have to settle for magazines and newspapers and picture books, television and movies, and print advertising.
I think article is more often referred as a seo task
What do you class SEO as then? Apart from optimizing your site (or in this case content) FOR search engines? Claiming you're doing SEO for the human benefit is a false attribution of the abbreviation. While SEO itself is an element of making content available for the web (in findability), the rewriting for that purpose IS for search engines alone. The same goes for keywords, while adding them in improves the relevancy for search listings, humans (while scanning) will pick out key pieces of information based on their relevancy but will not generally seek out keywords embedded in the content for their defined associative meaning. In the quotes you mentioned I was referring to the fact that while she had them as separate sentences, they were tied into the paragraph about SEO, and therefore the link between them is implied. The way Linda wrote that response with the SEO paragraph inclusive of the alt attributes made me believe she was referring to using keyword terms within those (which of course would mean to benefit the search engines relevancy in results rather than the end-user readability) and as that bad practice is VERY commonly assumed on the back of what people say around here, therefore I it was worth clarifying the statement so people don't get the wrong idea.
I don't believe anyone was suggesting that,
Good job Linda used them in separate sentences then. I don't think you can complain about someone recommending that you use alt attributes appropriately.
It is fine to separate content from style (although the small fact of writing style is a conundrum), and style from structure.
I understand the technical logic behind disintegration in web site construction.
My problem comes from never telling anyone the components have to reintegrate for some purpose. And that is why we have stock photo fashion models playing business, staring vacantly into the ether.
And the text never mentions the photography, the styling never has anything to do with text (like captions for photos -- completely doable with CSS).
Technical skill is bent to stupid CSS tricks, stupid Flash tricks, stupid Jquery and mootools tricks, all shoved into the stupid trick CMS. (Which just so happens not to do captions, or pullquotes, or anything relevant either).
The result is content irrelevant design. You can find special effects galore. SEO gimicks for raw, unfiltered, unqualified traffic galore. Just no rhyme or reason for any of it.
Its the same. Content usually refer to a broader media sense. For example video, audio, articles, etc, etc
Now I understand it both. Thank you for the idea, I learned a new thing about it.
There are different rules for your content writing and article writing.
The former one is to be posted on your site. You need to contain right number of keywords and make sure the readability.
Yet for article writing, the Resource Box is very important.
As far as I am concerned, and from previous experiences with clients, content writing covers everything from ON-SITE content, to article writing and copywriting. When people refer to content, they are making reference to the substance that makes up the site, the information as a whole. If it is on a site, the CONTENT should be unique and of high quality. With a balance of keywords and information. The same "rules" apply to articles. Your articles should have high quality content. The keywords should be used in well structured sentences that convey a message and create informative paragraphs.
Content is simply the written text, no matter how long, or what it pertains too... articles are structured content on a specific topic. Basically articles are a form of content, as for the previous posts about keywords... their probably confusing copywriting (content for marketing) for something relevant.
next page →