Alexa Smith aka Timothy Nagley continues to attempt to alleviate the damage to The Alexa Smith School of Urban Myths being perpetrated on the Warrior Forum for the last few years.
In this thread about the value of Ezine Articles submission, for example, you will see Smith making the usual bald assertions, completely unsubstantiated by anything or anyone, in a desperate attempt to retain some degree of credibility.
Syndicated Content is Duplicate Content
For example, when the perceptive member l2ascal, points out to Smith that Google’s own definition of duplicate content states:
"Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar."
Smith responds with the usual assertions attempting to slyly pass them off as fact.
What Smith/Nagley actually says is:
To be fair, Google goes to great lengths to differentiate between duplicate content (on one domain) and syndicated content (on different domains).
Everyone and her mother know that Google has NEVER said this.
And if Google did have this to say, don’t you think that Smith/Nagley, could point to at least one single instance?
Given that they have gone to “great lengths” to quote Smith/Nagley.
Ezine Articles Article Submission
Smith/Nagley’s irrational promotion of article submission to EzineArticles.com has also undergone a noticeable change in the last while.
Because even someone as delusional as Nagley/Smith can see that you can’t fool all the people all the time and people can see for themselves that submitting your blog/site content to EzineArticles.com is a stupid and ineffective strategy.
Smith knows that people can see the appallingly bad results with their own eyes and has now “officially” rowed back to this juncture:
I benefit from it, myself. I submit all my articles there, as a "last thing to do", after everything else I've done with them as a routine part of my article marketing business.
Now he is describing it as a “last thing to do…”
You really couldn’t make this shit up.
Google’s Supplemental Index
In response to this members reasonable question:
Now in your response, you said that it doesn't matter whether it ends up in the supplemental index or whether it gets indexed at all. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
Smith/Nagley responds in the usual way: assertions, statements, but no evidence.
Interviews with Matt Cutts, comments on Google's own sites, all my own experience over the last 4 years, all the experience of other more longstanding, equally successful article marketers I know and trust, the opinions of orthodox textbook writers, and so on.
Specifically where does Matt Cutts say this?
Which Google’s own sites can Smith/Nagley point to?
“Longstanding, equally successful article marketers”…name one.
“Orthodox textbook writers”…don’t make me laugh.
If you are interested in the truth to these questions just click on the links below…and thank me for saving your time and money pursuing the wild, bald, unsubstantiated assertions of an internet marketing forum fantasist.
And if you leave a comment on any of these Squidoo lenses you can pick up a nice, high page rank back link to the site of your choice.