Sometimes I read what people put out there and call an "article" and I want to bang my head against the wall. It frustrates me for two main reasons.

First, I look at crappy articles as cyber litter. That's all it is when it doesn't provide any value to the reader. I see complaints all the time that EZA is getting too strict. My take on that is GOOD FOR THEM. It's about time they stopped taking every tossed together piece of crap. If they clean up their directory, they can acquire a much more prominent place on the web.

Second, I see it as people wasting their efforts. The crappy articles might get a 100 or so views and maybe a few click throughs. Big whoop! I can get a lot more views, a better CTR and more sales out of one well-written article that actually provides value. Plus, the chances of that article being syndicated to some very nice websites is much higher.

Maybe I'm looking it things the wrong way, but to me return on investment is much more important than quantity of content. I will get a much better return for my time in producing a great article than I will in producing 5 crappy litterbug articles.

My goal is to teach people that quality will win over quantity every day of the week. This is a tough goal because so many so-called "article marketers" are teaching quantity over quality.

What do you think? Do you practice quantity or quality in your article marketing?

Looking forward to any and all comments,
Tina