Any and all feedback is gratefully received.

I don't mind writing articles. As a matter of fact, I'm even beginning to groove on it. Time consuming, but it's a great way to get the word out there, supply readers with your own point of view on a topic, and bring them back home to your own site where you can influence them more and sell them something. Sure, from an SEO standpoint, backlinks are great. I get it. After all, if people don't know about you, they'll never know what you think, and you'll never sell anything either. Folks won't know about you if you don't rank high, like on the first page of Google. It's very encouraging that Google is supportive of unique content. Conjures up questions however.

I do my best to supply a fresh point of view, assuming there's nothing new under the sun. What's new is "you" and "me" and our unique perceptions of products, ideas, and events. Our combination of words is unique.

Here's one of my questions about Google: if unique "original" content is now king/queen, then what about content published by borrowers of content, other websites and blogs using your content published by article directories such as EZA, etc? Does a "borrowed" article no longer carry any weight with Google? Also, what is Street Articles' position on borrowed articles? Does SA allow it?

I received a PM from Kyle stating his reason for copyright notices not being allowed at SA. His primary reason is that the SA site is copyrighted by its owners. That's to be expected, but what does it have to do with individual authors and their articles? Kyle wrote that your own site is copyrighted. Well, for sure it is. My article is not my website. As a matter of fact, I haven't been able to make a link to my site on SA. Hope that changes soon. I respect Kyle's and Carson's right to enact any rules they want for their own site. It's their privilege to do so. But this one makes me feel unsafe.

I mean no disrespect to SA. Hope you understand that.

Can you help clear me up? I come from a long career of copyrights and patents. I put that notice on everything already published and before it's published. As a matter of fact, my attorney has advised even putting it on paintings. That seems a bit commercial to me, but art intended for reproduction always has a copyright notice. So why not articles? Are they not also intellectual property?

I have read blogs here in which members described situations in which borrowers of articles re-write their articles so that they sound as if a moron wrote them. They even use your headline and your "real" name. It's embarrassing, let alone destructive. Has happened to me a lot. There are too many to chase.

Here's my second question. Will Google use their new algorithms to de-index those moronic poachers too?

Third question: How do you prove you are the author of an article? Yes I know they have tools to establish if an article was published before. Even EZA and SA will challenge you on that when they claim content is not unique. You guys get furious about  it and I would too. Putting a copyright notice on the article is like staking a claim. Puts poachers on notice, though they don't always pay attention because they're weasels. I believe it's a step forward in establishing ownership, beneficial to the author and to the directory. What do you think?