Content Farms Bring Down the Web

The HubPages team are doing a fantastic Job at keeping content authentic. I was a bit mad when they slapped 3 of my articles for being to promotional and self serving. I sort of understood it but, why?, I asked, should a company not promote itself? Even in the age of engagement, persuasion cannot be dead.

The biggest issue for the future of search is relevance. This is the number one question. And search relevance is being sabotaged by article spinning, article duplication and automated blogging. The web is a content farm with hundreds of thousands of new articles hitting that stands every day and a lot of them are nonsense.

There are article writing factories, employing writers who are so gifted they don't even have to research. Many earn just a dollar an hour and they pump out articles on any subject in minuets. Some are rather bad. Not that they are badly written, they just don't say much. There is no insight and no value. I know people who speak like that!. They can talk about anything and it sounds important, sometimes it is, often it is dribble. Many of the new factory made articles are dribble.

I know because i hired an article factory to help us with a new project. We got 5 articles for total of 69$ us and they were not bad, the were clever because they were stacked with keywords and complied with the rules to get listed. Their purpose was solely to create backlinks! They did not add any value to the subject and the state of knowledge. It is not wise for a company to be associated with articles of little merit.

We all want to create back-links, because Google places a lot of importance on the number of links to your site. Well it used to be links, then it became quality links, from recognized sources sites with high PR. That was diluted with the number of other links from the same source. Now Google is planning to diluted the value of the link again based on the quality of the article itself and the reputation of its author. It also seems automated blogging is out.

I used a marketing services that used automatic blogging to create a site rich in content. It got some traction on the net but PR is 0 and try as we may to get on Google's page 1 results, it just does not show. I concluded that the duplicate content created by the auto blogging, which stacks the site with interesting videos and content from RSS aggregators, has got it flagged by Google.

Many older sites, developed in a time when it was necessary to repeat your target keywords in order to get the page listed for that target, are also likely to drop rank. Keyword stacking is now a big no-no and the rules of what is stacking have changed. Just a few months ago, it seems, writing for search engines was a profession, and clever SEO could get a page on top of Google by using keywords and phrases strategically designed for the search engines. So long as you kept keyword density below 5% you were OK. Today if a word or phrases occurs more that !% in the page, Google may flag it as potential spam.

Steve Weber says "write your content with HUMANS in mind. Don’t be a slave to “writing for the search engines”. It’s easier, more fun, and Google is “smart” enough today to appreciate human oriented content. Any hints of over-optimization and Google will deal out the appropriate punishment. If you wonder if you have optimized too much, you probably have!"

So let me see if I have this right: Duplicate content is out, if we are going to write articles they must be unique, of a professional quality with valuable content and written by a respected author. When you put up a page don't stack keywords, in fact check all your new page for keyword density and take out words if its too high. In fact go through all your old pages and take out keywords. Oh and yes, don't use RSS feeds of syndicated articles! Well maybe its ok if you are Reuters but not if you are a small company not yet recognized.

So if you are a reseller of products and services does that count as duplicate content. What about travel companies who use destination guides from authentic well researched sources, who charge you for the content. Will that now count as non unique and dilute the ranging of your business.

I agree that junk content is terrible for the web and i am delighted that Google is taking a strong stance on this. It is out of control, even the most conservative companies had to resort to keyword staking, article distribution, video blogging just to keep their heads up above the water. Now we can return to doing professional work for its own purpose and expect to get to the top on the merit of our content and not by out blogging, out bookmarking, out directory listing the affiliate marketer.

I like that idea of cutting out spam, but there are some issue here that need to be thought through and it will take time for the seas to calm. Eric Blair is the Co-editor of Activist Post. says "At it’s core, this new Google algorithm seems to punish information sharing in favor of protectionist conglomerates with large writing staffs. We in the alternative media would do well to recognize that these actions being taken by the elite of the media world are just another sign of their weakened state. Now is the time for the alternative media to seek more writers and more cooperation".

My view is that Syndication is a great boon for small companies who need the publicity and those who also need quality content and don't have the resources to do all the research and cover all the news. Even the BBC has to cut back. Syndication is an established practice across the net with media companies, Global Distribution Systems (GDS) content, RSS feeds and aggregation. We were pleased when one of our Press Releases went viral and hundreds of sites republished it. This was great publicity. To some extent web duplication is unavoidable. Repackaging information is valid too as we refocus information for our own market and the special needs of our own audiences.

When my magazine hits every store and street corner in America (wishful thinking), everyone will consider that a success. Why is this not so on the net. Am I not supposed to put a travel magazine, featuring a destination we are marketing, in many online magazine stores? What about video. When a destination produces a meaningful, quality video, should it not be published in many places. I think that distribution is not spam and should not be ranked as such, but there can be a fine balance between outright spam and distribution.

Can we rely on a search algorithm to understand this balance and draw the line correctly. I think not. In that event search will become less relevant and we will turn more to social sites and subscription services for our publicity and our research.This has already started to happen. The opportunity cost of sorting through unhelpful search results, is simply too high and search engines must become more relevant or we will look elsewhere

Chris Ahearn, President of Media at Thomson Reuters, says the majority of Thomson Reuters revenue is from subscription-based business targeted to "vertical and niche markets." Unsatisfactory results on Google searches are making more people willing to pay for a Consumer Reports, and quality research of other subscription services.

It is a timely fix! I hope they get the balance right or we will all be redefining our online marketing strategies.