|Content generators. Good or Bad?|
what's the deal about them anyway?
Hi there just a quick question to all of those who write articles on their blogs an update constantly the content on the sites and blogs they have. As title shows I wanna hear the scoop about good/bad generators and so on. What is your experience in this sort of field. All opinions will be appreciated.
I've seen demos of such sites by many people who earnt really well from them. I can't find a single one of them still running today.
I have heard of this one called content composer, unfortunately it is a paid one and an expensive one though. A friend of mine told me that this piece of software "creates magic" That is the only one I know of.
Anyone else want to dwell on that topic?
First let me speak of Content Composer, I create my own original content and I create the best content for my sites. Now should I choose to submit articles to many article directories or such Content Composer helps me re-write them in different ways. Content Composer is not easy but it does help. And it is a good software.
Can it be abused sure it can, can you be without sure but more work involced. In the OP there is no such thing as content creators how can they create content. Sure you can reasearch a subject and write a book report like in high school this is where content creation tools can help you as you are re-writing meaningful useful content.
You are not just changing words and re-writing jibberish that makes no sense to the person reading it.
Be careful out there of content creation tools there are other tools that will repost others RSS feeds to your site for content creation.
The time it takes to write an article and pitch the ideas and contents to other webmasters are better spent if you ask me. Rewrites never did anything else than repeat the same old message which everybody heard before.
And by the way, you should be careful as the search engines use structural analysis of a text to determine a part of its quality, rearranging words and combinations and such is not going to help you get past the duplicate content filter because it's not based on phrases or arrangement of them.. Perhaps if all the important structual words were replaced and switched around it could get around it.. but i'm not sure, and then again, the time it would take to clean it up and make it be just slightly useful to anybody or anything would be better spent writing something cool and working on a little larger scale project.
But hey, I'm old fashioned and out dated, all this new technology, I can't keep up. Just imagine the stuff the search engines have available, not the standard 200$ program, oh well, back to writing the style i've always written in, crazy.
Sincerely, and enjoy.
I don't know about that but I read a blog post about the Google myths. One of them read that the duplicate filter's capabilities are a bit exaggerated. Who knows?
Not sure about the speculation around the SE's myths and truths. It might lead to another discovery of Tuthankammons grave filled with values, or it will just lead to an empty grave, which is the standard of archeology. But hey, they even figured out how to make a lucrative business and turist attraction out of that discovery.
But on the other hand, I don't use search engines at all anymore, and neither does most of the people I know. They never deliver anything which is even remotely usefull on any of the topics that I search for. People do, on the other hand.
Sincerely, and have fun,
Hi there guys! I recently heard of this Content solution software that It auto-creates thousands of readable keyword optimized content pages. Any other feedback on it from you?
Uhrm, i'd say don't use it. But i'm also way too outdated for the internet, and I have never seen the point in making a million pages about nothing. But perhaps it's a business opportunity i've missed out on.
But of course this is also a personal approach, since, if it came on the internet and I accidentally stumbled upon it, i'd think of making a legal case out of the website which wasted my time.
What makes you say 'don't use' it then?
What utter nonsense. Has nothing been learnt? Did all the words of advice and encouragement from the more experienced members here fall on deaf ears?
The absolute, the only and the entire means to a website with lasting value and consequential income is that it must add or provide significant value.
Generating content from other articles online by mangling them and making them inaccurate and stilted to read is removing value not adding it. It doesn't work. Your websites will last months, if that, and only if you keep them small.
Take all the time you're spending thinking about how to fill search engines with recycled content spam and put it into developing a really useful site. It could be a service which nobody provides as well as you do, or it could be a content-based website which provides high quality information which otherwise couldn't be easily found.
Whatever you do, remember the old camping rule; leave the (campsite / internet) a nicer and cleaner place than when you arrived.
I really enjoyed the post above. It says it all I guess. The fact that there are still people out there who do not trust this sort of advices is because they expect the magic ingredient to be of some alien type. But it is really that simple as the above opinion states. Provide unique and thought provoking content regularly and you might have the chance to enjoy great readership.
|I don't know about that but I read a blog post about the Google myths. One of them read that the duplicate filter's capabilities are a bit exaggerated. |
Of course, that blog post could have been run through a buggy content generator that left out the word "not." :-)
I fail to see real value in anything that was not well thought-through and written up for the users of my site.
The only rightful purpose for a successful website it unique content BECAUSE someone satisfied an information, service or product need that was unfulfilled thus far.
Any re-used or re-vamped content for the sake of adding content is absolutely doomed to be replaced by the original.
The sooner the better!
Is there anyone who would like to find 25 cheap copies of her/his favorite restaurant in their neighborhood or messy copies of their favorite novel in their local library?
I bet most people around here (including most of the posters in this discussion) would absolutely HATE their favorite songs played on radio in thousands of sampled variations.
|Content generators. Good or Bad? What's the deal about them anyway? |
I guess we could go back in history and look at some of the first "Content Generators" that really set the stage for future CGs. WebPosition Gold or WPG.
1999 October 25 - Black Monday
Millions of pages were purged from AltaVista's index and the bulk of them were from a Content Generator by the name of WebPosition Gold. It was the biggest SEO shakeup in history at the time.
That one damn .jpg file was probably responsible for the downfall of that program and its users. Footprints. They have been responsible for the downfall of many who have followed in WPG's footsteps.
I understand the technology has come a long way since WPG but there are still many other factors that present challenges in an auto-generated content environment. For one, the human factor. Without it, content sometimes misses the mark.
I've proofed thousands of documents over the years. And even with human generated content, editing is required. I doubt seriously that machine generated content has come that far. Once us humans get it right, then the machines will get it right. :)
|Content generators. Good or Bad? What's the deal about them anyway? |
My guess is that it would all come down to the quality of the "assembly line". If you are going to treat "content" like a commodity, then expect it to be received as such.
|I fail to see real value in anything that was not well thought-through and written up for the users of my site. |
Absolutely, couldn't agree more with you. Something like that doesn't really fit. As far as Google being unable to spot it, it's not just content generators that are rearranging content. Lots of sites, like About.com for instance, summarize their content with snippets on hub pages and are able to rank those. Duplicate content or a useful page?
Imagine content generators, if they had a major impact on the internet and the information it contains .. and let's say everybody just restructured everybodys restructured articles and content and whatever...
Would there be anything on the internet of any real value? (or perhaps let's think there was once upon a time, but it had all just been auto-restructured and put through content generators a million times by twenty million people and the original source was long lost) - how would the internet look like then? There would perhaps be 1.000.000 x 20.000.000 more of the same article - but would you like to sort through it to find that final piece of "this was new"? no.
Also, there would be no point of even trying to do something or try to do it differently - because anything published would just be thrown through a another generators generating generator...
It wouldn't provide either the internet, the users of it, or the world in general with any real value, neither economic, political, socially, informational or entertainment - it would just be .. another cyberspace dumpster which neither you, me, or anybody else would think twice about going near - we'd all stay away and go to more .. usefull resources and the idea of anything "open" or "free" market would be bombed back to the stone age. (if that's your plan, just go ahead.. you'll nuke yourself on the way too anyways)
Now, do you see why most people doesn't like the idea of those content generators?. This is my argument anyways, and I rest my case.
|Would there be anything on the internet of any real value? |
I keep asking this question to myself every single day. I am pretty interested in the blogging topic and I read lots of articles on that, yet they all seem somewhat similar to me. Sure they have different wording and structure but the main idea they deliver to the readers is "nothing new under the sun" if you know what I mean.
|I keep asking this question to myself every single day. I am pretty interested in the blogging topic and I read lots of articles on that, yet they all seem somewhat similar to me. Sure they have different wording and structure but the main idea they deliver to the readers is "nothing new under the sun" if you know what I mean. |
The internet is actually, when it comes down to it, not something really big yet - it has its golden moments if you're looking for information on some topic, but it usually requires a philanthropist to make something, which took years if not decades to learn, public available and then to see it be torn to pieces by various people who never made the effort. It's not funny to see that happen to something you worked hard for. That's also a reason why the internet is still in its infancy, people haven't started working hard - they're just looking for the easy way, all the time, without contributing with anything themselves of a substantial value. User mentality. Not going to change. Don't think about it, just accept it.
With regards to blogging - There could be numerous reasons for this rinse and repeat method of blogs: People don't have anything to say themselves or don't dare to say anything which could be slightly out of order (because their friends or family or co-workers know the website) so they just repeat what other people say and write in order to serve at least something to whatever visitors they might have which is political correct and acceptable within the community if you want to be a part of the or any community actually.
The topic at hand could also be fully explored and the idea which is served again and again is really the answer. There's alot of .... answers which could be given in a general sense without being specific - on the other hand - the blog is for all that I care about it just a reinvention of the diary. (new name, totally cool huh?) so i've always had problems taking them seriously, but that's a personal preference and bias, and no offense meant to anybody doing it in a more serious way or using it as another tool than that.
But it is funny to look at things from the perspective of "is it even usefull?" - because even within the literary world, where some of those creative wackos hang out which are usually pretty fast to catch on to new ideas, concepts and ways of doing things, people are very reluctant to do anything worth thinking a second thought about on the internet, but on the other hand - most of the literary world has also just become an author-to-author talkative scene, not much doing or creating there - and then again - most people don't write or share information for the fun of it - because in a competitive environment, that's the worst scenario you could put yourself in if you wanted to make a living out of it and get some food on the table, and not end up with your master piece everywhere else than where it's supposed to be and what it's supposed to give you: You Know What You Want.
There's probably also a reason why the academic world, libraries and most of the really resourceful indexes and such have not gone online fullscale on the international internet - (in my country its pretty evolved though, can download books from the library which expires a month after, rent videos on demand, online encyclopedias, dictionaries, reference works, even a poetry collection of all authors pre 1918 ;) and you can even order lunch for your kids in school... but that's all just possible because it's a very small country and not much bureaucracy to set something up)
Besides from that, then think about googles index of 8 or so billion pages. Sounds impressive? It's not. Compare that to how many people are online - and then to how many have their own website and are actually creating something .... it's not even a fraction of the information published through traditional media every single day)
I write too much, but sincerely, and have fun,