pageoneresults - 3:37 pm on Sep 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

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.

/blueline.jpg

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.