walkman - 2:45 am on May 20, 2011 (gmt 0)
I've always hated generic info from content farms that keeps popping up at the top of my searches. I notice that my friends have never "liked" generic content generated mostly for SEO. They tend to share real, useful content that is developed by professionals. I'm talking news from major news orgs, videos that come from networks and individuals with a lot of talent.
Why do you need Google for that then, isn't Twitter and FB enough? Doesn't everyone have a list of sites that post stories of their liking? Or do you want to be 100% in the bubble of what your friends like? Maybe your cable company should also interrupt your favorite show to tell you that Adam is watching a cooking show or whatever Googlers like to talk about at work. Other than pollute the interface and act as a overbearing nanny this is dumb, IMO.
Every content farm asks /requires /incentivises (?) the promotion of their junk by writers. And then writers have their own hubs where they meet and cross promote each other junk in Twitter, FB, blogs etc. It's very hard for normal sites to get even one Tweet and these content farms have dozens at times so there goes the social buzz.
Google has solved nothing, they just showed how they are no longer a leader in innovation*, but a "me too." Like when Bing added twitter feeds, or Yahoo the instant search, or Bing the now copied-by-Google interface, the background image etc. Bing released this a few days ago, but with FB integration.
*Whatever Panda did to SERPS searchers aren't feeling it, if ComScore is correct google has lost over 3% in the first 2 months of Panda. ComScore could be wrong, users may take a while to realize it or maybe it stopped a larger bleeding of course but apparently it isn't a WOW factor among average users.