Shatner - 11:35 pm on Jun 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

>>> The focus of this article is what is happening to the virtual world that so many of us currently depend on.

I'm all for saying content farms are a bad thing, but most of his complaints in his article towards AOL seem focused on how hard they made him work... and how he thinks he deserves to be paid more. He didn't deserve to be paid more. He wasn't working too hard. He was working as hard as everyone else and getting paid more than everyone else in his field... including people who were NOT working for content farms.

In light of that skewed, incorrect view of his employment there I think we should all take some of what he has to say about the way AOL worked at the time with a grain of salt.

Side note... the practices he describes at AOL are also practiced by Huffington Post, this is well documented, yet everyone seems to hold HuffPo up as some sort of shining beacon. They aren't.

Many of the so called "non-content farm" respected content brands, the ones who benefitted the most from Panda like the New York Times, engage in MANY of these practices.

You know what kinds of sites do NOT engage in any of these practices at all? Independently run sites.... blogs, etc. None of which gained in any way from Panda or Google.

Yet it's the New York Times... who also engages in many of these content-farm like practices online (for example, did you know that many "respected" "major brand" publications get a lot of traffic by scraping people's feeds and re-displaying it on their site site for search engines... but nobody notices because it isn't promoted on their normal site), crowing about how Google is saving the web from bad content.

Does anyone else see a problem here?