Forum Moderators: not2easy
For example, today I was trying to research a complex real-estate legal issue. It was so unusual that even my attorney had trouble giving me advice. So, naturally, I googled it, and came upon a very extensive article of at least 2,000 words that discussed it in great deal from what appeared to be a reputable website. However, the more I read it, the more I noticed it was simply written repeating certain keywords and even completely contradicted itself at the end. It also pretty much read like a bad high-school essay.
Sure, I know I shouldn't trust what I read on the internet, but I wouldn't be surprised if other people do. A few years ago if you were reading about an arcane legal topic on the web, it was most likely written by a knowledgeable person. Today it's probably written by some everyday guy who doesn't have a clue about law, but is just really good at SEO.
Sorry for the rant, I just felt like this was something that needs more attention.
With the emphasis on links, links, links (whether for pagerank, anchor text, whatever), it's only a matter of time, I think, before average Joe Websurfer (who, at present, tends to believe that what he reads online is accurate and comes from knowledgeable sources --ha! what a joke) begins to think that he really can't trust anything he finds online. Perhaps this will take another 3-5 years. But when this realization begins to hit websurfers in general, then the WWW (aside from .gov, .edu and many .org sites) may begin to hold little more respectability than the national enquirer when it comes to the "trustworthiness of information".
Think of all the mesothelioma sites out there being written by guys who sit around in their underwear all day creating MFA sites, who know almost nothing at all about the disease. A vitamin and nutrition site? Maybe it's written by a pc repair guy who's trying to make extra cash with affiliate programs. A site on cancer? Maybe it's published by a car mechanic who thinks cancer is a great adsense niche.
Considering all the crap that's been generated in the last couple years as a result of adsense, I would have to say that the long term outlook for websurfers trusting web content is not good.
Everyone has an angle. Unfortunately the majority of people in the world like reading junky content written by a sixth grader, look at any novel in the supermarket for example of what people want to read.
It's not just the Internet. If people want quality they will go find it, because it exists alongside the junk.
Personally, I take "content" to mean "meaningful information, presented clearly after making an effort to ensure accuracy, and with an eye toward educating, entertaining, or helping people".
What you're talking about is "any slop that I can wrap ads around and convince search-bots to fornicate with". That hardly seems the same thing.
;-)
Eliz.
As you mention, it is devaluing (is that possible? <g>) the world wide web, which now more than ever is a mess of disinformation solely for the puporse of presenting Google Adsense adverts (if it wasn't Google it should be another company).
Matt
I speak from personal experience. I have a small site which until recently contained garbage content that I had typed up over a couple of hours. The site was ranking fine in MSN, but not in Yahoo! or Google. I actually started feeling bad because people were visting the site, so a couple of months ago, I paid to have actual articles written by someone who knew what they were talking about, and have made the site a useful resource.
So I totally agree that just putting out garbage content just pollutes the Internet, but as lcampers said how often do we get good information throughout the day?
It is becoming so bad that there are certain keywords you can't find information on anymore. Like diets. Search any kind of diet and you get the phone book of rehashed crap articles from people who have no knowledge.
For example, for health information I don't ever use Google, because the information is almost always wrong. I go to webmd because I know there is a certain level of quality.
In addition, I am having my content stolen by older "authority" sites and Google is actually biting! These sites are now beating mine in the rankings because I haven't bought hundreds of links or gone on link finding expeditions. Its ridiculous. They are beating me with my own content!
All we can hope for is that sites with high PR will take the time to sort the wheat from the chaff and link to those sites that deserve the links! Its likely a losing battle, but one can hope! :(
A percentage of what you are reading is not written or typed by humans. It is autogenerated from extensive databases of ingested documents/files.
Expect to see more of this.
In a sense it's what you all do, only it's more efficient from the point of view of filling up Google's index. Pity poor Google if it doesn't get better at recognizing the difference. Sometimes the difference isn't much.
Welcome to the future. :(
Now, if only I could program my kitchen to cook a 5 course dinner . .
I just felt like this was something that needs more attention.
Shhh! No, it needs less attention! Google is slowly getting better at identifying decent content. If you're someone plodding along, making decent content page-by-page, the last thing you want is to convert all the "how can I get some content without doing any work?" crowd to your point of view. Are you dying for more competition?
Better to just keep your head down, keep plodding, and don't say a word when the next major Google algorithm change brings shrieks of dismay from those other folk and moves you up in the SERPs.
Everyone has different skill levels. One person can create content for the sake of content that people tell their friends about, while others can't. Should those who lack the skills apologize because they have mental shortcomings or just can't get it together?
It's like being upset that most of the people in a room are not beautiful enough for you. People perform as best they can or are willing to perform. It's the same with the guy who waits on your table or the girl who gives you customer service to the website you land upon when doing research.
People do the best they can with what nature gave them. It's up to the users to vote with links or vote with their feet on whether the work deserves to be rewarded.
No apologies needed.
I'm a stickler for quality, which is why I only post once or twice a month on my blog. Others do better, others do worse, and good for all of them- I'm not going to criticize them.
I do things my way, others do things their way. That's life. We weren't born from the same pod and no one is snatching our bodies in the middle of the night, so it's reasonable to expect there to be differences in quality in most everything.
Long live content for the sake of content!
:) Y
Everyone has different skill levels. One person can create content for the sake of content that people tell their friends about, while others can't. Should those who lack the skills apologize because they have mental shortcomings or just can't get it together?
No, but if you don't know how to drive, you shouldn't try to make a career of being a busdriver.
I have gotten really disgusted with people who make a living or rather, parasitize the web by producing medical sites. 99% of them serve up ignorant, illiterate dreck that has furthermore been swiped from somewhere else. I and a few million other people end up having to wade through this dreck trying to find real information about our medical conditions because Johnny Kant Wright needs a "job." IMO, these people are not just inept. They are scuzzballs and for that they should definitely feel obligated to apologize. But scuzzballs never do.
Seeing this, the get-rich-quick types (and others) feel compelled to come up with 'content'.
Problem is, maybe one in three can write worth a damn and the others can't.
Blame it on education if you like, I've come to wonder if half the population
doesn't take an illiteracy pill first thing in the morning.
Regardless, MFA Jack and Jill have to come up with text somehow. What are their choices?
a) Scrape, plagiarize .. i.e. cheat and hope they get away with it.
b) Write their own stuff and pray their spell checker will somehow make it comprehensible (it won't).
c) Hire somebody else to write the stuff, and hope they don't just do a) above.
d) Pump out 'word salad', something like the subject lines in SPAM emails.
e) Grow a brain and go back to school. (I'm not holding my breath for that one.)
Remember the school teacher who said things are tough for people who can't string a sentence together?
She was right. -Larry
I mean sure, there will be crap content, but it won't be ranked high in the search engines.
This is a ridiculous thread. Nobody is stupid enough to spend a heap of time on optimising their sites for the search engines if the content is crap. Affiliate marketing is a two-step process - get the traffic, then move them to the website of your affiliate/s. If someone had crap content then nobody would go past the site.
Ever watch American Idol? Lots of those people have been spending alot of their time getting ready, practicing, karoke bars whatever and they sing like crap. But yet they spent enough time to get to that point. Webmasters aren't that much different. People spend alot of time writing crap about which they know little/nothing about. Why? To stick Adsense on it and let loose yet another page o' crap to further dilute and confuse.
Hundreds of these pages that have ranked in the top 10 for a long time are now off the map due to duplicate content penalties. Hopefully, the DMCA complaint process will get them kicked out of Google but I know this will be an ongoing problem.
