Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
and came across the following quote:
"AOL, for example, is embarking on a strategy of creating a plethora of niche websites through automated methods on which to place ads, partly through its own ad platform. It has called this "leaning into the fragmentation of the Web."
Does anyone know how they will create these websites "through automated methods"? I'm also wondering how Google will treat such websites in its search rankings.
At any rate, there's not a lot here to base any comments on. There's a lot of latitude in the phrase "automated methods". It's just mentioned as an aside, an example of the preceding sentence: "But mechanisms to link advertisers with online properties are still developing, and made more difficult by an explosion in the number of websites in existence."
On the surface, it sounds pretty awful - but that might just be awful reporting, not something awful from AOL.
Because if it's true, it means that AOL plans to create a "plethora" of niche websites by automated methods solely for the purpose of putting ads on them. (Sounds a lot like MFA to me.)
And when I saw the term "automated methods", I imagined an army of spiders scraping content from existing websites, then a computer program "blending" this content for use on new websites. Then AOL using its money and other corporate resources to push these new sites to the top of Google's rankings for their respective niches.
I hope I'm wrong, because this looks scary to me. Unless Google and the other search engines take action against it.
AOL will also fail. Even at the "bleeding edge" of technology it seems there is little new that is of use.
Does this mean that OpenX bots have or will be scraping our websites...
As I read it, there's nothing in the spidering thread or in the Reuters article to suggest that OpenX bots are scraping content, or that OpenX is creating websites.
In the Reuters article, AOL automation was cited as an example of why we have an exploding number of websites out there. If anything, OpenX, which places ads on websites, seems to favor sites created by humans....
Cadogan says: "Synthetic creations can be pretty good, but there's something about that organic trend also of consumers creating sites about topics they're passionate about that creates real value."
Anyway, I will now slant into an abeyance of the unconscious, ie, take a nap.
What has caused this "explosion in the number of websites"? Is the article saying that it is due to "synthetic creations"?
And will the search engines treat such "synthetic creations" like ordinary websites, and allow companies like AOL boost them to the top of the SERPs?
"I'm sorry AOL, I'm afraid you can't do that".
"automated methods... leaning into the fragmentation of the Web"
Nothing new about that. Look at TripAdvisor, for example, or other template-based review sites, commercial Wikis, etc. that chase the "long tail" with script-generated, keyword-driven pages that invite users to supply content. AOL is late to the party, though: the latest trend seems to be sites like Examiner.com that offer token payments to contributors in an attempt to maintain editorial direction and control.
As for the question of how Google will treat such AOL-generated sites, I'd guess that it will be business as usual, at least until Google figures out a way to distinguish keyword-generated, template-based pages with real content from those that have 100 or 200 words of filler text or are waiting for users to fill in the blanks.
The content is all automated, with main articles pulled from third party sources via Relegence, videos from YouTube, Twitter messages linking back to individual pages, and links to major news sites. All of this is automated and requires very little human involvement.[techcrunch.com...]
We can answer the opening question by watching how Google treats the site. Can love possibly be spam?
Aggregate content should be downgraded severely in my opinion and it should never outrank the source.
Any mention of how they plan on funding the advertising for all these auto-sites or did they in fact plan on having Google send free traffic?
I don't see it ranking, at least on any major keywords. Let's hope Google keeps it like that,
[edited by: tedster at 4:45 pm (utc) on April 28, 2009]
In a nutshell, it's an infinite set of wildcard subdomains plus scraped content.
Well, that sounds more awful than the Reuters description. One's worst nightmare and all that. ;)
But it masquerades as a search engine.
They will show results on a wildcard subdomain for anything you search for, and they must be "caching" searched content. Looks like they're hoping if they throw enough of it at the wall, something will stick.
Seems to me they're transgressing Google's official statement about search results in the serps....
From Matt Cutts (on his new url)...
Search results in search results
[dullest.com...]
Quoting Vanessa Fox...
Typically, web search results don’t add value to users, and since our
core goal is to provide the best search results possible, we generally
exclude search results from our web search index.
Me not happy camper.
Then again, if one can do this, imagine how many wannabes will do the same thing?
I'm seeing a few weird UAs from AOL at the moment, partially pretending to be proxies.
I think it violates the "don't send Google to search results" rule.
Is it no-followed?
Anyone seen it rank for anything?
"Minimal value" is pretty generous.
Why?
They will show results on a wildcard subdomain for anything you search for, and they must be "caching" searched content. Looks like they're hoping if they throw enough of it at the wall, something will stick.
you don't even have to search - just type in whatever random subdomain you want, and a page will be served. Youtube and twitter content is there - I tried making up the URL pubcon.love.com and got a result, so did ksdhfjksfdhkjfhkjsfd.love.com. Less content on the latter though :)
[edited by: tedster at 4:41 pm (utc) on April 29, 2009]
[edit reason] fix quote box [/edit]
No results here either but it worked.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 1:23 am (utc) on April 29, 2009]
[edit reason] disabled link [/edit]
No wonder AOL is on the ropes...
Time Warner to Spin Off AOL Division
2009-04-29 - [WashingtonPost.com...]
If you don't trip the filters, or if you flush your cookies, they continue to generate subdomains for nonsense.
edit: I gave it a shot with "sux" because it really does suck. The AOL sux blowhole" video they returned for me was entertaining (work safe, nothing adult intended or returned).
Still ugly, there's not use for insta scraper sites like this in legitimate search results.
[edited by: JS_Harris at 12:01 pm (utc) on April 30, 2009]
