Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
... attention has shifted instead to “content farms,” which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-quality sites. Nonetheless, we hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content. We take pride in Google search and strive to make each and every search perfect. The fact is that we’re not perfect, and combined with users’ skyrocketing expectations of Google, these imperfections get magnified in perception. However, we can and should do better.
One misconception that we’ve seen in the last few weeks is the idea that Google doesn’t take as strong action on spammy content in our index if those sites are serving Google ads. To be crystal clear:
Google absolutely takes action on sites that violate our quality guidelines regardless of whether they have ads powered by Google;
Displaying Google ads does not help a site’s rankings in Google; and
Buying Google ads does not increase a site’s rankings in Google’s search results. [googleblog.blogspot.com...]
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 7:12 pm (utc) on Jan 21, 2011]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]
There have been articles written suggesting this might be a threat to DemandMedia but I'm not sure about that. Outside of hand penalizing content farm domains, how can Google automate the process for identifying a well researched article published on a content farm?
eps commented: Once I stop seeing StackOverflow clones listed above StackOverflow's original pages I will gladly believe that Google's search quality is "better than ever before."
Matt_Cutts replied: I've been tracking how often this happens over the last month. It's gotten much, much better, and one additional algorithmic change coming soon should help even more.
I'm not saying that a clone will never be listed above SO, but it definitely happens less often compared to a several weeks ago.
Maybe G should look for sites that are heavy on Adsence ads as described above. If the site has multiple Adsence ads on every page then G might consider that a red flag...
...they could cull Adsense publishers based on quality of content...
It seems like it would be intuitive to google that if the pages in questions did not have enough quality content to serve up adsense, they probably didn't have enough quality content to rank highly in the SERPs.
I'm currently working on a site that is going to have about 50,000 pages of unique, quality content. When I launch it...
one should also appreciate the difficulties that they face in dealing with this
I'm currently working on a site that is going to have about 50,000 pages of unique, quality content. When I launch it, I dont' expect to spend much time link building.
What's the chances that Google's going to view the site as 'low quality'? Pretty good I bet. The site won't stand a chance. And it won't be because the content isn't top quality.
The idea of Google trying to determine that through an algo, and the guaranteed huge fallout from that (on non-spammy sites) should be enough to make anyone scared.
- Answers.com, About.com? - BT
If an individual can create 20 quality content pages a day (which is really cranking), it will take nearly 7 years to complete a 50k website.
If it's a large team effort, and everyone on the team can write unique quality content, then perhaps Google WILL see it as top quality. B
If I have access to the last 10 years of the Wall Street Journal or Time magazine and can put it all online with their permission, I'd say that's an example of unique quality content
there's nothing I can do about it except to try my best to focus on the before mentioned criteria, and HOPE that sooner rather than later, justice & fairness will prevail
No money from G might start to discourage their very existence and force these "webmasters" to create something useful.