Comments on: Why Google, SEOs & Users Must ‘Blekko Up’

By: MKR

MKR — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:24:43 +0000

Maybe Google decided to be excessively literal and show you actual spam. :)

By: John Nagle

John Nagle — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:42:24 +0000

I just searched for “Google search spam” with Google. Today’s results are amusing. First, Google returns a news item “Get Rid of Spam in Your Google Search Results” from someone who just discovered the “-” flag. This is followed by “Real time results”. These consist of many Twitter references to the same article from programs that are scraping Google News and generating Twitter spam. It’s hard to think of anything more useless to return as search results.

Supposedly Google had recently implemented algorithms to catch obvious copying. Looks like that was all talk, no action.

(Screenshot here: “http://www.sitetruth.net”)

That’s just pathetic.

By: SEO Freak Show

SEO Freak Show — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:21:12 +0000

How can a search engine determine ‘true’ content quality in addition to the intent behind the content?

If you write junk, build links etc, junk will rank.

If you write quality, build links etc, quality will rank.

Can Google engineers program the algo & bots to be English majors?

Here is the bottom line: Just because you spent 8 hours writing some content does NOT give you the right to rank higher than some dude who spent 30 minutes writing similar content that you ‘think’ is ‘not as good’ as yours.

Do you think the guy who builds out houses is complaing to the guy who builds toilets about the plumber, and how the plumber is taking away his business? Do you think the guy who builds toilets really cares about the plumber? Indoor, outdoor; you still need a toilet.

You need a better marketing strategy and business plan with the right platform to execute, leave the plumber alone – all he did was figure out a better and more profitable way to do YOUR job!!!!

By: Sherry Gray

Sherry Gray — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:53:40 +0000

Lisa, while I agree with your main concept, I think you chose a bad example. Demand Media employs professional editors and requires credible, verifiable resources before publishing. I write for them during slow periods between independent gigs and contract positions, and they are more demanding than most of my private clients. DM does not get my A-game for two reasons: 500 words can’t provide a highly detailed overview on most topics, and they don’t pay me enough to spend more than half an hour on any article. However, every article I write is well researched and written in excellent English, and I make it a point to put in as much information as the word count will stand. Many writers far more experienced and educated than I write for DM, assuming the credentials listed on their profiles are honest. This is not true of every content service, but DM has much higher standards than average.

What annoys me are affiliate marketing sites jam-packed with nonsensical jumbles of words that relate in some way to repeated keywords, articles written by people with only a passing familiarity with English who will write for pennies, and articles generated by one of those Chinese menu phrase programs that pick one from column A and one from column B to make full sentences. Like business mad-libs. Oh, and those articles that talk about making points without ever actually making any.

I recently read an article about a software that analyzes emails for tone, to ensure that businesses send appropriate responses that will make the right impression. If a concept that sophisticated can work, then I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect search engines to devise search parameters that weed out bad grammar, text so keyword dense it makes no sense, and identify content with tangible value.

By: Kristinn

Kristinn — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:45:13 +0000

I came across a content farm the other day doing research on a competitor’s site. The diction was horrible. It was obviously coming out of an ex British colony. And there was lots of it on the site. It was pure junk.
I doubt these people make 50 cents a word. Probably more like 5 or 2 cents a word. I don’t blame them. They are not the vampires sucking the blood out of our society. It is the attitude that says me above all else no matter what. Trade laws encourage this sort of thing. Content farms are a symptom, no the disease.

By: Jim Rudnick

Jim Rudnick — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:58:00 +0000

re: “…The algorithms are flawed, in part, because they can’t keep up with the amount of SHIT people create on a daily basis that has no worth…”

spot-on @Lisa….aint’ that the stinkin’ truth!

:-)

Jim

By: Doc Sheldon

Doc Sheldon — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:03:56 +0000

Great post, Lisa. I certainly agree with you that it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and aggressively. I don’t necessarily think that domain-wide bans are the answer we should want, though. That’s abdicating my right to select from the results to some machine and its designers, and I’m not comfortable doing that.
I think John Nagle has a good idea, with hit results classification. AJ Kohn may have hit on something too, by allowing each user to “kill” a site in just their own results. I’d like to see either of those followed up on by the SE taking such bans and lack of clicks into consideration in their ranking. Sort of falls in line with Authority Rank, I think.
As an aside, referencing Matt’s spiel in regard to content farms is more than a little misleading, IMO. I think he was addressing attribution (or more succinctly, the lack thereof) more than just content farms, per se.

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:35:48 +0000

The problem is that good content sites aren’t out content farming the content farms with their own good content. So if Google were to “Blekko” up, and drop the known content farm domains, it seems like you get poor content replacing sometimes so-so and sometimes good content.

I mean seriously. Go to Blekko, which has already Blekko upped:

how do i get a passport: Google, for those in the US, points you at the US State Dept tops. Blekko is a mess — Yahoo Answers number on, on how to get an EU passport (with the top answer not backed up by any citation but hey, 1 person voted on it, so it must be awesome)

how do i cook a ham: Google puts a recipe tips site tops; Blekko gives me a 1 paragraph answer from Yahoo Answers tops. My favorite is down at the bottom, where Blekko lists an answer for canning soup with meat. Use awesomesauce!

how do i fix my credit: Google’s results don’t thrill me, but neither do Blekko’s. At least Google lists a really good page from the FTC, which Blekko doesn’t.

Content farms are doing good SEO, from the perspective of understanding how people are searching and creating content to answer those questions. Where content farms are falling down is not providing the quality content, in some cases, that searchers demand. Search engines are falling down in not killing off some of this so-so content — but again, if they do, what takes its place. From what I see, any time I do these types of searches — not a lot of great stuff to take its place.

So, let’s get going good content writers. The should be room at the table for you.

By: Jen Adams

Jen Adams — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:18:06 +0000

Part of the problem with proposed solutions is that they all seem to be game-able in one way or another. Based it on any known activity, and a site can find a way to work around that or penalize a competitor (user ratings, bounce rates, etc).

The call for quality content is worthy – I just don’t know how to ensure it! I work doing copywriting and ghostwriting, and when I’m putting out content I try to make it as accurate and informative as possible because I HATE CRAP CONTENT. I have to put up with enough of it when I’m researching for clients, and it frustrates me to no end to have to sift through masses of regurgitated and imitated “articles” to find a single useful fact.

Lisa, thanks for keeping the issue at the forefront of the conversation. I’ve even been motivated to try Blekko, though I’m not thrilled with their results either (I tend to have to search for really specific things for clients, rather than general personal search). But I think what they are doing is a step in the right direction, and hopefully there will be more like them in the future.

By: Charles Bohannan

Charles Bohannan — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:34:14 +0000

Nice congruent angle, Lisa. Quality content after all these years of everything else being on top is finally getting the care and attention it deserves (no more red-headed stepchild syndrome?).

Many of us have been saying it all along, but nobody listens to writers. Editors carry more weight and should be more vocal about, but they’ve been busy putting out the fires in their industry.

When the marketers finally get it is when we’ll see the shakedown. Most of them haven’t gotten it yet, most notably the SEOs.