eBranchOffice.com
business community
Quality Content Should Be Rewarded
We all know the saying that content is king. However, is it just any type of content or does it need to be quality content?
One reason I'm asking this is because I saw the conversation in the forum about content farms. People upload very poor quality articles to content farms because the high authority of these content farms gives the articles a higher search engine placement. I'm glad to see that Google is starting to reduce the authority given to these content farms.
It is frustrting for someone like me to create quality content for a specific keyword or question only to see that I am kicked to a third or fourth search results page while the first page is full of poor quality articles all being hosted on Squidoo, eHow, ezinearticles, etc...
Google must be figuring out that people mainly put their writing on these content farms in order to get high search rankings and maybe a backlink or some traffic. People don't have a huge motivation to write a quality article because it is the keywords and the location of the article on the content farm that is driving the writer.
Also, is a backlink from a content farm really worth anything if it is the site owner who is placing that link on the other site? It shouldn't be held in high value by Google becasue it isn't an earned link.
Hopefully this will change as Google gets better in determining good qualtiy content versus poor quality content.
My bet is that Google will continue to figure this out. I refuse to write a bunch of articles to put on someone else's site. I want to spend my time writing for my own sites.
Now that my venting is done, I can get back to work.
What do you think? Are you still writing articles for content farms or are you focusing on wirting quality content for your own sites?
One reason I'm asking this is because I saw the conversation in the forum about content farms. People upload very poor quality articles to content farms because the high authority of these content farms gives the articles a higher search engine placement. I'm glad to see that Google is starting to reduce the authority given to these content farms.
It is frustrting for someone like me to create quality content for a specific keyword or question only to see that I am kicked to a third or fourth search results page while the first page is full of poor quality articles all being hosted on Squidoo, eHow, ezinearticles, etc...
Google must be figuring out that people mainly put their writing on these content farms in order to get high search rankings and maybe a backlink or some traffic. People don't have a huge motivation to write a quality article because it is the keywords and the location of the article on the content farm that is driving the writer.
Also, is a backlink from a content farm really worth anything if it is the site owner who is placing that link on the other site? It shouldn't be held in high value by Google becasue it isn't an earned link.
Hopefully this will change as Google gets better in determining good qualtiy content versus poor quality content.
My bet is that Google will continue to figure this out. I refuse to write a bunch of articles to put on someone else's site. I want to spend my time writing for my own sites.
Now that my venting is done, I can get back to work.
What do you think? Are you still writing articles for content farms or are you focusing on wirting quality content for your own sites?
-
Comment by Tom McCann on August 8, 2010 at 2:59pm -
Quality content should be rewarded with good search rankings, good ad revenue, and repeat visitors.
Repeat visitors will reward quality content, but the search rankings and ad revenue are not being kind right now.
To see the problem with the search rankings, all you have to do is some basic searches to see some of the junk that shows up on the front page. If quality content was adequately being rewarded, this junk content would not show up on the first page of searh results.
In terms of ad revenue, it has been well documented that lots of qualtiy content isn't getting thesame type of ad revenue that offline content gets. The New York Times has the same quality content on and off line, but the online content generates far less ad revenue. This doesn't make sense since online ads can be clicked and acted upon imediately.
What this all boils down to is that created quality content for the internet is a shaky proposition right now. Not only is it a shaky proposition because ofthe reasons I mentioned above, but quality content on the internet is in competition with tons of other content being uploaded to websited each minute.
Comment
© 2012 Created by eBranchOffice.
You need to be a member of eBranchOffice.com to add comments!
Join eBranchOffice.com