|
Definition of Quality Content is Unclear |
|
Thursday, 24 May 2007 |
In light of recent changes to Google policy (Banning MFA sites as well as Arbitrage, Banning Paid Backlinks)
I have a question: What is quality content? Think about it. How does
Google judge what is quality content, and what is an MFA site?...
We
know that the basic idea of an MFA site is an automated site spammed
onto the search engines, which contains sometimes readable content,
with AdSense or other ads plastered all over it, especially at the top.
At that rate, my site seems to be 2/3 an MFA site, beacause I have ads
at the top, with fully readable content, but don't spam my links
everywhere. I think Google should draw the line at those crazy Markov
(mashed up articles) spam sites. These sites should be considered an
"Advertising Service," as long as they have contextual ads that will
send the user to a reputable site related to the topic they are
searching for information about. Arbitrage is a bad practice, but MFA
sites aren't all bad for anyone. The advertiser's product gets out, the
user is happy with the info they get, and both Google and the site
creator get payed. How is that bad? Isn't that how advertising is
supposed to work?
That said, can we define quality content
(articles, specifically) as articles that are human readable and have a
point? Considering the fact that many articles on the internet are at
the 10th grade reading level or lower, how can Google say that ALL MFA
sites are low quality? By these standards, we could say that several
(hundred?) RSS aggregators are MFA sites and thus would be banned from
AdSense. Google is seemingly becoming more and more communist in my
opinion, becoming "Internet Overlords," dictating what can and can't be
done.
|
