Google vs. Content Farms

Even though this topic is over a year old I still feel the need to talk about it because I experienced it first and still see that Google is working to fix this problem. Back in February 2011 Google went on to change their core ranking algorithm that would force content farms lower on search results.

Content farms are sites that create low quality content to appear higher on search rankings. Sites like this include About.com and Mahalo.com, which populate pages with basic information just to appear within search results. These sites base their revenue on ads and CPV they live and die via where they appear on searches.

The reason behind me talking about is because I was working for Mahalo when Google implemented their new core ranking algorithm. Now I really wouldn’t consider Mahalo a true content because a lot of the content was very information based. Now that information was mostly based around music, video games, photoshop and cooking.

Now Google’s head of web-spam prevention Matt Cutts said, “12 percent of Google’s search results saw some modification.” However, Mahalo felt the affects of that 12 percent results modification and had to deal with downsizing. The change did affect with how sites like About.com pay their writers and video editors who create the countless pages per day.

It’s interesting to see how Google goes about how it ranks sites, but it seems like they are trying to keep their search results ligament. That means forcing content farms and low quality sites below the fold. Of course, Google says that how a company operates is also included in how they rank.

Even though I saw first hand how this change could affect a company, I believe Google did the right thing. These sites can really clutter result pages and most of the time don’t have the correct information populating them. Also, by doing so Google is forcing sites to really work on creating quality content to help them raise their rank. 

The Power of Reddit

So you a blog post, video or image you want to share with the world because you feel it will take off. However, you are just some random person on the Internet and have no real powerful outlet to share your work. If only there was a place you could post the link to your work and let the Internet do its job. Well there is actually a site that could make or break your work and that is Reddit.

Reddit is “the front page of the Internet” and was founded in 2005 by Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian. The is a mix of social networking and message board that allows users to either upvote or downvote all the content shared. Users are able to set the kind of content they wish to view by subscribing to specific “subreddits” that relate to numerous topics. With 3.8billion monthly page views it is fair to say that Reddit could be your distribution gold mine.

Of course, you could hope that the views and shares you can get through simply tweeting and posting on Facebook will help spread your content. Only thing is you won’t the recognition you deserve. Reddit will help you expand on your content to only make your future work better. Plus, by taking advantage of Reddit you will be able to have people realize they saw the content first before people on Twitter and Facebook.

Another great thing is that if your content covers multiple areas you can greatly expand your views or sharing by taking advantage of those numerous subreddits. By doing so you will expand on the eyes that see your content and the amount of them that will copy that link and share it on the other social networking sites.

Now this isn’t a typical publishing or distribution idea, but if you are going from an all-digital standpoint then this is something you need to consider. Even if you aren’t and are looking for a way to help spread the word about your work. Sharing exclusive content or holding an Ask Me Anything you will connect with demographics you might have never been on their radar. Yeah that is more of a marketing tool, but in the long run certain areas between that and distribution combine into the same idea.  

Digital Distribution

With the rise of digital distribution certain questions begin to come to mind. Because the media is stored on a hard drive and no longer on physical media should the price reflect that? Since the media is stored digitally does the inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) take away from the customers experience?

Honestly, these are all questions I have heard since digital distribution has gained more and more momentum. This is mostly because more and more companies are pushing for digital distribution. Only problem is most people have limited storage space available on their devices and moving towards digital distribution will be a problem.

First, let me get to the question of price. Currently, Xbox and Playstation customers are paying full price, $59.99, for digital copies of retail games. This has raised some eyebrows because with the lose of physically producing the disk, manual and box the cost of the game itself should be cheaper. Let alone the fact that you are using up your storage space to house the game instead of being able to change disks freely. Another factor to look at is that these systems only offer a specific amount storage and after time space is limited. Which means you will either be deleting a game or having to spend an unfair amount on additional storage.

That brings me to the second question about DRM. Digital Rights Management is another term for a license that allows you to run the game on your system. It prevents users from installing the same game on other machines due to the CD key having already been used. Most publishers believe that DRM will protect their games from being pirated and force people to actually purchase the game. However, if you look closely the horror stories that surround DRM and it saying that the CD key for the game someone just bought has been used. Going through customer support is even worse because most of the time they will deny customers new CD keys because they don’t believe they actually bought the game even with proof.

One should also note the debate that took place betweenMartin Edmonson of Ubisoft and Gabe Newell of Valve. Both Ubisoft and Valve are two major video game developers and publishers. Ubisoft believes in protecting their content with DRM, while Valve distributes their games digitally through their own service called Steam. Gabe points out that customers aren’t pirating games to get them for free, but instead because of the customers needs.

I actually have to agree with Gabe because with the current state of some video games I feel that I wasted $59.99. Most companies are just pumping out titles to keep revenue streams up and not caring about the content of the game itself. This is why people pirate their games and feel that if I am using my own storage space for a digital copy I should be allowed to spend less.