ANYONE can publish on the web, but it would be better if some people didn鈥檛; the world does not need another site that provides advice on how to unlock an iPhone or find cheap car insurance. Now new evidence shows that search engines have upped their game to make sure their results are not dominated by such low-quality sites.
Search engines are meant to pick out high-quality sites amid the sea of knock-offs, but even they get overwhelmed. As recently as March, for example, the first 10 results from a Google search for 鈥渉ow to organise your desktop鈥� contained nine links to pages churned out by 鈥渃ontent farms鈥� 鈥� websites that publish reams of articles, often of dubious quality, that aim simply to attract clicks and advertising dollars.
聯In March, 9 of 10 top search results for 鈥榟ow to organise your desktop鈥� were made by content farms聰
Advertisement
That prompted New 杏吧原创 to ask computer scientist at the University of Glasgow, UK, to look into the issue. The results show that Google and Microsoft have won a major victory in the fight against such content farms. In the process they may have inflicted serious pain on two organisations often cited as providers of content farm material: Seed, a project from AOL, appears to have stopped commissioning content from freelance writers, though the firm declined to comment. And Santa Monica-based Demand Media has seen by over 50 per cent since it went public earlier this year for $1.5 billion.
Most of the credit for such changes has been given to Google, which this February announced that it had updated its search algorithm in a bid to prioritise sites that publish original and well-researched material. It won鈥檛 provide details, but many site owners noticed that the update detected and penalised sites that publish multiple near-identical articles, a favourite tactic of content farms. For example, the traffic flowing from search engines to eHow, a Demand Media site, . Google has also enlisted users to keep up the fight 鈥� it says that it now demotes sites that people choose to exclude from search results.
To test how successful Google and Microsoft鈥檚 Bing have been at fending off content-farmed results, McCreadie ran 50 search queries known to be a target of content farmers, such as 鈥渉ow to train for a marathon鈥�, in March and August this year. Then he paid people to examine the results for links to low-quality sites, where 鈥渓ow quality鈥� was defined as uninformative sites whose primary function appears to be displaying adverts.
The results are striking. In the case of the marathon query, sites that contained lists of generic tips, such as 鈥渋nvest in a good pair of running shoes鈥�, were present in the top 10 in March but had disappeared by August, while high-quality sources, such as Runner鈥檚 World magazine, now appear near the top. Similar trends were found throughout the 50 queries.
The story is far from over. Search engines play such a prominent role in our lives 鈥� Google alone handles over a billion queries a day 鈥� that companies constantly vie for the top places in the results. Sites can rank highly by producing authoritative material, but this is expensive, so there will always be those looking for a cheap short cut. Content farms may be out for now, but with billions of dollars hanging in the balance, it鈥檚 just a matter of time before the next battle commences.
