Several times in these pages, I have mentioned Suite101, the content mill for which I used to write.
Content mills, aka content farms, are websites which produce a high volume of Internet content at minimum cost. They are highly profitable for their owners, while the most industrious writers can make at least some useful pocket money. But quantity is always likely to take precedence over quality, and standards are generally low: a passing acquaintance with grammar, spelling and punctuation is preferred, but not always required.
That working for a content mill is hardly the same as writing for HarperCollins is obvious. The mill wheels are kept turning by those who can find no other way of making money from writing, and most earn less than the people who stitch clothes together in third-world sweatshops.
Different mills have different business models, but Suite101 works on a pay-per-click basis. That is, each article is accompanied by (supposedly) relevant ads. Every time a reader clicks on one of these, a portion of the revenue generated goes to the writer. What this means is that search engine optimisation (SEO) is everything: writers salt their articles with keyword phrases which are good for Google hits. Quality writing is not the point.
Fearsome Panda
Well guess what. Fearing the loss of customers turned off by poor content, Google has altered the algorithm which it uses to rank search results. In late February, the big G rolled out its Panda algorithm, and three weeks ago let it loose globally. The avowed intention of Panda is to drive low-quality sites down the rankings.
Suite101 has taken a huge hit. In an interview with Wired on 3rd March, Google's Matt Cutts responded to Suite's outrage by saying “I feel pretty confident about the algorithm on Suite101.” Two days later, Suite101 CEO Peter Berger fired back with an open letter: “Suite101 is a site full of what we consider to be great writing: always colorful, creative, well written – eclectic in terms of topics covered and angles selected.”
Who was right?
Well, March saw the birth of MostProbablySuite101 (MPS), a satirical site which ridicules Suite's standards.
For a flavour of MPS, listen to this from 24th April: “Unlike Suite101′s Google rank, Jesus came back. (ZING!) It’s a good day to celebrate the resurrection of something . . . Drink up, be merry, eat good food, and read up on the latest controversy on the Suite101 forums.”
Or try this from 26th April: “Why do something positive with your time and make money, when you can post some Suite101 articles for free and just feel fortunate enough to see your name on the Internets [sic].”
Now the aim of MPS is to hold Suite101 to account for substandard articles. (It has also criticised Suite for altering its contract several times without alerting writers.) But it seems that just as soon as MPS points the finger, the article in question is removed. Which tells its own story – the same story told by Suite's claim to have recently deleted ten thousand sub-standard articles.
Examples of work denounced by MPS but not removed by Suite may be found here and here. The survival of these pieces presumably means that Suite regards them as acceptable.
MPS's vitriolic attack has caused outrage among the mill workers. One anonymous operative (styled simply “Ally”) was disgusted by the anonymity of MPS: “FUCKING OWN IT, MARSH! [Jennifer Marsh, supposed begetter of MPS] OWN IT, YOU LITTLE CUNT LICKER!”
Suite turns sour
On 24th April, the Suite forums went thermonuclear, though not everyone took to the barricades to defend the mill:
for the details of this terrible person go here
http://www.the-no-hoper.com/1/post/2011/05/suite101.html
Content mills, aka content farms, are websites which produce a high volume of Internet content at minimum cost. They are highly profitable for their owners, while the most industrious writers can make at least some useful pocket money. But quantity is always likely to take precedence over quality, and standards are generally low: a passing acquaintance with grammar, spelling and punctuation is preferred, but not always required.
That working for a content mill is hardly the same as writing for HarperCollins is obvious. The mill wheels are kept turning by those who can find no other way of making money from writing, and most earn less than the people who stitch clothes together in third-world sweatshops.
Different mills have different business models, but Suite101 works on a pay-per-click basis. That is, each article is accompanied by (supposedly) relevant ads. Every time a reader clicks on one of these, a portion of the revenue generated goes to the writer. What this means is that search engine optimisation (SEO) is everything: writers salt their articles with keyword phrases which are good for Google hits. Quality writing is not the point.
Fearsome Panda
Well guess what. Fearing the loss of customers turned off by poor content, Google has altered the algorithm which it uses to rank search results. In late February, the big G rolled out its Panda algorithm, and three weeks ago let it loose globally. The avowed intention of Panda is to drive low-quality sites down the rankings.
Suite101 has taken a huge hit. In an interview with Wired on 3rd March, Google's Matt Cutts responded to Suite's outrage by saying “I feel pretty confident about the algorithm on Suite101.” Two days later, Suite101 CEO Peter Berger fired back with an open letter: “Suite101 is a site full of what we consider to be great writing: always colorful, creative, well written – eclectic in terms of topics covered and angles selected.”
Who was right?
Well, March saw the birth of MostProbablySuite101 (MPS), a satirical site which ridicules Suite's standards.
For a flavour of MPS, listen to this from 24th April: “Unlike Suite101′s Google rank, Jesus came back. (ZING!) It’s a good day to celebrate the resurrection of something . . . Drink up, be merry, eat good food, and read up on the latest controversy on the Suite101 forums.”
Or try this from 26th April: “Why do something positive with your time and make money, when you can post some Suite101 articles for free and just feel fortunate enough to see your name on the Internets [sic].”
Now the aim of MPS is to hold Suite101 to account for substandard articles. (It has also criticised Suite for altering its contract several times without alerting writers.) But it seems that just as soon as MPS points the finger, the article in question is removed. Which tells its own story – the same story told by Suite's claim to have recently deleted ten thousand sub-standard articles.
Examples of work denounced by MPS but not removed by Suite may be found here and here. The survival of these pieces presumably means that Suite regards them as acceptable.
MPS's vitriolic attack has caused outrage among the mill workers. One anonymous operative (styled simply “Ally”) was disgusted by the anonymity of MPS: “FUCKING OWN IT, MARSH! [Jennifer Marsh, supposed begetter of MPS] OWN IT, YOU LITTLE CUNT LICKER!”
Suite turns sour
On 24th April, the Suite forums went thermonuclear, though not everyone took to the barricades to defend the mill:
for the details of this terrible person go here
http://www.the-no-hoper.com/1/post/2011/05/suite101.html
No comments:
Post a Comment