The Difference Between Original Content and Bad Article Marketing

Since the algorithm changes to Google, there has been quite a bit of debate surrounding what truly constitutes as quality, original content vs what is just flat out bad article marketing. Resting at the center of those debates are what used to be some of the most prominent sites on the web. Many of which have been referred to as “content farms” since Google declared war. The changes have left countless domains with potentially damaging drops in traffic, but Google isn’t exactly where the blame should be placed. As with any business, Google has proclaimed that the objective is to “weed out” low-quality content from its search engine results. When Google users began issuing growing complaints regarding the quality of returned search results, this was cue to start thinking about making changes.

We all knew that it was coming, hence the reason none of us can really complain. It isn’t personal, it’s business. To many websites, the algorithm changes say one thing and one thing only: your content is not good enough. In many instances, this might be true. There is no denying that the potential exists for substantial revenue and acknowledgment by optimizing your digital turf. But in all too many cases, the thin line that separates the difference between original content and bad article marketing is all too distorted by greed.

Yes, I said greed.

The downfall to a lot of online content is that too much of it is geared towards pleasing the search engine crawlers and lacks focus on delivering quality, informational content to its readers.  Those that have been labeled “content farms”, such as Demand Media, Suite101, Hubpages and countless others have fired back insisting that they express deep concern for monitoring the originality of content across their websites. The problem is, not every perception of “original content” is the same. More often than not, content published on these websites must meet minimal conditions to be considered an “original” submission:

• Pass Copyscape
• Use keywords that are relevant to the content
• Avoid giving the impression of a sales pitch

Think you can handle those conditions? Congratulations, you qualify to become an “expert” contributor. By abiding to those conditions, content farms will provide contributors with a small chunk of the revenue they receive from incoming traffic. To sum it all up, they are the big dogs on top who reap the benefits of bribing others to fetch them a bone. Suite101, in particular, instructs contributors to “think like you’re searching”. Beginning March 31, Hubpages kicks off a contest challenging contributors to tackle long-tail keywords, paying little attention to discussing the expected quality of submissions. These incentives often lead to contributors who are publishing mass amounts of garbage that all say the same thing (i.e., bad article marketing).

When an internet search is carried out, the person behind the mouse doesn’t want to see five pages of articles that all contain similar or copied information. Yes, cleaning with vinegar may be effective, but that doesn’t make it a good idea for you to become one more writer who explains all the benefits that have already been covered time and time again.  If you feel deeply inspired to do so anyway, do yourself a favor by taking it in a new direction. I’m not exactly sure how many directions one can take the topic of cleaning with vinegar, but I digress… do something different. It is that precise type of overexposed content that has high potential for dragging down the rankings of an entire site.

Even though the websites below were hit the hardest by algorithmic changes to Google, that is not to say that they do not possess quality, original content. In fact, many of them do; however, those contributors that do take the time to construct a well-written article are being hindered by large numbers of writers who are focusing too hard on earning revenue.

The thing about writing for the web, or anywhere for that matter, is that creativity is a key factor. Whether the content is personal experience, factual or a guide to bettering marketing skills, what you write about is irrelevant compared to how you write it. The most well-known writers in history have only achieved the title by optimizing their creativity to the fullest extent, and using it to inspire emotion in readers.  Why should it be any less important to deliver the same amount of creativity and emotion when writing on the web?

Author: Holly Matheson     Holly Matheson on Twitter Holly Matheson RSS Feed

I’ve been a writer since the moment I was old enough to pick up a pen. My love for the written word stems from a passion for invoking new thoughts and emotions in readers through the arrangement of words that would otherwise be mundane on their own.

In 2009, I took… View full profile