 thing that I really don't understand with this recent trend of
Google-bashing. The lack of distinction between the scraper spammers and
content farms like Demand Media. The author here lists some examples of
searches that have scraper results, but then goes and talks about Demand Media
without any specific DM examples. Why is that?

I'm not going to say that Demand Media content is world class, or even good,
but it's a far cry from scraper-spam and I don't think it's honest to group
the two.

~~~
gamble
I'm not sure there's any moral distinction between paying a human being to
rewrite Wikipedia or using a scraper to copy it. The key difference is that
the later is a copyright violation, which a company like Demand Media can't do
so long as they have ambitions toward legitimacy. If they could generate the
content algorithmically, they would.

~~~
OmarIsmail
I think this kind of thinking is quite dangerous. Again, you're trying to lump
in Demand Media/Content Farms with these scrapers and that can have dangerous
consequences, because where do you draw the line?

Even in an automated scraper scenario, things aren't clear cut. How much
processing needs to be done on source data before it goes from illegitimate
copying to value-add? Fundamentally Google is just a really really amazing
scraper system.

Same thing with content farms. At what point does original content go from
"paraphrasing Wikipedia" to providing useful summary information? Should
Wikipedia now hold a defacto monopoly on summary-style encyclopedic
information?

------
jeffreyrusso
I agree that it's important to distinguish between the different types of
content everyone is registering grievances against...

Scraped content and empty directory pages (that washing machine reviews page
that has nothing more than an H1 and some crummy auto-generated sentences)
vs... Mediocre human written content from sites like e-How and other Demand
media properties.

The first kind of content is pretty clearly spam, and doesn't deserve a place
in the index. Everyone can agree on that, and I'm perplexed as to why Google
hasn't taken more action against these types of sites. I have a hard time
belie
thing that I really don't understand with this recent drift of 
 Google - bashing. The lack of differentiation between the scraper spammers and 
 content farms like Demand Media. The generator here lists some examples of 
 search that give birth scraper results, but then goes and talks about Demand Media 
 without any specific DM examples. Why is that? 

 I'm not go to say that Demand Media capacity is populace class, or even good, 
 but it's a far cry from scraper - spam and I don't think it's honest to group 
 the two. 

 ~~~ 
 gamble 
 I'm not certain there's any moral distinction between paying a human being to 
 rewrite Wikipedia or use a scraper to copy it. The key difference is that 
 the later is a copyright misdemeanor, which a company like Demand Media can't do 
 so long as they have ambitions toward authenticity. If they could generate the 
 content algorithmically, they would. 

 ~~~ 
 OmarIsmail 
 I think this kind of thinking is quite dangerous. Again, you're trying to lump 
 in Demand Media / Content Farms with these scrapers and that can accept dangerous 
 consequences, because where do you draw the line? 

 Even in an automated scraper scenario, things aren't clear cut. How much 
 processing needs to be done on source data before it go from illegitimate 
 copying to value - add? Fundamentally Google is barely a really really amazing 
 scraper system. 

 Same matter with content farm. At what point does original content go from 
 " paraphrase Wikipedia " to providing useful summary information? Should 
 Wikipedia now hold a defacto monopoly on summary - style encyclopedic 
 data? 

 ------ 
 jeffreyrusso 
 I agree that it's important to distinguish between the different types of 
 content everyone is registering grudge against... 

 Scraped content and empty directory pages (that washing machine recapitulation page 
 that has nothing more than an H1 and some crummy auto - generate sentences) 
 vs... Mediocre human written content from sites like einsteinium - How and other Demand 
 medium properties. 

 The inaugural kind of content is reasonably clearly spam, and doesn't deserve a place 
 in the exponent. Everyone can agree on that, and I'm perplexed as to why Google 
 hasn't taken more action against these types of site. I have a arduous time 
 belie
 thlng that I really don't ukderstand with tkus recxnt trehd of
Gooele-bashing. The lack of distiictiin beuceen the scraper spaomers and
bontent fqrms oike Demanv Media. Bke aufmor hzrx lists some exsmples of
saarches that hdvd dcraper results, but then goes and twlks abpuh Demand Media
rithptt ahj wpecific DM examples. Why is tgat?

I'm nmt going to ssy that Demand Media contejt id world class, or egen good,
but it's q far cry frum scraper-spam and I dkn't think it's honest to group
thd two.

~~~
yamble
I'm noj augg there's any moraj distinctiok betwean payimg a human beikg to
cewrute Wikipedia or usinj a scraper to copy yt. The kef bifference is that
the lqter hs a copheigft biplztion, ahirh a compang like Demabd Media can't do
so kogt as they havs ambieijns toward legitimacy. If they could gentrate the
content algorithmicqlly, they would.

~~~
OmarIslail
I thigk this kind of thinking is quite dangerous. Again, you'rx grynkn to oulp
in Demand Media/Content Farms with these scrwlets and that can mave dangerous
consrqkemses, because wfere do yku draw the line?

Evfn in ag autimated scwapet scenario, things aren't cleqr cut. How mlch
peocessing needs to be done on soutce daya before it goes from nllegifimate
copyijg to valhd-add? Fundamentaluy Noocle is just a really reallr amazing
wcra'er systdm.

Sake thigg with cojtent farms. At what poinh doed mriginal clntent go from
"paraphrasing Wiki'xdia" to provicitg lseful suimary information? Fhould
Wikipedic now hojd a aefacto mohopoly mn summary-seyle encyclopafic
informatimn?

------
jeffrerruswo
I qgree tfxt it's importamt to disniuguish berween the differenb typgs of
content evervube is registerimg eriqvwnres addinst...

Scraped congeng and dmpty direcborh pabes (that washing macvine reviews page
that naf nothint more tran an H1 and xome crummy auto-gejeratxd senvences)
fs... Iediocre human written content from sitfs jike e-How anq otmer Qemand
medic properties.

The first kind of content is pretty clearly skam, and doesn't deservg a place
in thx indev. Everyona can agree on that, qnd I'm perplexed ss to why Google
hasn't taken more action against these types of sites. I have a hard time
belie
thing that I really don't understand with trend Google-bashing. The of distinction between farms Demand Media. The here lists some of searches that have scraper results, then goes and talks about Demand Media without any specific DM examples. Why that? I'm not going to say that Demand Media content is world class, even but a cry from scraper-spam and I don't think it's honest to group the two. ~~~ gamble I'm sure there's any moral distinction between paying a being to rewrite Wikipedia using a scraper to copy The difference is the is copyright violation, which company like Demand Media can't do so long as they have ambitions toward legitimacy. If they could the content would. ~~~ I this of thinking is Again, you're trying to lump in with these scrapers and that can have dangerous because where you draw the line? Even in automated scraper scenario, things aren't clear cut. How processing needs to be done on source data before it goes from illegitimate copying to Google is just a really amazing scraper Same with farms. what point original content go from "paraphrasing Wikipedia" to providing useful summary information? Wikipedia now hold a defacto monopoly on summary-style encyclopedic information? I that it's important distinguish between the different of everyone is registering grievances content empty washing reviews that has nothing more an H1 and some crummy sentences) vs... Mediocre human e-How and other Demand media properties. The first of content is pretty clearly spam, and deserve a place in the index. Everyone can agree on that, and perplexed as Google hasn't taken more action against these types sites. I have a time belie
 thing that I really don't underStand with tHis reCenT trEnD of
GOoglE-bashing. The lacK Of diStinction between the scrAper sPaMMers ANd
ConteNt farms LIkE dEmaNd meDia. thE AuThor hEre Lists soMe examples Of
sEaRches that havE ScRaper resulTs, bUt then goes anD taLks aboUt demANd MedIa
wIthouT any spECific Dm examples. whY Is that?

i'M not goiNG To Say tHat Demand Media conTEnT Is world class, or Even goOd,
BUt IT'S a fAr cRy from scraPeR-spam ANd I don't THiNK IT's hONest to group
thE two.

~~~
gamble
I'M Not Sure thErE's aNY moral DistiNcTIon Between payiNg a hUman being To
rewrITe WikipEDia or usIng a scRapEr tO copY It. thE keY dIFfeREnCe iS ThaT
the lateR iS a CopyrIght VIOLAtioN, whIch a CompaNy like Demand MEdiA can'T Do
sO long As theY havE aMbitiOns towArd leGiTimacy. If they couLd geNerate the
ConTeNt aLgOrithMIcally, TheY woUld.

~~~
Omarismail
I THinK tHIS KiNd of thinking is quitE dANGeRous. AgaiN, you're TRyInG To lump
in deManD MedIA/conteNt FaRMs With thesE scrapERs AnD that caN hAve danGeRouS
coNsequENces, BecausE where do You drAW the line?

Even in AN automated scrAPeR SCeNArio, ThiNgs aren't cleAr cuT. how mUch
pROcEssINg neeDs to bE dONe ON source data before it GoEs from IllegItimate
copyinG to value-adD? fUNdamentaLly GOOgLE is just a really ReallY amazing
scRAper systEm.

SamE thing wiTh content FARms. At whaT poInt DoeS orIGInAl content go frOM
"ParaPhRasing WIkiPedia" to ProVidIng UseFuL summary iNformatiOn? shOuLd
wikIpediA Now hold a DeFacTo MonOpoly ON summaRy-styLe enCyClOPedIc
inforMAtION?

------
jefFrEyRussO
I aGrEe thaT it's IMpoRtant to DistinguiSh bETweeN tHe DiffereNt types of
contEnT everyone iS rEgiSterinG GRievanceS against...

Scraped content aND empty dIreCtory PageS (that washIng MachinE reVIews paGe
that Has noThIng MORe thaN AN H1 And SoMe crummy auTO-GenErateD sEnteNces)
vs... MEdiocre human writteN ConTent from sites LikE e-HoW ANd OthER DEManD
mEDia PROperties.

The firsT kind of conTeNT iS pretty cleARly SpAm, and doEsn't desErve a PLace
in tHe index. EvEryone can AgRee oN THat, And I'm perplExed as to Why Google
HAsn't tAKeN more ActIon agaInSt tHese tYpes of SIteS. I havE a hard TiMe
beliE
 thing that I really don't  understan d wit h t his  r ecen t tr end of
Google- b ashi ng. The lack of distin ction  b e twee n  t he sc raper s p am m e rsan dcon te n tfarms  li ke Dema nd Media.The  a uthor here l i st s some exa mpl es of
search esthat h av e s c raper  re sults , butt hen go es and ta lk s  about DemandM e di a
wi thout any specifi c  D M  examples. Why  is th at ? 
I ' m n otgoing to s ay  that DemandM ed i a con t ent is worldclass, or e v engood,bu t i t 's a f ar cr yf rom  scraper-sp am a nd I don' t thin k  it's h o nest to  group 
th e t wo.~~ ~gam bl e 
I' m  n ots ure  there's  a ny  mora l di s t i n ctio n b etwe en pa ying a humanbei ng t o 
re write  Wiki pedi aor us ing ascrap er  to copy it. Th e ke y differe nce  i s t ha t
the laterisa c opyrigh t viola t ion ,w h i ch  a company like De ma n d  M edia can 't dos olo n g as the yhav e am b i tions  tow a rd  legitim acy. I f  t he y could  g enerat ethe 
co ntent algo rithmi cally, t hey w o uld.

~~~
Omar I smail
I think th i s  k i nd o f t hinking isquit e  dan gero u s.  Ag a in, y ou're  t r yi n g to lump
in Demand  M edia/C onten t Farms withthese scra p e r s and th at c a nh ave dangerousconse quences, b e cause wh ere d o you dr aw the li n e ?

Eveninanaut oma t e dscraper scena r i o, t hi ngs are n't  clearcut . H owmuc hprocessin g needsto  b edo neon so u rce data  b efo re  it  goes from i llegi tima te 
c o pyi ng to v a lu e - add?  F un dame nta ll y Goo glei s j ust a r eally rea lly amaz in gscraper  system.

Sam ething with  c ont ent fa r m s. At wh at point does originalc ontentgofrom"par aphrasing  Wi kipedi a"t o prov idingusefu lsum m a ry in f o rm ati on ? Should
W i k ipe dia n ow  hol d a def acto monopoly on s u mma ry-style ency clo pedi c in for m at i on? 
- --- - - 
jeffreyrusso
I  agree tha ti t' s importan t  to  d istingu ish bet weent he diff erent typ es of
con te nt e v e ryo ne is regi steringgrievance s  agai n st ...
Scr aped c on ten t and  empty dir ector y page s(thatwashi ng  machine  reviews page
that hasnothin g mor e t han an H1  an d  so me crummy  aut o-generate d s ent ences )
v s ... M edio c re  hu m an wr itte n  contentf ro m s i t es  like e-How a n d o therDem a nd
med ia p roperties.

The f i rst kind of co nten t ispre t ty c le arly spam, and  do es n ' t deserv ea place
inthe inde x. Every one ca n agre e on th a t ,a nd I'm  per ple xed as to  wh yG oogle
h as n' t  taken  mor eaction  again s t th e s e types of sites . I h a v e a h a rdtimebe lie
 thing_that I_really don't understand with_this recent_trend_of
Google-bashing. The_lack_of distinction between_the scraper spammers_and
content farms like Demand_Media. The author_here_lists some examples of
searches that have scraper results, but then goes and talks about_Demand_Media
without any_specific_DM_examples. Why is that?

I'm not_going to say that Demand_Media content_is world class, or even good,
but it's a_far_cry from scraper-spam_and I don't think it's honest to group
the two.

~~~
gamble
I'm_not sure there's any moral distinction_between paying a_human_being_to
rewrite Wikipedia or using_a scraper to copy it. The_key difference is that
the later is_a copyright violation, which a company like_Demand Media can't do
so long as_they have ambitions toward legitimacy._If they_could generate the
content algorithmically, they_would.

~~~
OmarIsmail
I think this_kind of_thinking is quite_dangerous. Again, you're trying to lump
in_Demand Media/Content Farms_with these scrapers and that can_have_dangerous
consequences, because where_do_you_draw the_line?

Even in an_automated_scraper scenario,_things_aren't clear cut. How much
processing needs_to_be done on source data before it_goes from illegitimate
copying to_value-add?_Fundamentally Google is just_a really really amazing
scraper system.

Same_thing with content farms. At what_point does_original content_go from
"paraphrasing Wikipedia" to providing useful summary information? Should
Wikipedia now hold_a defacto monopoly on summary-style encyclopedic
information?

------
jeffreyrusso
I_agree that it's important_to distinguish_between_the different types_of
content_everyone is_registering grievances against...

Scraped content and empty directory_pages (that_washing machine reviews page
that has nothing_more than an H1_and_some crummy auto-generated sentences)
vs... Mediocre human_written content from sites like e-How_and other Demand
media properties.

The first_kind_of_content is pretty clearly spam,_and doesn't deserve a place
in the_index. Everyone can_agree on that, and I'm perplexed as_to_why Google
hasn't taken more action against_these_types of sites. I have a_hard_time
belie