Content Farms (Finally) Put the Fear Into Google

Not in those words, of course. Nor did Google name names, announcing instead that it would be lowering the search rankings of sites deemed to be "low quality" or content rip-off site, e.g. one of who knows how many sites on the internet that just straight-up copy original content. As far as tweaking search algorithms, this is huge—like, unprecedented huge. To wit: the changes will effect 11.8 percent of all Google searches. And, notably, when matched to domains that users of Chrome's Personal Blocklist add-on have blocked, a full 84-percent of sites affected by the search ranking changes appear. That is, people that have the capability to block sites are already blocking the ones Google's punishing.

So Google's onto something, in other words.

There's no doubt content farms, like Demand Media, figure into this. Google's already fired shots across the bows of the internet's lamest search squatters. And it's no great surprise this eventually happened: content farms are a bummer to Google's business. If content farms are clogging up the search results of product A, well then, let's find product B, right? Google's instead said, No, it's cool. We've got this. So if your xtian buds are wondering why the internet stole their answerbag.com, the answer is "good business sense."

It bears mentioning, however, that there's something weird about this kind of blatant subjectivity entering into things, no matter how necessary. I think many of us consider Google search results to be at least mostly impartial, or unedited. For the level of day-to-day trust we put into it, we must. And if that perception changes, it might just be for the best. Because, after all, search results aren't totally objective. There's a whole lot to Google's search algorithms. The problem is, we don't have a too good idea of what all goes into them. The search tends to work for us, and so we use it.

It is not The Internet though. It's a product in a field of competing products all wanting your search business, to be your door to The Internet. There is already a specialized search site, blekko, that filters out content farms. Google could be unseated like anything else if something much better comes along. So Google tweaking its search algorithm might make for a good reminder that it isn't the be-all-end-all of the internet. Nor should it be. (It's worth mentioning that Google makes money off of content farms via its AdSense program, so understand that you aren't the only customers Google serves, but thankfully you are more important.)

Here's a fun Demand Media side note. Demand owns a site called Trails.com, a subscription topo map resource that doesn't really offer anything more than things you can get often for free with a little more digging. Naturally, for any search with "trail" in it, it rises right to the top, while quality sites like localhikes.com fall down in the results.

Trails.com has a free trial offer deal for 14 days. I bit. But it turns out you couldn't get the whole service with the "trial" and by that time, I figured out the site was a waste or at least some kind of sub-scam. I canceled and, naturally, still got charged $49.99 for the a subscription. I called, complained, and got the money back. And then a couple of weeks ago, I was charged for a renewal. $49.99. They'd hung onto a card number for a defunct account, and then charged it again. Gross.

They don't publish a customer service phone number, just offer an e-mail form. I haven't heard back since writing and filed a BBB complaint today. (BBB gives trailss.com an "F" ranking.) So there: that's my conflict of interest. Deep in my heart are the words fuck you, Demand Media; I want my money back. Now you know.

Related
Aol's New Patch of Internet Is All Hyper Local Mojo
Rupert Murdoch Touts Paywalls, Waves Fist at Search Engines

Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv.