Danny,

I spent the first eight months of Associated Content’s existence helping the company find ways to optimize the content for search while not sacrificing editorial quality. Yes, they pay amature ONLINE COPYWRITERS to write content that is both suitable for search engines and humans. NO, they did NOT write the crappy content you and the original post mentioned, so why do you even bother to keep it up? In hopes that someone will read your inflammatory remarks and not notice the disclaimer below? Isn’t it true that you have a degree in journalism? Well act like a journalist and remove your inaccurate statements instead of just putting up a little disclaimer.

I have a lot of respect for you, so I hope SEL doesn’t just turn into another sick source of hyperbole.

You want a better internet? Associated Content is trying to give it to you. You want an independent media where the users generate meaningful content instead of talking about who they have a crush on (myspace) or talking about nothing but SEO (Digg Spam and Blogs)? What about politics, and local events? What about the band that played down the street, or the first-hand account of an Iraq war veteran?

Are you telling me this isn’t good content?
An article about a young girl with Presidential dreams:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/203852/the_youngest_2008_presidential_candidate.html

An article about how a kid overcame drug abuse:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/186648/teenage_drug_abuse_really_screwed_up.html

An Honest Review of French Restaurants in Greenwich, Connecticut:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/187381/the_top_french_restaurants_in_greenwich.html

Sure, they may not win a Pulitzer, but I’d hardly say these pages are “polluting the internet”.

I randomly clicked on these articles. They weren’t searched out. These or the NORM, not the exception. Yes, some content is less than stellar. Some content has the keyword density turned up a few notches too high. But that’s because they’re giving inexperienced, but hopeful college students and young writers the opportunity to hone their skills at online copywriting.

Sorry, SIR SULLIVAN, but not everyone has been around as long as you.

Both your blog post and the post your referenced are completely one-sided and biased. Want to talk about sensationalism in the media? Have a look at your headline! “Might Pollute Google Results?”

If you see Associated Content articles in the Google Results, it’s because the site and the content management system was designed wit MY input. Want to blame someone for that? Blame me! Tim Armstrong had nothing to do with it, which is something I happen to be proud of.

And I’m also proud to have been involved in the project because I truly believe a “People’s Media” site is just what we need in order to accomplished what Blogging was “supposed” to accomplish, which is to take some of the power back out of the hands of corporate media and jaded, lazy, journalist, and allow people like you, me, and the gal next door to write about what interests them without spending five years developing an audience on their own blog.

Sincerely,

Everett Sizemore

See you in San Jose Mr. Sullivan

Comment by Everett | April 7, 2007 3:01 AM

Thanks for looking into this, Danny; I'm glad that the content from Kate's article apparently wasn't associated with the company.

Comment by Matt Cutts | April 7, 2007 3:15 AM

Everett, I hope it is now clear that the poor content spotted wasn't from Associated. That doesn't take away from a good reason to mention concerns there.

As I said in my article, when I looked at the Associated site itself, one article I highlighted looked at was OK. In fact, many of the articles seemed to be good to OK in quality. The weren't mishmashes or gibberish. If they were, I would have said so directly.

That doesn't take away from the concern that these type of articles, or even an article exchange, can potentially pollute a search engine's results.

For example, say 20 different people decide to purchase the same article for use on their sites. Now we have 20 duplicates, right? One has to win.

One those sites is let's say someone like Forbes, who as we've seen (example here) recently, has decided it is important to provide information about mesothelioma attorneys. Because you know, that's so core to the main editorial mission of Forbes.

Put one of those articles into an authority domain like Forbes, and it could outrank other pages on the web with much better information. There's nothing that prevents someone like Forbes from buying all the content out there, shoving AdSense at the top and taking in the money. And yes, that's a potential pollution of the search results.

Associated wouldn't be unique in helping other sites do things in this way, at least indirectly. Nor are they wrong in offering content. They can't control what people do with the content, and sites are looking for writers.

If anything, I agree, the content at Associated seems of better quality on the whole than you see at some other exchanges. But the business model could still contribute to pollution. And when the company is cofounded by an important executive from Google -- which you know also struggles with spam issues -- that is relevant to cover.

Moreover, as I explained, hyperlinking so many times from the same word within an article to an overall page starts to indicate there's a strong SEO attempt for this site, perhaps a little too extreme. That page is not the only example of this happening.

Finally, the issue of sponsored links being sold is extremely real. Google has waged an outright war on people selling links. They've established an atmosphere were people constantly second guess if they need to tag things with nofollow to not be seen as somehow harming Google. But at the Associated site, paid links -- links that appear sold for ranking purposes -- without nofollow or redirects?

By the way, in terms of adding the postscript about the content named in the ClickZ article not being from Associated, I did that rather than change the story so that you and others could see what I wrote originally. It wasn't designed to continue that claim. It was to make clear what I originally reported was wrong. I could pull that paragraph entirely, but I felt it was actually more fair for Associated to have me not trying to wipe out what I reported before. That postscript is directly after that claim, so I think it is completely noticeable.

The postscript about the sponsored links at the bottom is fine because as of the moment, what I've written about those links appears valid.

I think if there's a better way to phrase the headline overall. I'll think I've explained that even if the content isn't "crappy," it's perfectly possible that the content from Associated might indeed pollute Google results despite the best intentions of both the people at Associated and good writers like yourself and others who contribute. You need only visit any site where you only get to the content after tons of AdSense and other stuff shoved on top to understand this.

Also, apologies your comment didn't show immediately. The several links you had caused the spam filter to kick in.

Comment by Danny Sullivan | April 7, 2007 7:07 AM

I'd like to chime in here. AC's goal has always been to allow the public to contstruct a massive library of contrent - thus, allow the public to participate in the content economy. This means pushing the envelope - including, trying unique seo, revenue and syndication strategies. This is a difficult, always changing game. Winners take risks with their strategies. I appreciate the critial look at our methods here. We want our massive Content Producer community to be appropriately and ethically represented on associatedcontent.com and any other property that might access our content and Content Producers.

Briefly on a couple issues:
1) The questionalble sponsored links box on the right-hand side has been removed from the site and this will be re-evaluted.
2) While the interlinking within stories might be overkill, the logic is to inteconnect content, drive themes and link like-minded Content Producers (similar to a wiki). We are working to trim down and make more precise the number of interlinks within.

Anyway, thanks for the constructive commentary. We hope that someday AC and our Content Producers will make up the world's most productive media company. These conversations help.

-Luke, CEO and Content Producer at AC

Comment by Luke | April 7, 2007 11:26 AM

Hello Mr. Sullivan, I have followed some of your work from the get-go, and I admit I miss the old days (90s) on the Web.

But after reading Kate Kaye's article and your endorsement of it, I don't know whether to be depressed, angry or amused. I know. It is disappointment that I feel.

For starters, you linked to a poorly written SEO article that was written when the company first opened its doors (2005), and that content producer is no longer publishing. So this is not an accurate representation of the majority of the work currently on AC. At least not the work that gets any notice (page views). So I question your choice of it.

Even more disappointing is that you would support Kate Kay's sensational and inaccurate story, one where she surely took liberties and then only amended the damning, false content.

By association, Associated Content producers are equated to Google bottom-feeders by Ms Kaye and you. Well, you may find my article,” Confessions of a Page View Prostitute" interesting. Call me a page view whore if you will but a Google bottom-feeder, no, I draw the line here.

I am a good keyword writer and content writer. I have written for other prominent online media sources (I’ll avoid name slinging), and have yet to find a source that doesn’t keyword optimize. AC’s keyword density is higher I admit then most places I’ve worked, but the problem is…?

It takes skill to be able to write keyword-rich articles that sound natural and are informative. As far as I know this remains a highly desired skill on the Net.

Alledging that because AC producers accept $5 to $7 for payment for articles is an indication of poor quality, or AC producer are Google bottom-feeders because we write keyword dense content is one of the most wholesale, misguided attacks I have seen by a respected source.
For many it is a place to build ones portfolio and obtain additional income. While quality varies I found this attack quite petty.

Additionally, considering the source, it makes little sense at best and at worst is hypocritical. Who here doesn’t make money off of advertising revenue and who here doesn’t optimize for search engines.

While Google search results are lacking, in fact I believe it is worse now than in years past (pre-Ad Sense days), I find that Associated Content material on the whole is a viable contributor to the Internet and not part of the problem. Many article mills exist that deserve
such criticism, so the choice of AC is perplexing. Other than there is issue with its success.

It doesn’t matter how good one’s content is, if it can’t be found. In a utopian, academic world Google Ad-Sense and keywords be damned. But that is not very realistic now is it? Then consider the alternatives. How many individuals and people would be out of business? Oh, but the content would be good, or would it?

Comment by reviewer | April 7, 2007 1:01 PM

Danny,

Although I still disagree in the portrayal of Associated Content, and feel that the original post you referred to was unduly sensationalist, you make some valid points.

My words were more confrontational, I think, than need be. That is what happens when you start reading blogs at 1am on a Friday.

I want to make it extremely clear that, although I still visit AC regularly to read and view content, I am not an employee and am not contracted by the company. Therefore, I hope that my vehement does not reflect poorly on the good people at Associated Content.

Regarding Sponsored Links: As I've said before, if Google can't figure out that the links inside a table element that says "Sponsored Links" are sponsored, well that's their own problem isn't it?

Comment by Everett | April 7, 2007 1:02 PM