• http://coldfusionnerd.com Bret

    Any chance they can add Bleacher Report to their list? :)

  • http://blog.nexcerpt.com/ nexcerpt

    Such a common-sense solution — thanks Blekko! Months overdue, but wonderful to see a big player take the problem seriously. Very wise to let users influence the targets of the ban. Next: figure out how to keep these banned players from organizing to create “anti-SEO” teams, clicking to ban legitimate sites… ugh!

    You ask, how to ban content farms? What is banning content farms all about? When you decide to ban content farms, you will find that banning content farms is one of the best ways to ban content farms. Experts agree that the best reason to ban content farms is to get rid of the content from the content farms. LOL

  • http://www.lixam.de lixam LTD

    ehow is using Google Search and Google Advertising.
    So no chance Google will consider this to be a “content farm” or any kind of spam!

  • http://www.webconnoisseur.com/blog/ Dustin Woodard

    Sounds nice in theory, but perform a few queries and you’ll see how long-tail content sites like eHow actually do help out search engines, especially “how to” type queries: http://ugcseo.com/2011/02/01/blekko-banning-some-content-farm-sites/

  • Chris Pantages

    surprised not to see Mahalo included in that list

  • http://www.exposureonline.com TimDineen

    I’m not so sure this is “obviously in reaction” to Google’s plans. It’s simply a good idea and Blekko is moving forward first. Google has had a long time to clean this mess up and hadn’t made it a priority until now.

    I’d go with the angle that Blekko is pushing the issue and Google is doing the reacting.

  • Ian Williams

    There is potentially a wider debate over a definition of content farming – is Wikipedia a content farm? Is a news agency a content farm (they produce content to gain ad revenue, after all)?

    If the only defining criteria is that news agencies are perceived as higher quality than a content farm, well who determines that, and how? I’ve seen some appalling news agencies, and I’ve also seen some useful content farm articles.

    As an SEO I’d love to see content farms removed, and I welcome proactive moves to protect quality. However, I’m not at all sure about the actual implementation of such a blanket rule, and what it means for the integrity of the web (although quality of SERPs should ostensibly improve).

    Very, very interesting.

  • B. Dougherty

    We hateses the Content Farms, we really, really does.

    They are the parasites of the Internet.

    I’ll bet they scream bloody murder about this, though. I can just hear them now, defending their constitutional right to be indexed.

    Ian raises a great point: how to to distinguish a content farm from a legitimate site? Inbound links, maybe? Of course, the SEOs have gotten good at this game.

    Sometimes I think the only solution is to make everyone promise to play nice.

  • B. Dougherty

    They forgot to ban ehow.co.uk. Try this Blekko search:
    http://blekko.com/ws/%22How+to+Save+Grocery+Money+Growing+Herbs+Indoors%22

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Ian hit the nail on the head. How does one define quality content in a way that can’t be ‘gamed’? Inbound links? Easily gamed. Quality inbound links? Maybe, but recursive logic can make that tough to ferret out as well.

    Algorithms are inherently limited in this regard. Powerful for doing a good job at incredible scale; not powerful enough to do a perfect job in any given case, and subject to gaming in ways that human editors weren’t.

    The next great “innovation” in search might be human edited indexes ala Yahoo circa 1996.

  • http://www.destination360.com/ destination360

    Here’s a great example of why they should be snipped.

    Google: How to Renew an Expired Passport

    Search result #1 Ehow/Demand Media
    Search result #2 Ehow/Demand Media
    Search result #6 UsaToday/Demand Media
    Search result #10 Trails/Demand Media