ChristinaGleason.com

Christina Gleason, M.A., Digital Media Creator

  • About
  • Hire Me
  • Media
  • Contact
  • About
  • Hire Me
  • Media
  • Contact
You are here: Home / content creation / Google Says Quality is Dirt Cheap, Don’t Hire Copywriters

Google Says Quality is Dirt Cheap, Don’t Hire Copywriters

June 10, 2009 By Christina Gleason 65 Comments

Tweet

According to Matt Cutts of Google, Internet marketers should avoid the unethical practice of buying links by paying a few pennies to the folks who complete tasks via Amazon Mechanical Turk and scoring free links from their efforts. Let me rephrase that: Google says it’s wrong to pay for other people to link to your website, but it’s totally cool to score hundreds or thousands of links – not by paying a professional copywriter to create an awesome resource for you – but by spending about 20 bucks for a handful of people to perform cheap labor for you with Amazon Mechanical Turk. Don’t believe me? Watch this video.

In case you’re unfamiliar with Amazon Mechanical Turk, it’s a place where companies pay unwitting individuals a few cents to complete tasks that can’t be automated. Looking to work from home? As I write this blog post, you can earn a whole penny for taking 10 minutes to answer some questions about a news article. If you do six of these tasks in an hour, you’re making an hourly wage of 6 whole cents! I tried doing these tasks when I was unemployed last year, and even with my efficiency, I wasn’t even making minimum wage.

crap

But according to Google, this is a perfectly acceptable way to outsource crowdsource your linkbait. Matt Cutts talks about someone who paid a total of $25 to get a whole bunch of people to compile a list of adjectives about top Twitter users. This is quality content. And not just any quality content, it’s pure linkbait gold. This is what  Google wants to index. It’s completely within their guidelines for ethical SEO.

As a damn good copywriter, I take offense to this. This isn’t quality content. This is crap. This is pandering to the lowest common denominator for a quick chuckle, and paying slave wages to make it happen. Where is the quality in that? Tell me, Matt Cutts of Google’s Webspam team, why would you promote the proliferation of crap like this online instead of encouraging people to invest in something of value?

Dude, I was a Quality Rater. I know what your quality guidelines are – or at least what they were a year and a half ago. Have you really fallen so far? Do you really want to tell the world that what the Internet needs is another insipid fluff piece about Twitter? I’m sorry, sir, but you’ve just discredited everything you’ve ever said about quality content online.

And what is “white hat” about paying crap wages for something inane that could potentially make your business thousands of dollars? That may not break anything in your Webmaster guidelines, but it certainly doesn’t seem ethical to me. Just because you can get away with paying someone a nickel for 45 minutes of work doesn’t mean that you should. In fact, it would be against U.S. employment laws if there was an employee relationship involved. But that’s a whole different rant about the abuse of independent contractors.

All content is paid for in one form or another. I happen to make a living writing quality content because, during my stint as a Quality Rater, I actually wanted to try and make the Internet a better place. What’s the difference in paying writers (say, bloggers perhaps?) to review and link to your product than paying someone to produce content for you in order to attract links? On one hand, the money goes to the writer to manipulate people into linking, on the other hand, the money goes to the writer who was “manipulated” into publishing the link.

Oh wait, that’s right… bloggers should work for free and shouldn’t be paid for linking to companies in the first place. That’s essentially what it’s come down to when Google instituted this “no paid links” policy. The companies don’t suffer. They’re getting free freaking publicity by not paying bloggers to link to them. Yeah, I’m a blogger, too. It’s ridiculous how many moms I know are working for free so that they can have the “honor” of reviewing a $5 product and not get slammed for writing a paid review. It’s crap.

But Google doesn’t respect content creators. That much is clear. It just wasn’t obvious to me just how badly the search giant wanted to screw content producers until now. Google doesn’t really care about quality content. They just want everyone to jump through their hoops so they can keep making money hand over fist for other people’s hard work.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • WhatsApp

Filed Under: content creation Tagged With: blogging, content creation, Google, paid links, quality, SEO writing, Web content, writing services

Comments

  1. Sheri says

    June 15, 2009 at 11:17 am

    I can’t believe I’m late to THIS discussion *slaps self*. Man…do I have plenty to say (but I’ll keep it short). The web is overflowing with garbage: sweat-shop rehashed content, pushed by ubiquitous self-celebs….people who become famous by giving the appearance of being famous. Sheer visibility, coupled with overwhelming ego, delivered with suffocating pomposity.

    Fresh perspective takes time, thought, research and editing. Paying someone pennies to produce content is a great deal like ordering fertilizer and receiving elephant crap. It’s just a big stinky pile of poo unless it’s properly composted.

    If Google favors crap found by people who don’t have the brains and ability to get paid a living wage, that explains a great deal about the preponderance of utter cowflop dominating the web.

    It is unfortunate that some businesses are unwilling to pay a decent wage for the single most important sales tool they can employ. Excellent writing is rare. And worth every penny.

  2. Peggy Karp says

    June 30, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    I’m probably at least 30 years older than you and everyone who’s commented. I’m not internet savvy, don’t twitter, for that matter don’t own a television set. But I do know exploitation when I see it. After listening to a favorable review of mechanical turk on NPR’s Marketplace (the only caveat was “SOME jobs on MT may pay below minimum wage”) I went to the MT site and couldn’t believe what I saw. 1984 flashed before my eyes: As in George Orwell. As in creating a race of slaves.

    Volunteer labor? Hardly. Economic necessity is a “gun to the head” of billions on the planet. What’s scariest to me is that aside from your article and maybe a few others I haven’t found yet there’s virtually no outcry against MT, no understanding of what it represents. Thank you for sounding the alarm.

  3. Leila says

    July 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    I am a professional writer too. Let’s face it. People don’t value what we do because everyone can string some words together. We just do it better. The solution is to have our own blogs that earn ad revenue instead of letting others decide what they should pay us. A writer’s blog is going to be better than a non-writer’s blog every time. That’s how we can compete.

  4. Steve says

    November 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    There’s a lot of strong feelings about Mechanical Turk here. I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment:

    -Mechanical Turk isn’t limited to the US.
    -If you live in a part of the world where (1) jobs are scarce, (2) the standard of living is low and (3) you can get internet access, Mechanical Turk is a boon. Because the jobs are so great? No. Because it’s work? Yes.
    -Think back to earlier in the decade when offshoring became a volatile topic. For everyone American saying “They took our jobs!” there was someone in a developing country who’s standard of living has just gotten a boost.

    If you have some compassion for the world outside of the US, now’s the time to remember about it. Mechanical Turk tasks generally aren’t a good supply of jobs for US workers where (1) the cost of living is really, really high and (2) our minimum wage is high enough to, on some level, accomadate that. (I have to qualify that, because I’m not any more interested in working for minimum wage than the rest of your are. And that’s largely because wouldn’t want to have to move from my small, crappy appartment to a small, crappy, cockrach-infested one.)

    I wouldn’t expect a US worker to embrace working through Mechanical Turk jobs any sooner than the average American would embrace the idea of relocating to an underdeveloped country to find work. But don’t forget that work that seems unacceptable to a wealthy country may be much more desirable to others. And how will we create global equality? By forcing the wealthly to embrace a lower standard of living? (Just try to find way to make that happen that doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. And before you say “yeah but…the rich infringe upon the rights of the poor all the time,” remember that two wrongs don’t make a right.) No, it’s by raising the standard of living for the least wealthy until equalization occurs naturally.

  5. Curt says

    January 10, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Now I’m really starting to like you.

    I couldn’t agree more. Google has changed into a dark force on the Internet in which their intentions are not in your favor.

  6. SteveG says

    June 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    I think Christina hit it exactly on the head.. Hypothetically, someone could semi automate auto blogs using Turk, pay $1 per post, or less, generate 100 blogs, 10 posts per blog for 10 weeks of “fresh content” and still only be out $100.. And who does that benefit?? Readers?? Nope, no readers on those blogs?? Writers?? Nope, no real writer would ever write like that for that little money.. Google?? Maybe, if that person was running 6 ad blocks from adsense and churning through the top paying terms for that blog run..

    Couple that with a few other “tools” and you have a way to make a fair amount of money while contributing absolutely nothing of value to the internet community..

    Nope, nothing evil here at all.. Good thing I don’t know anyone that does that..

« Older Comments

Trackbacks

  1. » Sweatshop blogging. Good for marketers, bad for writers. - ibrandcasting.com says:
    June 18, 2009 at 7:27 am

    […] recent post by content guru Christina Gleason uncovers the dark underbelly of what Google considers good […]

  2. » Sweatshop blogging. Good for marketers, bad for writers. - brandsplat says:
    June 18, 2009 at 7:35 am

    […] recent post by content guru Christina Gleason uncovers the dark underbelly of what Google considers good […]

  3. Google Wants Artists to Work for FREE — Christina Gleason - Founder of Phenomenal Content LLC says:
    June 22, 2009 at 10:30 am

    […] got all angry about Google’s Matt Cutts waxing poetic about Amazon Mechanical Turk as a form of sweatshop labor for linkbait. I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re not just interested in getting the […]

  4. aggregator » Blog Archive » Per Google la qualità dei contenuti non ha valore says:
    July 6, 2009 at 6:16 am

    […] Secondo Matt Cutts, chi si occupa di marketing su internet dovrebbe evitare la pratica immorale di acquistare link a pochi centesimi da persone che completano task di altri su Amazon Mechanical Turk procurandosi link gratuiti grazie ai loro sforzi. Riformulo il concetto: Google dice che è sbagliato pagare altre persone per farsi linkare, mentre è assolutamente corretto ottenere centinaia o migliaia di link – non pagando un copywriter professionista per creare un ottimo contenuto – ma spendendo una ventina di dollari per una manciata di persone che svolgono un lavoro a bassissimo prezzo via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Non mi credi? guarda questo video. Se non sai bene come funziona Amazon Mechanical Turk, sappi che è un sito dove è possibile pagare alcuni individui per completare dei compiti che non possono essere eseguiti in modo automatico. Cerchi un lavoro da casa? mentre io scrivo questo post per il blog, tu puoi guadagnare qualche centesimo prendendoti 10 minuti di tempo per rispondere a qualche domanda. Se riesci a completare 6 task in un ora, puoi guadagnare ben 6 centesimi! Ho provato il servizio lo scorso anno, quando ero senza lavoro, e nonostante la mia efficienza non ho guadagnato praticamente nulla. Ma in base a quanto afferma Google, è un modo perfettamente legale per esternalizzare la tua strategia di linkbaiting. Matt Cutts (nel video linkato qui sopra) parla di qualcuno che ha pagato la cifra di 25 dollari per ottenere che un intero gruppo di persone compilasse per lui una lista di aggettivi da abbinare agli utenti top di Twitter. Questo per lui è un contenuto di qualità. E non è solo un contenuto di qualità, è una strategia di linkbaiting che vale oro. Questo è ciò che Google vuole indicizzare. Ed è perfettamente aderente alle sue linee guide sull’etica SEO. Da buona copywriter, ma sento offesa da questo. Non sono contenuti di qualità. Sono schifezze. Si tratta di acquistare una “sveltina” al minor prezzo possibile, di pagare degli schiavi per ottenere il servizio. Dov’è la qualità in questo? Dimmi, Matt Cutts del Google Webspam Team, perchè promuovi la proliferazioni di schifezze come queste invece di incoraggiare la persone ad investire su qualcosa di valore? Ragazzi, io ero una Quality Rater. Conosco le linee guida di Google circa la qualità – o almeno le conoscevo fino ad un anno e mezzo fa. Siete davvero caduti così in basso? Volete davvero raccontare al mondo intero che Internet ha bisogno dell’ennesimo insipido pezzo su Twitter? Mi spiace, signori, ma avete appena screditato tutto ciò che avete sempre detto in merito alla qualità dei contenuti online. E cosa c’è di “white hat” nel pagare salari da fame per qualcosa che potrebbe portare ad una attività migliaia di dollari? Ciò non potrà modificare le vostre linee guida, ma certamente non è qualcosa di etico per me. Solo perchè si trova qualcuno che lavora 45 minuti per un centesimo, ciò non significa che va pagato quello cifra. In realtà, sarebbe anche contro le leggi degli Stati Uniti relative all’occupazione, se si creasse con quella persona un rapporto di assunzione. Tutti i contenuti sono pagati, in una forma o in un’altra. Mi sono messa a produrre contenuti di qualità in quanto, durante il periodo nel quale ero Quality Rater, ho cercato di rendere Internet un posto migliore. Qual’è la differenza fra il pagare uno scrittore (o un blogger) per recensire e linkare il tuo prodotto rispetto a qualcuno che produca contenuti per te con lo scopo di attrarre dei link? Da un lato, i soldi vanno allo scrittore per indurre altri a linkare il pezzo; dall’altro, i soldi vanno allo scrittore che è stato “indotto” a pubblicare il link. Aspetta, è vero… chi blogga dovrebbe farlo gratuitamente e contemporaneamente non dovrebbe essere pagato per linkare qualcuno. Essenzialmente questo è ciò che è successo da quando Google ha inserito il “no paid link” nella sua policy. Per le aziende non è un problema. Continuano a ottenere pubblicità gratuita, grazie ai blogger non pagati che le linkano. Si, anche io sono una blogger. E’ ridicolo vedere quante mamme stanno lavorando gratuitamente solo per avere l’”onore” di recensire un prodotto per 5 dollari. E’ uno schifo. Ma Google non rispetta chi crea contenuti. Questo è chiaro. E’ talmente ovvio, il gigante della ricerca vuole solo fottuti contenuti. A Google non importa della qualità di questi contenuti. Vuole solo tutti si sbattano all’inverosimile, in modo da poter continuare a guadagnare soldi a palate grazie al duro lavoro di altri. Fonte: Google Says Quality is Dirt Cheap, Don’t Hire Copywriters. […]

  5. Your Content Should Educate, Engage, Entertain and Entice | Did You Know? says:
    July 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    […] a somewhat-unrelated side note, if you haven’t read Christina Gleason’s post Google Says Quality Is Dirt Cheap, Don’t Hire Copywriters from earlier this week, do it.] Share and […]

  6. 6 Tips for Behavior and Managing Social Media Community Profiles | RJ67 says:
    September 25, 2009 at 11:40 am

    […] let your ego get the best of you on these social sites. Other companies and other people can write quality content and can create something shareable. Don’t shy away from spreading the good […]

  7. Why I Should Be in the We Blog Conference Focus Group — Cutest Kid Ever - A Mommy Blog says:
    January 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    […] should be compensated for their efforts at the Type-A Mom blogger town hall meeting, and about how writers and independent contractors in general should be paid better. I make my living writing. I work closely with a handful of talented and successful Internet […]

  8. Why I’m Not Cheap and Why That’s a Good Thing | Angie's Copywriting Services says:
    June 21, 2010 at 8:21 am

    […] Google Says Quality Is Dirt Cheap, Don’t Hire Copywriters […]

  9. Get Relationship Help says:
    June 21, 2021 at 2:43 am

    Get Relationship Help

    Google Says Quality is Dirt Cheap, Don't Hire Copywriters – ChristinaGleason.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright © 2023 Christina Gleason