Talk:Content farm/Archives/2013

Comment

The line "Authors are aware that the quality is not that good." is taking a side rather than staying objective, as it implies that the content is not good, which is a quality seperate from the perception of some (or even, theoretically, all, which is certainly not the case) of the writers employed by such content providers. I would strongly suggest that this segment be changed to better present a neutral, factual stance, however, I am not well informed enough on the subject to make the necessary changes myself, and so put out the call to anyone who is educated on the subject of content farms can better present their pros and cons in an unbiased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.74.84 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, What happened to freedom of press? This artcle shouldn't exist under the First Ammendment

Freedom of the press is the ability to bring real life news to the public however free from aberrations. A person need not require a licsense to do this since, as in licenseship to own a gun, journalism only requires an astute ear a sound mind and a sharp eye. Content farms as they are called are nothing more than WEBSITES bringing REAL NEWS with OPINION from the host, or journalist who is REPOSTING the information. It's appaling to me to think that personal conjecture has to be demonized because, while it is reposting already posted material within THE COMMONS, unless copyright is an issue, there simply is no matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.25.251 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This article does nothing to ban the freedom of speech, which is something you would like to do by saying that this article shouldn't exist. Ryan8374 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I have attempted to rewrite the article using most of the original content but recast with a more neutral tone. The content objected to regarding the phrase "(a)uthors are aware that the quality is not that good" has been reworded. The poorly written observation broadly implying criticism found in the article was in opposition to "freedom of the press" suggests "This artcle [sic] shouldn't exist under the First Ammendment [sic]" and I simply could not agree with that somewhat ironic statement. Sswonk (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To the point of what content farms do for the good of all.

Which is basically 'nothing'. The usual article found on a content farm is of far less informational quality than what may be found at wikipedia or at "howstuffworks" or at any number of non-content-farm free websites. Content farms exist only to lure people into visiting them and making money for the owner. They do not exist to inform anyone in any serious way about anything of value at all yet they dishonestly present themselves in search rankings as august oracles of authoritative information. Web site owners, whether they realize it or not, do have an obligation to make the site what it is claimed to be. If my guest asks for a loaf of bread, do I give him a bread-shaped piece of cardboard with an expired multi-vitamin taped to it, and then claim to the world that I have done something worthwhile and should be paid for it? Content farms are merely a noisy sort of deceptive internet garbage. I would hope that most people who land in such poo, do so with a stacked HOSTS file, javascript and cookies off, and immediately hit the 'back' button on their browser. Google's Chrome extension feature should be very helpful in removing content farms from personal results and eventually from Google results. I do not believe that content farms should be forbidden. I believe they should be avoided and where possible removed from legitimate search results. The preceding is an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.4.1.41 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Though these sites may bring little useful or original information in and of themselves, they are in essence actively working to adversely affect a search engine's ability to bring up truly relevant results. That is, they not only bring nothing to the table, but they occupy the space of those who do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilwombat (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)