content farm

Content farms are companies that create a large quantity of Internet content written specifically for the purpose of generating advertising revenue through high Internet traffic. They are sometimes also referred to as content mills. They create content quickly, focusing on quantity rather than quality. These companies hire freelance writers with assignments based on analysis of the most frequent searches entered into mainstream automated search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Along with contracting writers, sites often depend on user submissions as well, sometimes generating thousands of content pieces per day. This entry discusses how content farms work, critiques of and support for the work of content farms, and controversy over steps by Google to prevent content farm sites from appearing in search results.

In a process called search engine optimization, content farms take advantage of algorithms built into search engines, using phrases and terms, both in the text and the site’s metadata, that these algorithms will flag, making the sites appear at or near the top of an Internet search. Due to the high number of hits the sites receive because of their placement in search results, they are highly valued by advertisers, but content farms’ focus on quick profit and high quantity over depth and quality has led to criticism.

Two of the most widely recognized content farms are Answers.com and Leaf Group, formerly Demand Media. Leaf Group owns many sites, including the popular eHow.com. Early in its history, in 2009, Demand Media reportedly published roughly 4,000 articles and videos a day.

A common search engine optimization practice among content farms is related to the long-tail distribution model of Internet commerce. In the long-tail model, sites make their money through offering a large number of specific niche-based items rather than fewer and more popular mainstream items. For example, if a content farm determines that fly-fishing is a popular and lucrative niche topic, they will commission freelancers to write hundreds (or thousands) of articles related to fly-fishing, giving readers information on lures, hot spots, tips, and gear. These content pieces are presented next to advertisements that fit a general demographic related to the topic of an article determined by the content farm’s analysis and will feature in-text hyperlinks to products and other pieces created by the company. The piece will also highlight links to the other pieces within a general category.

The process of content creation begins with an analysis of automated search engines’ results. Farms will purchase bulk data from Internet service providers, search engines, and Internet marketing firms. Using keyword frequency culled from these data, they calculate how much advertisers are likely to pay alongside the more frequent keywords. These calculations are made possible with the help of a program in Google that allows businesses to bid on keywords. The farms take these figures and check for the keywords with the least amount of competition already published online. The process is completely automated up to this point. The resulting phrases, such as “how to hard boil egg microwave,” “best mechanic Mercedes Pittsburgh,” or “homemade iPod case,” are contracted out to freelance writers who are paid on a piece-by-piece rate. The writers turn the phrases into articles of a few hundred words; some farms also employ videographers in a similar fashion. According to Wired’s 2009 reporting on Demand Media, freelancers were often paid low flat fees, including examples of about $15 per article and $20 per video.

Many are critical of the practice of content farming. They argue that the quality of the content is low due to the high turnover, low pay, and lack of editorial oversight. Although most farms employ fact checkers, plagiarism checks, and line editors, content is often published very quickly and does not go through the strict vetting process common in other forms of journalism. Those critical of the practice argue that it leads to the web equivalent of fast food or noise pollution, blocking out and burying more useful content. Still others decry what they consider farms’ devaluation of the writers’ work, creating a sweatshoplike employment system.

Supporters of content farms argue that they address consumer demand in a more effective and efficient way than traditional journalism. By basing all content on what can be derived from actual search queries, they are meeting the true needs of the market. The supporters of content farming argue that traditional journalism and web-based content tell readers what they want rather than doing audience research.

In February 2011, Google unveiled a new, retooled search algorithm called Google Panda, aimed at improving search results by eliminating redundant, shallow, and low-quality content. Google has a history of updating algorithms to combat poor-quality sites: They have previously taken action against sites using spamdexing (spam + index), wherein a site hides unrelated keywords that are repeated many times so that the site will appear higher on searches. Google has also worked to deprioritize so-called scraper sites, which copy content from other sources and republish it on new sites.

In the Panda update, however, Google ran into controversy with its algorithm. Since all content farm sites consist of original content, it is up to Google to determine how shallow or low quality the content is. Soon after the release of the update, smaller, traditionally produced sites such as Mahalo.com, Suite 101, and The Cult of Mac saw up to a 94% drop in their Internet visibility index, as calculated by SISTRIX, a web analysis company. For 2 years after its initial rollout, Google updated the Panda algorithm on a month-by-month basis in an attempt to address the problematic issue of codifying a site’s quality. As of 2016, Google Panda stopped being updated as a standalone algorithm and was incorporated into Google’s core search algorithms.

The original version of this article was published by SAGE Publications in The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.