Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" Experiment Has Failed?

Re:Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" ... by abhip on Sunday August 28, 2011 @10:12AM (#2933952)

when most consumers want to find something, they do a search. for that most go to google. they dont go to the economist. they dont go to HBR. as a result, if search is done right (quality results), free high quality web content will be found, read, shared, and read again. but there is no loyalty built there for the news source's brand. very few publications will get the status that the economist, wsj, or nytimes enjoy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" ... by hammock on Sunday August 28, 2011 @10:25AM (#2933968)

We used to be loyal to the Economist, WSJ, NYTimes to bring us quality content. Now, we are loyal to google.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" ... by aerique on Sunday August 28, 2011 @10:43AM (#2933999)

So would search engines specializing on a certain field be the replacement? Search engines tweaking their code to a niche like astronomy, code (DuckDuckGo), fashion, classical music, etc.

Because Google has started to fail as a general search engine. Then again the abovementioned hypothetical search engines would be as much suspect to fail-by-SEO.

Anyway, niche search engines as a replacement to the traditional publishers. Just thinking aloud.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" ... by Hyena on Sunday August 28, 2011 @11:12AM (#2934051)

There was talk about this a while back, the need to go back to the curated list idea of the 1990s in order to reduce SEO spam.

[ Parent | on HN ]