Whether or not we completely agree, your opinion on the subject is a more informed and more important than mine in the sense that I’m not really participating in those kinds of sites anyway…and I do like the fact that you have a well-considered approach (the three levels, etc).

>> I don’t see legit, white-hat sites going way. They are exactly what the
>> SE’s want! Quality, unique content that fills a gap in the market. I haven’t
>> seen a “hit” from Google or any other search engine. As a matter of fact,
>> by niche sites continue to grow.

Quality, unique content is always good. But the vast majority of individual articles don’t fit this criteria. That’s my only real beef here. If you’re bringing new info…terrific. If you’re re-presenting existing info in a better way…better organized, added illustrations, better explained…there’s plenty of value there, too. But for most people that do this as a business model, they’d never honestly make a claim like that. They’re just filling space, building links and cashing checks.

I just think there must be some conscience on this issue someday. Maybe not, though. I was looking at AdBrite yesterday to place a small ad buy…and after looking thru hundreds and hundreds of sites that use AdBrite for monetization…I must admit, there’s very little evidence online sometimes that people are any more sophisticated than animals in the wild. LOL…

All that being said, it turns out that I will be barely penetrating the borders of your hallowed state late on Monday, when I drop my son and his wife off in Ft. Wayne to visit some relatives. So I expect you to go outside, look to the northeast and shine a flashlight at about 7:30 on Monday, and I’ll do the same pointing southwest. Never mind the fact that Columbus, OH (where I live) is closer to Ft. Wayne (IN) than Evanville (IN) is!

Thanks for the very thorough musings guys!

I’m going to try to hit the important points here and hopefully I don’t miss anything.

@ Chuck -1-

- I’ve always had attitude, I just keep it suppressed most of the time

- I don’t know about 98%, but you’re right, many of them are.

- OK, we’ve been through this before and I believe I understand exactly how you feel about MFA sites. I think you have very valid points and I wouldn’t say you’re wrong about any of it.

What I would say is this – There are 3 …levels (for lack of better terminology) of sites:

1: Authority (used for solid advice)
2: Legit (used for consideration)
3: Spam (used to keep spam filters sharp)

My mini-sites (for instance) fall into the “legit” category. If I’m looking for information about a highly competitive topic, chances are I’m going to find it through an authority site.

On the other hand, if I’m looking for information a long-tail topic chances are I’m going to find an article that someone wrote or had written on or to promote an MFA or related site.

In my eyes that’s not necessarily a bad thing. People know that there are very few sites on the Internet that they can trust 100%. They know that all info should be taken with a grain of salt. That’s why most people find several sources before making a decision.

So I’m providing people with information that may not be 100% accurate, but you can be sure it was well-researched and well-informed.

So now it comes down to one thing – is it ethical to create content on subjects in which you are not an expert?

My answer, it depends. If you’re putting up a new site every day and that site is part of your network of 200 sites, then you’re not doing anyone any good.

If you’re like me and you’re putting up a solid, well-researched site that will serve as a good source of information that people can take into consideration when researching that topic and that site is one of 30 or 40 similar sites, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Your statement that it’s not a solid business model – I believe it is a “good” business model. However, as I’ve stated before, it shouldn’t be anyones main source of online income.

I profit from my own products, other people’s products (affiliate programs), adverts, PPC and a few other routes that all equal a nice income most months. Noone should ever rely on one business model! I’m coming up on averaging $1,000/month through adsense alone and I plan to surpass that very soon. $12,000 minimum a year through this business model on top of all the others is pretty solid to me.

I don’t see legit, white-hat sites going way. They are exactly what the SE’s want! Quality, unique content that fills a gap in the market. I haven’t seen a “hit” from Google or any other search engine. As a matter of fact, by niche sites continue to grow.

I believe the trashy, scraped sites will indeed be irrelevant very soon, but small quality sites are here to stay, sorry

@ Terry

I ran a ghostwriting service myself when I first started tinkering with the idea of starting an online business. Although some people can create well-researched, solid content over and over again, I really think in depends on the person because I sure in the hell can’t.

I have a few excellent ghostwriters who write most of the content for my niche sites. These aren’t $5 a pop articles from some guy in India though I went through 20+ writers before settling with those I constantly use now. They don’t have the problem I had because they continue to churn out solid content.

Thanks for your kind words about me and my business.

@ Vern

You’re absolutely right and that’s why Web 2.0 sites are growing at such an alarming rate. However, I don’t believe Web 2.0 will completely take over the internet. There will always be a need for solid, static pages. Afterall, it’s all about the content. Whether it’s user generated or not, if it helps someone it’s quality.

@ Chuck -2-

Thank you for the kind words as well. For the longest time I was generating all the content myself and it took going through about 20+ writers to find a few who were good, but I now outsource much of the article writing outside of the IM arena. I continue to write all IM related content myself, but most other niches I outsource. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad things.

These guys and gals are damn good writers. All of them that I currently use have written on the health care niche and other niches. My sister is a RN. I talked her into reading a few random articles written by random authors and she said overall the info was actually very good. Of course that’s just a small example, but they do well.

I agree with you about Josh. I only frequent a few blogs, and for that very reason (I don’t find too many people whose efforts I find worthy of my time). I do think that Josh is committed to doing things the right way. And I like the fact that he creates virtually all his own content himself (I believe I’m correct in saying that).

I’m not saying that MFA sites are, by definition, unethical. I’m just saying that I think it’s a very short-term business model…and that those who are wise will be looking hard at where else they can move. This whole “automate-til-hell-freezes-over” approach that’s pushed by many IM gurus…I just can’t believe there’s any longevity there. I have my eye on an info-product being released in about 5 days. I will take a look at it…but I am HIGHLY skeptical…because the root of their business model is their network of 1200 sites. Can you imagine that? Or imagine that they are truly offering value with those?

And, of course, you’re right. MFA sites are not the only shallow attempts at moneymaking out there. Most blogs are poor rehashings of the original ideas of a couple handfuls of “thought leaders”. For the most part, they focus on topics of blogging and making money blogging…because those topics pull decent-paying AdSense ads…but almost nothing unique or creative is ever shared. But…as you say…those bloggers will eventually grow weary of not making any money, and just drop out. It’s sad that it has to come to that…but, for some reason, folks don’t often seem willing to engage in true self-examination…either of their own motives or their business models. It’s a sheep-like existence. I don’t mean it to sound harsh. I suppose we can only do what we know…but there are plenty of opportunities to learn, if one is willing to question what we are spoon-fed by the gurus.

Vern,

Wikipedia is, indeed, very aggressive about policing their content…demanding additional source citations, etc. And I believe they’ve been rewarded for this diligence with high rankings and a lot of traffic. They really do provide value (I’ve already been there multiple times today, and it’s only noon). That is a new-school approach. Old-school is the Britannica model (periodic updates, at best)…and if they stick with it, they’ll be even more supplanted than they already are, I’d wager.

As far as there being any kinds of inherent policing methods for spammy article sites…I don’t know…I certainly haven’t seen them on the sites themselves. Maybe you’re referring to article directories where feedback is some sort of factor. I have written articles for those sites, but I don’t spend enough time on them to know how they really operate from a user perspective. But I don’t think individual MFA sites are prone to include “thumbs up or down” validation factors…especially once they realize how little traffic they are getting…and I don’t believe that most of them even believe for a minute that they are providing a service.

So, no…my sense is that, even though Google has gone thru a round of de-ranking for MFA sites…I don’t think the very questionable business model of these sites is enough to put them out of business. In fact, I don’t CARE if they are in business. My call is simply for those forward-thinking folks to see the very real danger that these sites are already on a downward path…and soon, will be utterly irrelevant. I do believe that we can feel free to build a few sites on topics that we know something about…look for the most innovative way to create compelling content, aggregate existing relevant resources and possibly even build community around the topic. There will still be room for legit authority sites well into the future. But these faux-info sites…sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Just my two cents’ worth.

c-

I believe that we are leading to the topic of the co-creating of content by both professional and amateur content providers. While the lines have certainly greyed with video like YouTube or Google Video – there are sites which are still being run by various sources which are not known to be professionals updating its content like Wikipedia.

If for instance the content in Wikipedia is outdated or mistaken for some reason – it will be updated the very next day. Thats the speed of content which is provided by users for users.

Whereareas for Britainnica which only updates on the next printing will lag in content update.

I don’t know if I hit a chord here but surely the fact that site linking plays a major role on the Internet means that information is being distributed and trusted more and more by the consumers or semi-consumers themselves.

However, if any article sites are producing Spam then most certainly “user – ranking or voting” will put that site out of business pretty soon.

Don’t you think?

Vern

MFA sites are not the only sites built as a framework to support ads. Every day someone creates a blog looking to “make money online”, then they set out trying to build “authority”. Fortunately, we’ll never have to bother looking at most of these blogs; they either fade away on their own or the writer actually learns what they’re talking about.

I’m all for sites like Wikipedia and Googlepedia (uh . . . Knol) for the very fact they tend to bury most of the MFA sites. As in real life, it’s difficult to recognize when someone has authority in their subject. So one way to weed them out is to realize their initial motivation; many sites built with monetization in mind are not written by someone who really knows what they’re talking about. Sure, monetization can (and maybe should) come later, but when a site starts out to actually share information it is likely to add to the canon of knowledge available on the web.

I know Josh builds MFA sites, but I also know he is a man of integrity. I’ve worked with and for him on a few projects. Sure, he’s a marketer. But he does work to provide correct information on his sites. That’s why I was glad to see him start to develop this blog; I know his work with MFA sites and article marketing has given him something to add to the blogisphere.

Pick up a little attitude over there in Germany along with your beer, Josh? LOL…

>> btw, not all MFA sites are trash

True, but…probably 98% of them are.

While business models may vary drastically, the fact that a business model exists (and has a right to exist) doesn’t necessarily mean that it has intrinsic value, nor that it has any hope of long-term survival. I would maintain that most article sites are pure puffery…merely an excuse to slap up some more AdSense ads, rather than a legitmate attempt to serve an audience.

Allow me a brief fishing expedition: Theoretically, I have discovered that “basejumping” is a keyword that lacks competition. And I want to build a site on the subject. But…other than watching a handful of videos on the topic (which are all images and music…nothing that would help me really understand any of the issues…how will I create a content-based site on the topic? I can visit Wikipedia, of course. I can visit other sites and read thru a handful of articles and posts..and even comments. I can go all medieval and grab a book from the library. I can talk to a friend who knows a little something about the subject. Or…I can pay someone in India 5 bucks an article to do this same stuff, and call it outsourcing.

But, being as I am barely comfortable getting on an airplane, I’m never really going to understand what’s involved in basejumping or wingsuits or any of the rest. What it feels like…the related issues (other than the obvious thrill and danger)…products, etc. Just what business do I have putting together a site on these terms? Whatever I have is “appropriated” content (just taken in from various sources and regurgitated for publication). I have no personal experience, knowledge or investment. Everything on my site exists elsewhere online, and was there first. I am just doing my best to “gum up” the search engines by grabbing a ranking that I feel I deserve because…well, why DO i deserve it?…and out of that, to make money. Pardon me, if…as an outside observer…I say, HUH??

On the other hand, I guess there’s a chance that, if I’m a systems guy, I might be able to build the skeleton of a site on the topic of basejumping…and with the Web 2.0 concept, have it populated with user-generated content in the form of some sort of community. I suspect that this kind of thing happens every day…where the site-developer knows little to nothing about the topic. I’m not arguing the relative value, per se…but at least any info provided on the site would be coming from the mouths of those personally involved in the field. Is this better? I don’t know…but you’re right…it’s a completely different business model. But the social networks are likely to steal more and more of these kinds of opportunities, in the long run. Or at least, that seems likely to me.

Here’s my beef (and this is not directed toward you or your sites at all): All this stuff is so “cobbled together”. Links which aren’t really links (the original concept of linking as Google defined it when building their system based around linking was: “a vote for value”) may have some value…but should they? Do purchased links have value…and should they? It’s all a false manipulation. Can there truly be any long-term value there?

And I don’t believe that the whole “long-tail” keyword approach is going to have any long-term value, anyway. The last year has taught me a lot. First, it was Wikipedia (which soared to top of the SERPs). Next, it’s Google Knol (gee, do you think those pages will rank well?). Soon, Yahoo, Ask and Microsoft will follow suit. The search engines are becoming content providers as well. And their content will supercede all but the most legitimately authoritative content in the search engine rankings. This is why I advocate only writing and building content on topics where one has a personal investment. It’s difficult to simply feign topical authority when one has none…simply because a keyphrase scored well in the “easy pickins” category of the latest round of keyword research.

Maybe this strategy can be pursued in the short run (although I have severe reservations about the ethics of filling the SERPs with limited-value, non-authoritative content…even if it still “works”…i.e., makes money), but I think that anyone serious about the long-term should be looking to new business models instead.

In closing, any business model that can be “systematized” can also be “gamed” (or reproduced in numbers…and therefore abused by those with the power to automate the process…a concept that we know in the email world as SPAM…the bane of all our existences). Article sites (and even directories) most certainly fall into this category. IMHO, this angle is nearly played out…and it’s time to look elsewhere. Otherwise, one risks slaving away in service of a business of a business model which may suddenly become worthless at some future date. I wouldn’t want to be someone who was depending on that income for my livelihood.