My Sick Head Can't Grasp Curation + Content Farm Odds

74 replies
I have been sick for almost a week now - zero energy. So I'm not sure if it's THAT or I'm just a dumbass (probably this one) but someone please explain this part because I'm confused as hell:

1.) Curation is pulling in news from other places? And people are saying curated sites are the next big thing?

2.) Content farms are being penalized by Google for not having original content or shallow content?

I'm so lost and I need to understand this. I've been reading the threads here but it's putting the two issues together that loses me...
#content #curation #farm #grasp #head #odds #sick
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    As recommended in a couple of the other threads, I bought the Kindle version of Curation Nation ... excellent book so far. Haven't finished it yet but I am beginning to understand it all better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3454604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pavionjsl
    Something from Kenneth Koh, may not be relative.

    2) Content duplication is still okay.

    I say so because Bigresource.com is relatively unaffected by the new algorithm, suggesting that content uniqueness is still not a big deal.

    But do note that Google evaluates duplicated content based on the overall webpage. This means if you put 30 paragraphs of duplicated contents, taken from all over the net, as what bigresource.com does, you’ve got unique content! I believe this is still the case under this new algorithm, as evident in the studies above.

    This is from here. Leads Leap Blog Page this is from. Google’s Algorithm Change in 2011 And Its Impact
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3454648].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marciayudkin
    Tiffany,

    Curation is more than compilation. As I understand it, it is intelligent, expert, value-added compilation and commentary.

    Remember in college taking an art history course? Those profs were way more than slide collectors. They were intelligent, expert, value-added slide collectors and commentators.

    Marcia Yudkin
    Signature
    Check out Marcia Yudkin's No-Hype Marketing Academy for courses on copywriting, publicity, infomarketing, marketing plans, naming, and branding - not to mention the popular "Marketing for Introverts" course.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455035].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I think the google changes are wider than have been focused on here. I've done a lot of research this week. Yesterday I felt something was different but didn't really worry about it.

      Today I realized just how strange some of the research results were. By the end of the week maybe I'll figure out whether it's a change for better...or not. Today, it's been positive.

      The topic I was researching was one I wrote on about a month ago. The results today are totally different. EZA results and other directory results aren't appearing - I expected that. But ehow isn't cluttering the results on first pages - about.com isn't as visible as it was.

      I've had to dig deeper for some searches - but for others the results have been good related sites. I was used to sorting through the chaff of searches - now I have to look twice and readjust.

      Here's what isn't happening today (for me, at least) - when I search for keyword I'm not getting as many crappy, keyword focused, useless site results on pages 1-2. Had I not searched these same keywords last month I might not have realized how sweeping the changes at google appear to be.

      Curation is something I've been curious about - planning to start with reading Curation Nation which was recommended by several people here.

      kay
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455381].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Thanks y'all - I just read a quick report on curation so that makes better sense now. I guess I got so used to hearing marketers promote zero work methods that I assumed this one was too - but there's good work involved. I like that

    Kay I'll have to go dig around for some keyword research tonight to see what happens. I never thought about it but I DID hate getting an EZA article on return if it turned out to be crappy, knowing it got there just because the site was a behemoth.

    So this might be good!

    Tiff
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455458].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      In the particular niche I'm writing on this week last month the results were frustrating. Common google first page had a couple poorly written, keyword laden affiliate sites - a wiki- a couple EZA or buzzle and a link spam page or two. Made me want to spit!

      Today I found some real sites with good info and facts - I just finished searching for a couple of very common keyword phrases and the results are better than they were recently when I searched them.

      I feel like google slapped me - and then gave me a hug:p

      kay
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455490].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author drmani
        Originally Posted by TiffanyDow View Post

        1.) Curation is pulling in news from other places?
        Curation is identifying quality/interesting resources that are of
        value to a NICHE audience, organizing the links to them, appending
        more info or commentary to it, presenting it in easily navigable/
        usable/readable form, and adding the wisdom of your insight as a
        curator to help people who follow your curation efforts to get the
        "big picture" instead of tiny tid-bits.

        Quite different from "pulling in news from other places", though
        that's a starting point for the research a curator must do.

        Publishing "pulled" content by itself is a very rudimentary form
        of content curation that still has value (like diverting a tiny
        stream of water from a firehose might be).

        However there's a whole lot more a curator can do to make the
        experience of much higher value to the end-user (like pouring
        the water into a glass, squeezing in a lemon, adding sugar, and
        serving it up on a tray!)



        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        As recommended in a couple of the other threads, I bought the Kindle version of Curation Nation ... excellent book so far. Haven't finished it yet but I am beginning to understand it all better.
        I'm so annoyed that authors limit the availability of Kindle
        editions in India/Asia-Pacific region. Why ever would you
        limit your audience by a potential 300 MILLION or so buyers
        in today's world?

        Oh well, I'll just enjoy Seth Godin's "Poke the Box" and Hugh
        McLeod's "Evil Plans - Having Fun on the Road to World Domination"
        - both of which I bought from the Kindle store yesterday!

        All success
        Dr.Mani
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455571].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author pdrs
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


        I feel like google slapped me - and then gave me a hug:p

        kay
        Isn't this the definition of an abusive relationship?

        It's not googles fault, I just make him so angry sometimes!
        Signature
        RemoteControlHelicopterReviews.(com/net) - Up for sale! No reasonable offer refused. Great branding for a super hot niche!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458599].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    Tiffany, what most people that talk about this subject don't talk about, is the fact that Google is more than just an automated bot with a smart algorithm.

    There are live people there that work regular 8hr shifts actually looking at sites and pages and evaluating content based on their definition of "quality" (is it good for Google's business).

    Therefore, when people use the argument that if so and so can do it, then so can you and I.

    Not true.

    Google has the right to pick and choose who they want. It's not fair. They don't have to be fair. It's their company.

    So the bottom line is that you need to decide if you are going to put content together from other sources like a human edited newspaper, or take your chances slapping together articles on a blog.

    Again, just because someone can point to a million other sites doing it, doesn't mean that Google accepts it. It just means that Google hasn't gotten around to those sites yet.

    It's like my mother always said, "if all of your friends decided to jump off the bridge..."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455562].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsiomtw
    If you think about it, it makes sense that Google will reward curation going forward. There is too much data being created for even Google to make sense of at this point.

    At least their algos can never be as good as humans at determining quality content.

    If they trust you and you have an authority site about X, anytime someone searches for X they will show your site near the top because they know there's a good chance you'll provide a great user experience.

    I believe that going forward this will happen quite a bit, with a lot less reliance on inbound links and the stuff that is so easy for SEOs and spammers to manipulate.

    If you think about it, it's the only way. Google's search results have been getting worse over the past 5 years - not better. That means the SEOs and spammers are winning. Nothing is going to change unless Google attacks the problem from a totally different angle (that can't be "automated" or outsourced for $2 an hour)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3455613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author netlexis
    Andy examples of a good curation site?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456118].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      The topic I was researching was one I wrote on about a month ago. The results today are totally different. EZA results and other directory results aren't appearing - I expected that. But ehow isn't cluttering the results on first pages - about.com isn't as visible as it was.
      From an article on Business Insider:
      A person who works with Cutts recently told us "there's a department full of Ph.Ds at Google that exists for the sole purpose of getting Demand Media out of the search results."
      eHow is a Demand Media site. I'm always a little leery of "I know a guy who knows a guy" type of references, but it could be why eHow and About aren't on the front page anymore. Here's the full story: Google Announces Massive Algorithm Change, Declares War On Content Farms, Including Demand Media
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456183].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by netlexis View Post

      Andy examples of a good curation site?
      Huffington Post
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458675].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author drmani
        Just stumbled across this excellent list of content curating tools
        for the social Web:

        http://socialmediatoday.com/iansmith...s-social-media

        All success
        Dr.Mani
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458759].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
        Banned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Huffington Post
        He said good.

        By the way, did you know Huffpo received quite a bit of criticism in the news recently for being..cough cough....a big content farm?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3460790].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

          He said good.

          By the way, did you know Huffpo received quite a bit of criticism in the news recently for being..cough cough....a big content farm?
          I like Huffington Post and so do a lot of readers. Does Huff Post care about criticism? Probably not. They're smiling all the way to the bank.

          I don't read associated content, eHow, ezinearticles, etc. for reading pleasure ... in fact, I don't read them at all. That's what I consider a content farm ...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3464509].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Huffington Post

        Truth is you just hit the big one. The Huffington Post was sold by Ariana for apx. 400,000,000 plus some stock and she still gets 2 to 3 million salary to run it. It is a curation site. (Sold it to AOL)

        Perez Hilton. Another curation site valued around 30 million. And that dude is frigging insane.

        The Drudge Report...another right wing curation site valued around 32 million....and how many sites on Flippa do u see sell for this?

        And I could go on and on. Mashable.com is yet another curation site.

        The truth is.....SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE SITES ON THE MARKET .....THE ONES THAT GET GREAT SEX FROM GOOGLE....ARE IN FACT CURATION SITES. The biggest selling sites and I mentioned several of them are all curation sites. So google doesn't have a problem with them save aside for some basic common sense.

        They are not as hard to put together as you think either....and I recall a site done by a teenager called Bankaholic which compared the various interest rates et al of various banks.

        This was a one page site that was so ass ugly......it sold for 15 million dollars...in spite of getting hit with an ugly stick. It was another ugly curation site that sold for millions and nothing special or beautiful to look at.

        They key to curation sites is to always credit the source and make damn sure at least 10 to 15 percent of the lead in is original content.

        Now most of these sites are often ONE PAGERS....WHICH IS SWEET.

        Also rather then guess....go take a look at the sites mentioned because this isn't Flippa money.....we're talking serious bling.

        On a recent James J Jones webinar at thenetresults.com you can find Harlan's webinar that goes through this in great detail.

        Personally many of you write dozens of articles and my suggestion would bed to scrap any type of "software" and just write one or two pieces of content each day....just be consistent and just be sure and credit the source. In fact link to the source. Many curation sites get more TRAFFIC THEN THE VERY SITE THEY GRAB THE CONTENT FROM.

        I have no clue why Google loves these sites but the proof is piling up and the amount of money some of these one page sites sell for is staggering.

        Do your research and thanks for the tip on the kindle book girl......and gotta love a chick who smokes a cuban cigar.....that blend perfectly with that bad ass tats.

        Tiffany Dow......you're too organized and smart not to figure this out fast...and again..check out the webinar by Harlan Kerstein James J Jones recently did or catch the same one Jason Fladlien and Will Mattos did with Harlan.....sorry I know I butchered his name.

        In one hour you will learn more about curation then just about anything I've ever seen.....and it's frigging pretty bad ass stuff for real. One of the few I've actually gone back and listened to 3 times.

        Re the Webinar: He does sell software and has excellent customer support but personally....I can easily find content on my own and would prefer to avoid any thing Google sees as some evil robot spinning content....aka...I don't want or need any "software". I think it's asking for trouble.

        And it's not plagerism if done ethically as he mentions.

        In fact, many of the sites get more traffic because of YOUR site then they get from their own.

        I know Harlan gets more traffic to one of his curated sites from the New York Times then the friggin' New York Times...and that's the truth.

        Very little excites me in the IM world cuz offline is where I'm at selling leads to lawyers looking for users of bad "pills" but this is a bad ass concept.

        My theory as to why curation works is because many stories in the paper and other media outlets die rather fast.....a curated blog/site keep it alive longer and provide valuable content that gets Grandpa the Panda hot and bothered. (I recall several sites back in the day I did that would have caused Grandma to drop dead for real)

        Definitely worth looking into peeps.....and the best niches appear to be the affluent ones like Hedge Funds et al. But then again...you can do a motley crew of current events. Go check out the sites I mentioned...they are all examples of CURATION.

        p.s. On James' webinar Harlan actually got his key word ranked on google in 3 minutes with no David Copperfield bs...and he jumped over two major authority sites and that alone is worth watching. Whether u buy or don't....it's a must listen webinar.

        But as is always the case....watch the market get flooded with push button software and personally I'd avoid it. If you can write articles you're golden...and in this case you are writing way way less.


        PEACE, Vegas Vince
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920901].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsiomtw
    Why would you need a department full of Ph Ds to get Demand out of the search results? Just slap them hard like all the rest that got slapped. A few of Demand's sites did get slapped, but eHow definitely did not, in fact their rankings have improved. Why? Simple. Their content is actually pretty darn helpful despite what you may have heard from a friend of a friend.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456356].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by dsiomtw View Post

      Why would you need a department full of Ph Ds to get Demand out of the search results? Just slap them hard like all the rest that got slapped. A few of Demand's sites did get slapped, but eHow definitely did not, in fact their rankings have improved. Why? Simple. Their content is actually pretty darn helpful despite what you may have heard from a friend of a friend.
      A. I didn't hear anything from a friend of a friend, I cited an article and linked to it. I don't know anyone involved with the story.

      B. We can't say if their rankings have improved or fallen unless we know where they ranked before for certain keywords so we can compare that to where they rank now. I was going by what Kay said ... for searches she conducted about a month ago eHow has now disappeared.

      Since you said they "definitely did not" fall, in fact you said they improved, I ask, how do you know this? To say "definitely would imply you have insider knowledge or proof.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456445].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author wordwizard
        I find it easiest to visualize curation when I think of what a curator of an art show does:

        weed through the many options, select the best ones, or the ones that fit the theme most closely, arrange them in a way that makes sense, comment on them, and create some kind of overarching theme or introduction or something.

        And so if that's what the curating sites are doing -- well, it's certainly value-added activity. As opposed to randomly assembling articles.
        Signature

        HAPPY EASTER SALE
        on sales letters, opt-in packs, emails etc. PM me if interested!
        FREE Training & Software/Plugins CLICK HERE to Join My IM Facebook Group!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456617].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulie888
          Originally Posted by wordwizard View Post

          I find it easiest to visualize curation when I think of what a curator of an art show does:

          weed through the many options, select the best ones, or the ones that fit the theme most closely, arrange them in a way that makes sense, comment on them, and create some kind of overarching theme or introduction or something.

          And so if that's what the curating sites are doing -- well, it's certainly value-added activity. As opposed to randomly assembling articles.
          That's actually where the term originated - curation is something done extensively at art shows and museums to this day, where a massive amount of material has to be vetted and compiled into something coherent for a show or exhibition. Think of website curation as an online extension of that, and you're on the right track.
          Signature
          >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author satrap
    Steven Rosenbaum (author of Curation Nation) was on NPR the other day and he was asked about the same thing, Whats the difference between Curation and content farms?

    He explained it very well and talked about for a while, but it basically came down to this:

    With Curation, people are making intelligent recommendation and sharing information with each other and there is no financial gains for curators, unlike content farms that are usually used by affiliate marketers who write articles only to promote a certain product or service and make money doing so.
    Signature
    60 Awesome Ways to Make Money Without a Job
    .................................
    Check out my blog Survey Satrap featuring honest reviews of paid survey sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456482].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
      Banned
      Originally Posted by satrap View Post

      Steven Rosenbaum (author of Curation Nation) was on NPR the other day and he was asked about the same thing, Whats the difference between Curation and content farms?

      He explained it very well and talked about for a while, but it basically came down to this:

      With Curation, people are making intelligent recommendation and sharing information with each other and there is no financial gains for curators, unlike content farms that are usually used by affiliate marketers who write articles only to promote a certain product or service and make money doing so.
      No financial gain? I think the owners of HuffingtonPost.com and RealClearPolitics.com would beg to differ.

      I think the difference is that sites like realclearpolitics.com ultimately add value to the web, despite duplicate content. Realclearpolitics.com is a site where people visit over and over because the developers have shown the ability to weed through the garbage on the web and pick out the most relevant content.

      EZA is 99% trash content. I think that's the difference.

      And realistically, Huffingtonpost.com and RealClearPolitics don't NEED google. Whereas all those Content Farms do.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458911].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
        Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

        No financial gain? I think the owners of HuffingtonPost.com and RealClearPolitics.com would beg to differ.

        I think the difference is that sites like realclearpolitics.com ultimately add value to the web, despite duplicate content. Realclearpolitics.com is a site where people visit over and over because the developers have shown the ability to weed through the garbage on the web and pick out the most relevant content.

        EZA is 99% trash content. I think that's the difference.

        And realistically, Huffingtonpost.com and RealClearPolitics don't NEED google. Whereas all those Content Farms do.
        (I know there's another thread about EZA, but is "99% trash content" a little harsh?)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459066].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
          Banned
          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

          (I know there's another thread about EZA, but is "99% trash content" a little harsh?)
          Harsh? I think 99% is probably being a little kind to them.

          Most of the articles have this format. Take this article, multiple it by 500K, and you have EZA.

          "Have you ever had xyz problem? It's a problem that effects lots of people. Don't be embarrassed by xyz problem because there are many people in your same boat. Here are some tips to solving xyz problem.

          ***Insert 3 basic tips found at Wikipedia***

          In closing, do your best to follow these steps and you will be much happier.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459091].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
            Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

            Harsh? I think 99% is probably being a little kind to them.

            Most of the articles have this format. Take this article, multiple it by 500K, and you have EZA.

            "Have you ever had xyz problem? It's a problem that effects lots of people. Don't be embarrassed by xyz problem because there are many people in your same boat. Here are some tips to solving xyz problem.

            ***Insert 3 basic tips found at Wikipedia***

            In closing, do your best to follow these steps and you will be much happier.
            Fair enough.

            I don't know the platform well enough to debate, but I do find all aspects of article marketing fascinating. 99% 'seems' like a stretch, but I see your point, as well.

            Alexa? TimG?

            The most important thing (and maybe some EZA staffers will be monitoring this...doubt it...but possible...lol)....if 99% of their content is, in fact, garbage...how do they go about effectively remedying it without pi$$ing alot of people off? WHILE maintain similar revenue? (I'm thinking that any solution will have a resultant decline in revenue at least for a period)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459364].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
              Banned
              Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

              Fair enough.

              I don't know the platform well enough to debate, but I do find all aspects of article marketing fascinating. 99% 'seems' like a stretch, but I see your point, as well.

              Alexa? TimG?

              The most important thing (and maybe some EZA staffers will be monitoring this...doubt it...but possible...lol)....if 99% of their content is, in fact, garbage...how do they go about effectively remedying it without pi$ alot of people off? WHILE maintain similar revenue? (I'm thinking that any solution will have a resultant decline in revenue at least for a period)
              I don't think 99% is a stretch at all. Even people that are claiming that they are putting high quality content into EZA are kidding themselves. Let's be honest, most of what gets put there could be called "Human Spun".

              EZA had higher editorial standards than other directories, but it was still low-quality. Just go browse through there. Of course, as long as it wasn't total garbage, they didn't care. More pages=More adsense revenue. I would guess they will evaluate the traffic levels at this point and then possibly just clean house if things don't improve.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459515].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                And, this is the truest travesty...all across the board...Article Directories...Web 2.0 rev sharing sites. Said it other thread...Google has told everyone EXACTLY what they want, but, owners have just chosen to ignore it. It's no secret formula....produce high quality/original content.

                Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

                I don't think 99% is a stretch at all. Even people that are claiming that they are putting high quality content into EZA are kidding themselves. Let's be honest, most of what gets put there could be called "Human Spun".

                EZA had higher editorial standards than other directories, but it was still low-quality. Just go browse through there. Of course, as long as it wasn't total garbage, they didn't care. More pages=More adsense revenue. I would guess they will evaluate the traffic levels at this point and then possibly just clean house if things don't improve.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459550].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                  And, this is the truest travesty...all across the board...Article Directories...Web 2.0 rev sharing sites. Said it other thread...Google has told everyone EXACTLY what they want, but, owners have just chosen to ignore it. It's no secret formula....produce high quality/original content.
                  You mean like wikipedia? By the way, considering most people in the U.S. read at an 8th-10th grade level, inquiring minds want to know.....what IS high quality content? When you figure out that answer, maybe you can tell us how long a piece of string is.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3460816].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GeckoTribe
            I see it as a continuum. On one end, you have scraper sites and autoblogging -- they automatically copy somebody's content, possibly spin it to try to look unique, and hope for the best.

            Next is aggregation, or what I call "thin curation". You're selecting content to excerpt from and link to, more or less carefully (hopefully more), but not adding any significant commentary of your own. You may still be adding VALUE by intelligently collecting and aggregating content. But since the value is harder for automated systems to recognize, you're probably at greater risk of being caught in a future Google slap if they decide to crack down even more on unoriginal content.

            Next is what I call "thick curation", where you're adding significant commentary, but the focus is still on the content you're excerpting from.

            The next level is Blog Riffing, where you're using an excerpt from somebody else's content as a seed for your own content, but your original content has become the primary focus.

            Then at the other end of the continuum is "original content", which is of course nearly always inspired by SOMETHING, so it's not actually 100% "original". But you get the point.
            Signature

            Antone Roundy

            Want up to 57 bloggers to support your blog? Join a Team (free).

            Keep your blog active faster and easier with "Blog Riffing":
            * Free: PDF, High Impact Blog Riffing Course

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459441].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author drmani
              Originally Posted by GeckoTribe View Post

              Next is what I call "thick curation", where you're adding significant commentary, but the focus is still on the content you're excerpting from.

              The next level is Blog Riffing, where you're using an excerpt from somebody else's content as a seed for your own content, but your original content has become the primary focus.
              Antone, as a user of CARP and related scripts for many years (though
              not as expert at it as I should have become!), I was intrigued by the
              link to the ebook in your signature. So I downloaded and read "How
              To Build an SEO Content Factory" and learned a very nice system for
              content curation... thank you very much for giving that away as a free
              ebook.

              I'm seriously considering getting the bundle of Content Factory scripts
              package soon, once I finalize the approach to take with my curation
              efforts.

              All success
              Dr.Mani
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459659].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
        Originally Posted by Dave Rodman View Post

        No financial gain? I think the owners of HuffingtonPost.com and RealClearPolitics.com would beg to differ.

        I think the difference is that sites like realclearpolitics.com ultimately add value to the web, despite duplicate content. Realclearpolitics.com is a site where people visit over and over because the developers have shown the ability to weed through the garbage on the web and pick out the most relevant content.

        EZA is 99% trash content. I think that's the difference.

        And realistically, Huffingtonpost.com and RealClearPolitics don't NEED google. Whereas all those Content Farms do.
        Also Huffingtonpost.com and RealClearPolitics.com are writing about Global Warming, health care, protests in the middle east, celeb news etc. etc..While ezinearticles has stuff up on foot fungus, home made cures, and other bad topics etc.

        Also if you consider how saturated some markets are there are probably a lot more "bad topics" that people don't even know about. I mean how many syndicated articles are out there for Acne, Colon Cleansing, Solar Panels etc. etc.

        I think those are looked at as saturated/commercial content compared to politics and environmental issues.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3640763].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mraffiliate
      The Drudge Report, Perez Hilton, and the Huffington post are curation sites that make a ton of money so these curators are financially gaining from their curation sites.


      Originally Posted by satrap View Post

      Steven Rosenbaum (author of Curation Nation) was on NPR the other day and he was asked about the same thing, Whats the difference between Curation and content farms?

      He explained it very well and talked about for a while, but it basically came down to this:

      With Curation, people are making intelligent recommendation and sharing information with each other and there is no financial gains for curators, unlike content farms that are usually used by affiliate marketers who write articles only to promote a certain product or service and make money doing so.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4766120].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimD
        Originally Posted by mraffiliate View Post

        The Drudge Report, Perez Hilton, and the Huffington post are curation sites that make a ton of money so these curators are financially gaining from their curation sites.
        This is what Harlan Kilstein is pushing lately. In fact, the three sites above are the three he highlights. And they don't all fit the model we're discussing. Drudge's website for example seems to be a list of links. Huffington's has a lot more original content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919663].message }}
  • Been using curation for a very long time on my blog, though I called it community building instead. Don't need a fancy word for becoming a hub of information.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456707].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andrea Wilson
    I actually got the point of curation while reading this thread but doesn't the new algorithm stops the effect of article marketing? With EZA lost in the first page, how can people read our articles?

    Andrea
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3456856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonmorgan
    Here is the deal,

    listen and learn

    1.) Curation is pulling in news from other places? And people are saying curated sites are the next big thing?
    Curation is not a new concept. There are thousands of sites online that already do this. Curation websites have been around for years. Longer than I've been online.

    Curation is identifying quality/interesting resources that are of
    value to a NICHE audience, organizing the links to them, appending
    more info or commentary to it, presenting it in easily navigable/
    usable/readable form, and adding the wisdom of your insight as a
    curator to help people who follow your curation efforts to get the
    "big picture" instead of tiny tid-bits.
    drmani - this thread
    Summed it up better than I could.

    My version,

    Here is a great article about coco puffs blah blah blah... link
    The webmaster is acting as an authority on a niche and going out and searching for the best content so you don't have too.

    It can be done well or in most cases it's lazy webmasters who can't write their own content and aren't grabbing content from other sources. It's pretty easy to give your opinion in 100 words or less plus a link.

    2.) Content farms are being penalized by Google for not having original content or shallow content?
    Original or shallow content has nothing to do with it.

    It's not rocket science. Just look at what all of the penalized sites had in common.

    If a website had zero original content and all of the content that is on that site can also be found on tens of thousands of other sites... that site was penalized.

    Sites that consist of original non-syndicated content weren't hit at all.

    Site that are a mix of original and syndicated content weren't hit as hard.

    Syndicated content sites were hit with a sledge hammer.

    Also notice that the quality of content has nothing to do with which sites were penalized. Original crap content still ranks as well as ever. I should know, it's my specialty.

    What does this all mean?

    Well kids,

    build your own sites. Don't rely on other websites for ranking and traffic. I know, it's hard, takes work, boo hoo. Suck it up, that's life kiddo.

    The house of cards has collapsed and I'm sure quite a few warriors are cleaning up the mess in their pants
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3457118].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
      Originally Posted by jasonmorgan View Post

      What does this all mean?

      Well kids,

      build your own sites. Don't rely on other websites for ranking and traffic. I know, it's hard, takes work, boo hoo. Suck it up, that's life kiddo.

      The house of cards has collapsed and I'm sure quite a few warriors are cleaning up the mess in their pants
      Sounds a little extreme.

      I've been building sites for over a decade and none of this sounds very new and certainly nothing to get worried about - definitely not something to mess my pants about.

      Are there really people who are bothered by these changes? Wasn't this ALWAYS on the cards?

      Create value - own your value - is that really a new concept?

      The word curation was already in existence and use - Why are people acting like something new has been invented? and shocked about it?

      The recent Google algorithms are nothing to do with this - that's just them cleaning up their house. That's their business and their responsibility but certainly not a 'limiting' factor or 'the death of - anything'.

      There will always be people trying to game any system where they think they can squeeze a few dollars from something - that's nothing new and unlikely to change. Those same people don't care that they're poisoning the milk they're drinking so certainly can't complain when it's no longer drinkable.

      We all have to adapt to change and this is just another time when focusing on value and not short term gains filters out the winners from the strugglers.

      It's not rocket science - nothing is really changing. The aim of the game is still the same.

      Andy
      Signature

      nothing to see here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3457687].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thebitbotdotcom
    It seems to me after having read all of the reports lately that what we have witnessed is a shift in trust away from large authority content directories to the same content on more focused niche sites. I honestly do not believe that this was an algorithm change in it's purest form. The effect leads me to believe that it was an algo-change/manual-slap combo that Google used to take the heat off. We'll see if it lasts.
    Signature
    Do Your Copywriting Skills Suck?

    Let Us Help You Develop Your Writing Skills!

    Submit Guest Posts With [ TheBitBot.Com ]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3457757].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AzzamS
    part of my observation is that Google is still rewarding pages that have backlinks.
    So it is possible that ezine directories were rewarded based purely on the merit of their authority for keywords and now Google has decided that it will reward the old school way of pages with backlinks. Wikipedia is a good example as it get backlinks to individual pages.
    Signature
    Download 101 Actions for a Complete Website SEO Technical Audit Sample FREE today and charge clients $$$ with it.
    SEO Case Study: 1.7M Visitors from 27,000 Keywords Click here to read the post .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3457880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Ordered Curation Nation last night. Studied up on this and it actually feels like something I've BEEN doing on my Tiffany Dow Blog to some degree (maybe not as news-heavy, but I often discuss something, pull in examples or resources, and get a conversation going on my blog) and what I planned on doing to some new sites anyway.

    I like commentary - it's what stimulates me. I don't like plain vanilla keyword articles. I like OPINIONS and for someone to say, "Here's this piece, this piece and this piece I found - so now let's talk about it." And conversations and disagreements and all that jazz.

    This is something I'm LOVIN!

    Can't wait to work on it more heavily.

    Tiff
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarah Russell
    Leo Dimilio had some good posts on what's being affected by the slap and what isn't on his blog - but like you, I've been sick for a few days now and not much is getting through my fuzzy head

    So I get the difference between curation and content scraping, but can Google actually detect this distinction in practice? Haven't been seeing much of a difference on my sites (although my personal searches are all f'ed up since Big G seems to fill everything up with local listings even when I'm searching for niche topics...) yet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3458817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Danny Keegan
    My take on curation is it's like being a DJ for content...

    Where as you go to a night club because you like the music and the way the DJ mixes it, you go to a curated site because you're interested in the subject and the way the site owner presents the content.

    The following is an excellent article on curation from a marketers perspective, it lists lots of curation tools and other articles on the subject too so it's definitly worth bookmarking...

    Marketing via Aggregation, Filtering and Curation – Tools and Resources


    Cheers,
    Danny.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459507].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author purplecone
      Originally Posted by Danny Keegan View Post

      My take on curation is it's like being a DJ for content...

      Where as you go to a night club because you like the music and the way the DJ mixes it, you go to a curated site because you're interested in the subject and the way the site owner presents the content.

      The following is an excellent article on curation from a marketers perspective, it lists lots of curation tools and other articles on the subject too so it's definitly worth bookmarking...

      Marketing via Aggregation, Filtering and Curation - Tools and Resources


      Cheers,
      Danny.
      This really is an excellent article. I took a few minutes to scan and review, but I will be going back for an indepth read. Thanks for the link!

      Regards,
      Linda
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4766731].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ONEWOLF
    Originally Posted by netlexis
    Andy examples of a good curation site?

    Google's News Page
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3459836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nubchai
    I think Robin Good's site is a good example of a curation site: Professional Online Publishing: New Media Trends, Communication Skills, Online Marketing - Robin Good's MasterNewMedia He has guides by media niche listing what he views to be the best trends for each media niche in 2011. He has breaking media news. He also writes his own content and has at least one in-depth series on curation.

    I also think curation sites can be monetized. Monetizing choices will depend on the niche: adsense, amazon, self-developed info products.....

    I think the more useful curation sites will be a mixture of the "best of" articles for a niche, commentary by the blog owner, original content by the blog owner and finally building a community of people equally interested in the niche (active commenting, forums). If it's done well it won't be less work. It could very well be more work. I'd take this approach with a niche I was passionate about because if you do it right you'll end up with a nice authority site imo.

    Sandy

    P.S. Just ordered Curation Nation too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3462724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seobro
    Hey, I want the scoop. Like give me fresh news. That is what most people want anyway. Please, curation content is for old dusty museums. It belongs right next to king tut and a mummy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4770507].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author drmani
      Originally Posted by seobro View Post

      Hey, I want the scoop. Like give me fresh news. That is what most people want anyway.
      Scoop.it lets you do exactly that.

      See how I'm curating content on Congenital Heart Defects awareness here.

      All success
      Dr.Mani
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4915684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by seobro View Post

      Hey, I want the scoop. Like give me fresh news. That is what most people want anyway. Please, curation content is for old dusty museums. It belongs right next to king tut and a mummy.


      Yep you're right. I can name 4 right off the top of my head that are valued from 30 million on up....dusty and curated.

      Curation is not some collection of public domain.....and glad 2 see so many people flat out deny the fact some really ugly one page curated sites have sold for a ton of money.

      The Drudge Report is curated. Valued over 30 million
      PerezHilton is curated...valued over 30 million.
      Huffington Post....oh yeah...it sold for 400million....
      Mashable.com is curated......valued in the millions

      Yeah.....google hates them and despite Alexa scores under 1000......nobody goes to these sites .......lmao wow.

      You peeps some of you...are confusing "curation" with a friggin' museum. That's not the case. A well done curated site actually grabs news on the fly.........

      I realize the cynics will say the sites I listed got "lucky". What ever they are CURATED SITES....SO THAT SORTA BLOWS THE GOOGLE HATES CURATION THEORY AND THE MILLIONS THEY ARE VALUED AT OR SOLD AT SORTA MAKES ONE PERHAPS RETHINK HIS POSITION A BIT.


      VV
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921181].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ebusinesstutor
    It's funny. For years I have been telling people about curation but I didn't call it that. I told my seminar attendees to think of themselves as magazine editors.

    They didn't have to write and create all the content themselves, but they would find the right content, pull it together and provide editorial commentary.

    In a way, I like my metaphor better as the term is very academic and arts and museum focused. But it seems to have caught on in the social media world.

    But the DJ metaphor is very cool!

    Another phrase I never liked was "viral" marketing. When we are teaching people to be paranoid about getting computer viruses, it didn't make sense that we were then turning around and talking about viral marketing.

    And don't get me started on "killer" products...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4772234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Kage
    First time I heard of the term curation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4772527].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    I think the major difference between content farms, is the plethora of links, that would be immediate to any human that it is just to accumulate links
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4916060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Barrs
    I haven't read all the replies in this topic, but have bookmarked it for later...

    I'm with Tiffany on the OP - Duplicated content is duplicated content - now my understanding is that you're not going to get blasted out for the water for having reasonably duplicated content.

    But, sigh, now that we're using the word "curation" instead of duplicated content (and yes, I was on the recent "Guru" webinar) - you're going to get 10,001 warriors and wanna-bes jumping on this next bandwagon!

    Thus screwing it for many.

    Guys... call it what you want... it's still taking other people's content from other people's websites and putting it on your own. At least this time, from what I've seen, most "curation" apps give the link back to the original owner... and that's why they don't call it scraping or stealing.

    Paul Barrs
    Signature
    **********
    It's Simple... I don't "sell" IM anymore, but still do lots of YouTube Videos
    **********
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4919758].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by Paul Barrs View Post

      I haven't read all the replies in this topic, but have bookmarked it for later...

      I'm with Tiffany on the OP - Duplicated content is duplicated content - now my understanding is that you're not going to get blasted out for the water for having reasonably duplicated content.

      But, sigh, now that we're using the word "curation" instead of duplicated content (and yes, I was on the recent "Guru" webinar) - you're going to get 10,001 warriors and wanna-bes jumping on this next bandwagon!

      Thus screwing it for many.

      Guys... call it what you want... it's still taking other people's content from other people's websites and putting it on your own. At least this time, from what I've seen, most "curation" apps give the link back to the original owner... and that's why they don't call it scraping or stealing.

      Paul Barrs



      Paul stealing is stealing. Curation is NOT stealing. And if u don't believe me....check out sites like Perez Hilton, Huffington Post, Drudge Report and note the rank among the highest rated sites in the game.

      Google love these sites. And this isn't something new.....Google wants content that sticks. Many news stories vanish in hours but a curated news story can remain and the google user gets a better experience.

      examine some of these sites. Some of the most valuable curation sites do not have any original content other then apx 10%...and google loves the fact they credit the source and provide a link. Panda loves that.

      Curation sites...one pagers are not selling on Flippa for a few grand.....many are valued or sold in the millions of dollars.

      I do agree software will back fire.....scraping is not going to work in my opinion...and again...it's designed for lazy marketers. With the type of payouts being seen...why wouldn't you take an hour a day and consistently update a curated site.....source it.....and provide the link. Google is happy with 10 to 15 percent original content......

      I highly suggest you check out the latest webinar.......you don't have to buy a thing....the education alone will make this so much more clear.

      In many ways I love the fact so many people who buy ****ty click bank products will actually give themselves CREDIT for dismissing this approach.

      APPROACH..NOT A TURN KEY SYSTEM THAT GETS U LAID AND PAID IN `1 HOUR .

      UGGGGG.



      PEACE, Vegas Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921147].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IMToday
    Curation often involves adding your own unique "content" but it's definitely not necessary. Think of a museum curator - they simply aggregate, sort and filter, and present the "best" stuff.

    For a more relevant example, check the site in my sig. We spend a ton of time aggregating and curating Internet marketing content, and there's really no need to add anything else. And we could care less about Google because we provide a valuable free service and word of mouth is all we need.

    If you're going to rely on Google for most of your traffic though, then yeah, it would probably be a good idea to add your own commentary and content into the mix just to be safe ...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920137].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
    Is it ethical to do this? I just received an email today from a guru about curation. I write all my content and I've already found it being stolen and put on other blogs (which ranked higher than my site). One Canadian site called AlltheWikiNews.com looks like they're just blatantly stealing my content and other bloggers content without even proving a link back or credit.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920166].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post

      Is it ethical to do this? I just received an email today from a guru about curation. I write all my content and I've already found it being stolen and put on other blogs (which ranked higher than my site). One Canadian site called AlltheWikiNews.com looks like they're just blatantly stealing my content and other bloggers content without even proving a link back or credit.

      Jeanne.....as I mentioned many sites will get more traffic then you will with YOUR content....that's not a bad thing. One guy I know who bitched about this told the blogger to remove the post..which he did. 3 days later he calls up whining that he would like the blogger to put the content back as he was losing traffic. lol

      So don't worry about that.

      However NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO STEAL YOUR CONTENT WITHOUT GIVING YOU CREDIT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY....A LINK BACK TO YOUR SITE.

      IF THEY DO THAT....TAKE ACTION WITH GOOGLE...OR GET AN ATTORNEY STYLE CEASE AND DESIST LETTER EVEN IF THE ATTORNEY IS YOUR MOTHER IN LAW AND TELL THEM YOU ARE GOING TO SUE THEIR ASSES RIGHT OUT OF INTERNET LAND.

      Those giving you credit are doing you a favor.....they are getting YOU FREE TRAFFIC assuming they are giving credit and a live link which they should.

      Good luck...and if u write your own content....consider doing a curation blog yourself. Some of these sites are selling for serious bling.

      peace, Vegas Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4920921].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Big Al
    Been using curation for a very long time on my blog, though I called it community building instead. Don't need a fancy word for becoming a hub of information.
    At the moment I'm in the this school of thought but (deep down) appreciate there is more to it but...

    I can't help feeling that there will be a lot of people who fall into a deep dark place that is page 1001 on Google because they get lazy or fail to curate and merely copy n' paste a few things together without adding value.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921063].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by Big Al View Post

      At the moment I'm in the this school of thought but (deep down) appreciate there is more to it but...

      I can't help feeling that there will be a lot of people who fall into a deep dark place that is page 1001 on Google because they get lazy or fail to curate and merely copy n' paste a few things together without adding value.



      Spot on bro. We are getting so programmed at using "push button" software that if people honestly put in a little time.....they could do very well scouring the net for compelling stories rather then buy into the magic bullet that is going to end up being another spinner with a different name but the same result in "Google's eyes".

      Marketing is taught so ass backwards today it's almost sad.

      It's not about what works...it's about what some 16 year old girl says "works" on some click bank ad....or some bald headed chicken plucker who honestly wants us to believe he ripped off a drunken Russian programmers secret push button software.

      When it doesn't work or google bitch slaps them they come back and say Curation doesn't work....when the evidence is overwhelming that it does.

      And when u find something that does work....why is the next step always some way to game it....and make something that isn't that hard "faster" etc.

      The end result is just what u say.......buried in the Jimmy Hoffa section.

      Trouble is....the promoters have to sell the software.....or there's no money in it for them. I personally find it fun seeking out interesting content..and it doesn't have to bed 100 percent unique...as that's been established......but software that spins the same **** will kill this approach....and lazy marketers are a sellers wet dream.


      peace, Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921122].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
        Originally Posted by VegasVince View Post


        When it doesn't work or google bitch slaps them they come back and say Curation doesn't work....when the evidence is overwhelming that it does.
        Hey Vince,

        I don't always agree with you (or anyone actually ) but this is so true.

        Curation is not new - like you said there are many sites out there that have been doing this well for years, it's just the latest IM fad because it's being pushed as another 'uncovered secret strategy' (these constantly need recycling in order to newbies to have something to buy).

        Curation was being pushed as new in this forum a year ago and here we are - it's new again.

        The only thing that's actually new about any of this is that there seem to be more people who actually realise that this is not push-button stuff.

        If you want to create a good, engaging site that Google loves and that builds into something substantial - you HAVE to put the work in and either keep creating great content or letting others create it for you.

        This will become more and more important as time goes on and Google focuses more and more on social proof, community information and feedback and diversity of relationships.

        This is not new thinking, it's nothing but common sense application of widely available information and changing with the times.

        There are no push button answers to creating a lasting business and people should be able to spot a sales letter from an sharing of research.

        Andy
        Signature

        nothing to see here.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
    Well since this thing rose from the ashes I'll update you

    I got over being sick and DID dig in - I bought Curation Nation and researched my ass off online and not only grasp curation now - I love it! I knew it all along, just not the name or a specific formula.

    I'm even teaching some people how to make curation posts now - but they abhor the term curation like the plague.

    And Vince, man as right wing as I am I do NOT see how Drudge Report makes it. That site is so NOT aesthetically pleasing I can barely scroll through. LOL!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4921739].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Yeah Tiff....glad u saw the light or I'd have given up on the human race.

      And you're right Drudge....is ass ugly.....but believe it's valued at around 32,000,000 at last check........and bad ass article writers like you will kick ass with this model.

      FYI.....hate to break it to ya....but the Huffington Post was actually started to counter Drudge....and she sold for 400,000,000 lol.

      Curious as to your opinion if you think a tight niche works better then a motley crew site like Mashable.com?

      Seems a general theme is the way to go......but don't believe a tight micro niche is necessary.......but give me your thoughts.

      P.s. Nice blog.....I shouted over there.

      p.s. 2 Most right ringers don't look quite as good as you'se.....just sayin'. peace. Curate away.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4922067].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TiffanyLambert
        Originally Posted by VegasVince View Post

        Curious as to your opinion if you think a tight niche works better then a motley crew site like Mashable.com? Seems a general theme is the way to go......but don't believe a tight micro niche is necessary.......but give me your thoughts.
        Hey Vince!

        I think either way would work - broad or narrow (I consider Perez sort of narrow since it's celeb gossip) but you don't need micro niche for it to work (like if Perez was just all Brad Pitt).

        I tried my hand at a broad curated site recently but I got overwhelmed with it. Trying to do much myself. It would probably need people curating each category or something. I know Huff is a big team effort. Perez works solo but he's gotten lazy - if you visit People.com and TMZ he pretty much just copies them now - he used to be kind of unique.

        He does offer unique insight himself, but even that stinks now that he's toned it down and just basically gives facts and says "what do YOU think?" He USED to be opinionated and had a slant that attracted fans and haters - but not anymore.

        tiff
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4922353].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MatthewNewnham
          Hello Tiffany et al,

          I wanted to thank you, Tiffany, for starting this thread, and to thank all of you for what has turned out to be an invaluable "head turner" on the subject of curation.

          This started from me attending a webinar this week with Harlan Kilstein. I sensed that there was something worthwhile in value-added curation, but wanted to get an informed sense of the real scoop, and not the "fad of the moment" take on it.

          I think there is a real story here, and like Tiffany, I love it. As ever, words have the power to attract or repel, and so curation may not be the term that does it for many - but it's now seemingly in widespread use in what appear to be very grown-up online conversations, like the excellent link posted by Danny Deegan above (Marketing via Aggregation, Filtering and Curation – Tools and Resources).

          I also found Upload video. Aggregate and curate video from multiple sources. Mix your pro, user gen, and web gathered content with Magnify.net to be an eye-opener, as well as Nine Content Curator Tools for Social Media | Social Media Today.

          About 16 years ago, I heard that someone had referred to the internet as "the world's largest library, but with the lights switched off". They praised the up and coming search engines (whoa - remember Lycos?) as the things that will help us through the morass of information.

          Well, being able to find stuff is critical, but if websites are like rooms in a house, surely we'll be attracted to the ones that have what we want, arranged in the way that makes most sense and is of most use to us? Otherwise, any old room will do, with crap piled high in a corner, as long as we can find what we want in there somewhere.

          Or on the other end of the spectrum, if all we find in each room is one valuable thing, we're going to have to visit a lot of rooms to collect what we really want and need. May work for playing "Cluedo" (or "Clue" in North America?), but not so much for online search.

          Most commercial websites are pretty boring, or shout at us to "pick me" (as Donkey says in Shrek). It seems to me that the ones who position themselves as compelling resources that inform and entertain stand a better chance of prospering in the midst of all the noise.

          And curation - or whatever we choose to call it - where we really do collate (and fully attribute), organise and contribute a fair share of original material, will provide valuable context and content. As Jason says earlier, it ain't new. But I think if done well, it can be useful, and if done really well, it can be highly valuable.

          Anyhoo, that's more than I intended to write, but hope that might have contributed something in return for the insights that you have all shared here. And in case you're wondering, I've decided against Harlan's course.

          Best wishes from Scotland,

          Matthew
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844215].message }}

Trending Topics