Tag: content farms

What Have Google’s Biggest Mistakes Been?

Do you feel like Google makes many mistakes when it comes to trying to improve its search results? Do you think they’ve gone overboard or not far enough with regards to some aspect of spam-fighting?

In the latest Google Webmaster Help video, head of webspam Matt Cutts talks about what he views as mistakes that he has made. He discusses two particular mistakes, which both involve things he thinks Google just didn’t address quickly enough: paid links and content farms.

What do you think is the biggest mistake Google has made? Share your thoughts in the comments.

The exact viewer-submitted question Cutts responds to is: “Was there a key moment in your spam fighting career where you made a mistake that you regret, related to spam?”

Cutts recalls, “I remember talking to a very well-known SEO at a search conference in San Jose probably seven years ago (give or take), and that SEO said, ‘You know what? Paid links are just too prevalent. They’re too common. There’s no way that you guys would be able to crack down on them, and enforce that, and come up with good algorithms or take manual action to sort of put the genie back in the bottle,’ as he put it. That was when I realized I’d made a mistake that we’d allowed paid links that pass PageRank to go a little bit too far and become a little bit too common on the web.”

“So in the early days of 2005, 2006, you’d see Google cracking down a lot more aggressively, and taking a pretty hard line on our rhetoric about paid links that pass PageRank,” he continues. “At this point, most people know that Google disapproves of it, it probably violates the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines, all those sorts of things. We have algorithms to target it. We take spam reports about it, and so for the most part, people realize, it’s not a good idea, and if they do that, they might face the consequences, and so for the most part, people try to steer clear of paid links that pass PageRank at this point. But we probably waited too long before we started to take a strong stand on that particular issue.”

Yes, most people who engage in paid links are probably aware of Google’s stance on this. In most cases, gaming Google is probably the ultimate goal. That doesn’t mean they’re not doing it though, and it also doesn’t mean that Google’s catching most of those doing it. How would we know? We’re not going to hear about them unless they do get caught, but who’s to say there aren’t still many, many instances of paid links influencing search results as we speak?

The other mistake Cutts talks about will be fun for anyone who has ever been affected by the Panda update (referred to repeatedly as the “farmer” update in its early days).

Cutts continues, “Another mistake that I remember is there was a group of content farms, and we were getting some internal complaints where people said, ‘Look, this website or that website is really bad. It’s just poor quality stuff. I don’t know whether you’d call it spam or low-quality, but it’s a really horrible user experience.’ And I had been to one particular page on one of these sites because at one point my toilet was running, and I was like, ‘Ok, how do you diagnose a toilet running?’ and I had gotten a good answer from that particular page, and I think I might have over-generalized a little bit, and been like, ‘No, no. There’s lots of great quality content on some of these sites because look, here was this one page that helped solve the diagnostic of why does your toilet run, and how do you fix it, and all that sort of stuff.’”

“And the mistake that I made was judging from that one anecdote, and not doing larger scale samples and listening to the feedback, or looking at more pages on the site,” he continues. “And so I think it took us a little bit longer to realize that some of these lower-quality sites or content farms or whatever you want to call them were sort of mass-creating pages rather than really solving users’ needs with fantastic content. And so as a result, I think we did wake up to that, and started working on it months before it really became wide-scale in terms of complaints, but we probably could’ve been working on it even earlier.”

The complaints were pretty loud and frequent by the time the Panda update was first pushed, but it sounds like it could have been rolled out (and hurt more sites) a lot earlier than it eventually did. You have to wonder how that would have changed things. Would the outcome have been different if it had been pushed out months before it was?

“Regardless, we’re always looking for good feedback,” says Cutts. “We’re always looking for what are we missing? What do we need to do to make our web results better quality, and so anytime we roll something out, there’s always the question of, ‘Could you have thought of some way to stop that or to take better action or a more clever algorithm, and could you have done it sooner? I feel like Google does a lot of great work, and that’s very rewarding, and we feel like, ‘Okay, we have fulfilled our working hours with meaningful work,’ and yet at the same time, you always wonder could you be doing something better. Could you find a cleaner way to do it – a more elegant way to do it – something with higher precision – higher recall, and that’s okay. It’s healthy for us to be asking ourselves that.”

It’s been a while since Google pushed out any earth-shattering algorithm updates. Is there something Google is missing right now that Cutts is going to look back on, and wonder why Google didn’t do something earlier?

Would you say that Google’s results are better as a result of its actions against paid links and content farms? What do you think Google’s biggest mistake has been? Let us know in the comments.

May 12, 2014
Variety Calls Demand Media ‘Epic Fail’

We’ve been following the Demand Media story with intrigue over the last few years, as it has proven to be the highest profile example of how a site can truly game Google, and make a business out of it, only to have that backfire at the hands of a Google algorithm update.

On the content side of things (as opposed to Demand Media’s domains business), the company had perfected figuring out what people are searching for on Google, and crafting content (cheaply) to cater to those searches. The result was the ultimate content farm with an answer for pretty much everything. The problem was that the quality wasn’t always there, and Google responded.

Demand Media (mostly by way of its eHow site) was certainly not the only contributor to the content farm epidemic, but it was the most obvious. Interestingly enough, the initial Panda update didn’t even hit Demand Media. But eventually it did, and with a vengeance. I won’t rehash the entire story, as you probably already know it. If not, peruse our coverage.

Earlier this year, the company revealed that it had once again been negatively impacted by Google algorithm changes, and CEO Richard Rosenblatt stepped down from the company. Demand Media’s most recent earnings report once again showed a decline in revenue thanks to a loss of search referrals.

Variety (of all publications) recently put out a big piece about the company, which is now getting some attention from the tech media, calling the “rise and fall of Demand Media” an “epic fail.”

“The freefall of Demand serves as a cautionary tale for hype in the Internet age: No company burns so hot that it can’t cool off,” writes Andrew Wallenstein.

This comes at a time when such a tale deserves the spotlight, because Google isn’t the only one businesses have to worry about.

Facebook, as you may know, has updated its News Feed algorithm, like Panda, to promote what it deems to be high quality content, and whether or not that means less referrals for Demand Media (I guess we’ll see what happens in the next earnings report), it can have a similar affect on any site that has been relying on Facebook for traffic.

Already in the short time since Facebook announced the changes, brands have seen major drop offs in their organic reach. Facebook wants them to pay for visibility. But what about media sites? Facebook claims that it wants to deliver in depth articles, but as we’ve discussed, that may only be for the select few that Facebook wants to give special treatment.

It will be very interesting to see where sites like Demand Media’s fall into that.

Image: Demand Media

December 11, 2013
Can Search Save Yahoo?

To say that Yahoo has had its share of problems in the past few years is an understatement. The most recent news of the now former CEO Scott Thompson and his resume scandal has only added to the disorder surrounding Yahoo. The once highly regarded Internet giant has experienced all types of turmoil including numerous management changes, extensive layoffs, and the closing of multiple properties, all of which have raised a lot of questions about the company’s future.

Do you think Yahoo can make a comeback in search? Let us know in the comments.

The company’s “Search Alliance” with Microsoft leaves plenty of questions about the company’s future in search, as well, but there are rumors going around that the deal may not play out as planned. We spoke with Kevin Ryan, the CEO of Motivity Marketing, who says that based on rumors floating around in the industry, the search alliance between Yahoo and Microsoft might not make its projected 10-year tenure.

“There’s a lot of rumors in the business that [it] isn’t going well, and that it’s not going to make the full-decade run,” he tells us. “So, if I’m Yahoo, I’m spending a little bit of money trying to figure out how we can get that search bucket going.”

When the agreement was reached, Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan spoke with us about the impact of the deal on each company. “[A] big win for Microsoft, a lot of questions for Yahoo,” he summarized.

“Yahoo effectively threw in the towel with search,” says Ryan of the alliance.

Despite the many reports on the struggling search alliance, David Pann, the General Manager of Search Networks at Microsoft, spoke with us last year and pointed out that the companies had already experienced success, even in its early stages.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Okay, well, you didn’t do this, you didn’t that – it’s a failure,’” Pann explained. “I don’t think of that. I think that, given where we are, and given the complexity of the relationship… we’re actually making very good progress.”

However, if the rumors are true and Yahoo does pull out of its agreement with Microsoft, the company will have to begin thinking about search again. The only other option would be to sell its search business completely.

According to Ryan, there are several instances that could be credited as catalysts for Yahoo’s downward sprial, but he believes its Panama search ad platform played a large role in beginning the downfall. Panama was Yahoo’s attempt to monetize search, as Google did, but instead, Ryan says it was an “abject failure” for Yahoo.

Ryan compares Yahoo’s current situation to what happened with Ask. The former search engine pulled out of the search industry in 2010 and has now transformed itself into a questions and answers service with an emphasis on mobile.

There are some who would likely consider Yahoo to be a former search engine as well. Yahoo is currently in the process of reinventing itself as a media company, but the company’s short-term leaders have had difficulty in making this transition. Ryan, however, doesn’t believe this particular attempt is the best option for Yahoo.

“Stop trying to reverse engineer HuffPo,” said Ryan, “and create something new.”

But, Yahoo’s performance as a media company has been nothing to shake a stick at, and for many, Yahoo’s homepage works very well as a portal to the Web. Just take a look at Yahoo’s realtime homepage view counter at any given day. So far today (at 8:30AM Pacific), the page has already seen over 73 million views .

Still, Ryan tells us that Yahoo should reinvest in its core business, in which search plays a very big role. With a renewed focus in this area, he believes Yahoo could better serve consumers and also advertisers, which could help it get back on the right track.

Ryan told us there could be opportunities for Yahoo in terms of social development. Both Google and Bing have yet to completely succeed in social, which leaves an open door for Yahoo. He believes that a renewed focus on search combined with the opportunities in social could help to begin to turn Yahoo around. In addition, Ryan would like to see Yahoo make drastic changes internally in order to streamline its processes and improve its culture.

“I hope that the change that Yahoo makes will be very internal,” he said. “I hope that the culture internally will become much more positive, but we’ll see.”

At this point, Ross Levinsohn is Yahoo’s interim CEO. Although some people believe he will become the permanent CEO, Yahoo has not indicated any official word for who its next leader will be.

It’s inevitable that changes will happen at Yahoo in the coming months, but what they will be and whether or not they will be effective in saving the company are both still in question. On the positive side, Yahoo was able to finally reach an agreement with Alibaba Group. The $7 billion deal will require Yahoo to sell back half its stake in the Chinese company, but it brings resolution to one of its many problems.

Do you think search should play a significant role in Yahoo’s future as a company? Share your thoughts in the comments.

May 26, 2012
Is DuckDuckGo Gaining Ground on Google?

In recent years, the search industry has not changed a lot in terms of large players. Google has maintained the leader position with its ownership of nearly 70 percent of search market share. The #2 and #3 spots have changed slightly after the Microsoft-Yahoo Search Alliance in 2009. According to the most recent Experian-Hitwise statistics, Bing-powered search has risen to 30 percent.

In 2010, Ask exited the search business to focus its efforts on a Q/A service and mobile endeavors. Also in 2010, Blekko launched with the goal of becoming the “#3 search engine” by tackling the growing problem of spam with its slashtag technology approach.

Other than these events, the search player side of the industry has been relatively quiet. There is, however, current talk of Yahoo re-entering the search market and pulling out of its 10-year search deal with Microsoft. This week, the company introduced Yahoo Axis, which could be its first move in this direction.

Still, there is one more player that we have yet to mention – DuckDuckGo. This search engine launched quietly in 2008 and has stayed somewhat low on the radar until recently. It is getting a lot of attention now though for the bold position it is taking on major issues.

When we talked with the search engine’s founder Gabriel Weinberg last year, he told us that DuckDuckGo was focused on building a search alternative to Google. The search engine separates itself from other search engines through its Zero-Click Info feature that provides instant answers to search queries, its user experience that is free of both spam and clutter, and its privacy protections for users.

Over the past year, DuckDuckGo has ramped up its efforts in each of these areas, and as a result, users are noticing. In a recent conversation with Weinberg, he tells us that DuckDuckGo receives just under 50 million search queries a month, which translates into about 1.5 million each day. In other words, the search engine has more than doubled its traffic.

“We’ve grown gradually since the beginning, but we had a major uptick at the beginning of the year when we launched a visual redesign,” said Weinberg.

He explained that DuckDuckGo made around 100 changes that it rolled out in that redesign. More recently, the search engine announced an effort that encourages developers to add instant answer plugins to DuckDuckGo. The initiative is called DuckDuckHack and is geared toward making the search experience faster and more relevant.

Local, mobile, and social are also just as important to DuckDuckGo as they are to other search engines. Instead of viewing them as individual products, however, it uses an “umbrella approach” for them. In other words, all these areas are incorporated into finding the best search results.

“Instead of tailoring results to you personally,” says Weinberg, “we, instead, return results that are generally known to be good.”

Ultimately, DuckDuckGo is trying to improve in all the areas that Google seems to be lacking in. For instance, Google has had many struggles regarding content farms and spam in the past couple of years. Although it has attempted to address these issues with the ongoing Panda updates, some people, including Weinberg, believe the problems still exist.

“A lot of it seems opaque to me,” said Weinberg. “I’m sure there’s a ton of changes, but I still see a lot of the same kind of, what I consider, content farms on Google.”

The privacy issues against Google continue to build as well. The search giant has received scrutiny from both the U.S. and Europe, and after releasing its new privacy policy earlier this year, it has gotten even more criticism.

For DuckDuckGo, this turn of events creates an opportunity. As users become more dissatisfied with Google, Weinberg is hoping that they’ll look to his search engine as an alternative.

“We’re making the case that there are certainly some users who would prefer to be tracked a lot less,” he said. “I really think there is a percentage who prefer alternative experiences.”

The irony in all this is that DuckDuckGo makes money the same way that Google does – through advertising based on search queries. But, “you don’t have to track users to do that,” Weinberg says.

“The problem is that they want to serve better ads across their sites where you don’t have that search query to serve an ad against,” he further explained.

While it is possible that DuckDuckGo could begin to pull away some of Google’s search market share, Weinberg tell us that DuckDuckGo has no desire to become a big corporation. Web search is the company’s #1 priority at this point, and he intends to keep it that way.

“Our goal really is just to build a nice alternative search engine that… a decent percentage of people would prefer as their search engine of choice,” he said.

May 25, 2012
eHow Launches Tech Channel, Continues Down The “Expert” Path

Demand Media has launched a new eHow Tech channel for tips and advice for consumers from “experts” on technology topics. The company refers to it as a “Tech 101” destination, where consumers can get info for “troubleshooting most tech conundrums.”

“More than 71 million people visit eHow each month, and by analyzing user engagement, we know there is a growing need for online help that translates complex technology problems into easy-to-understand language and straightforward directions,” said Erika Nardini, SVP of sales and marketing at Demand Media. “Last month in the U.S. alone, more than 10 million consumers visited eHow for answers to their technology-related questions. We developed eHow’s new Tech channel as part of our ongoing mission to listen to consumers and provide content that meets their needs.”

RadioShack is currently sponsoring the channel, and Demand Media is highlighting two experts who will contribute on an ongoing basis: Digitwirl.com founder Carley Knoblock and TechnoBuffalo.com founder Jon Rettinger. The former will offer tips on things like Facebook privacy settings, creating effective tweets, etc. The latter will talk about things like 3D TVs, universal remotes, etc.

“Technology is increasingly such a part of our day-to-day lives, but people are just too busy to read lengthy manuals – we all want technology to just work,” said Knobloch. “At eHow Tech, we aim to shorten the learning curve for people with concise, clearly explained instructions and ‘how to’ videos. Through our collaboration with RadioShack, we want to empower users to tackle any curve ball the tech world throws their way and take the anxiety out of using these gadgets we all own and love.”

These two may not be the celebrities that Tyra Banks or Rachael Ray (two other Demand Media partners) are, but it does continue down Demand Media’s path of forming relationships with “experts” in certain areas of interest, and less of the content farm free-for-all, which became quite the controversy for the company, and ultimately led to eHow getting hit by Google’s Panda update last year.

I’m not going to get into all of that here. We’ve covered the saga rigorously for over a year, and you can read all about the Panda update here and Demand Media’s ups and downs here.

The company did say during an earnings call last month that eHow has not been affected by a Google algorithm change since last July.

March 28, 2012
Narrative Science, The Robotic Content Farm, Is Looking At More Languages

Have you read about Narrative Science? This is a company that is creating web articles using computers. We’ve referenced them on more than one occasion as a “robotic content farm”. It makes you wonder where we’re headed in terms of web content? Will our jobs become obsolete as the content machines rise or will that human element always be needed?

Last week, we saw where Narrative Science has a project in which its machines are creating readable stories from tweets. It showed off an example about Newt Gingrich getting attention with “hot-button topics”. It wasn’t a mind-blowing piece of writing, but it was certainly passable for human, and even better than some content I’ve seen from some humans. I can only assume the technology will get better at what it does.

Today, co-founder and CTO Kris Hammond took to his blog to discuss the obstacles of the Narrative Science approach to translation and creating content in different languages. Hammond wrote (assuming a robot isn’t ghostwriting for him):

Multi-lingual generation of content from data has always been on Narrative Science’s road map and has informed the modularization of the core platform. It is only after all of the analysis of the facts, evaluation of their importance, and the composition of the representation that the system generates language. Within this model, generating in Spanish, Japanese, German, etc. is no different than generating in English.

The system is not designed to translate, but to generate in multiple languages.

In general, we are not ready to do this, mostly because of the composition of our client base, but doing so is a matter [of] pulling in native speakers who know how to write in non-English languages to configure the platform for the new language.

So, what I take away from this is that while Narrative Science may not be ready to go multi-lingual just yet, it’s more than likely going to happen in the future. So the machines taking over writing won’t be limited to just English.

February 23, 2012

Demand Media Earnings: Content/Media Revenue Up 15% YoY

Demand Media just released its fourth quarter and fiscal 2011 financial results, beating analysts’ expectations, but posting a net loss for the year.

The loss includes $5.9 million of “accelerated non-cash amortization expense associated with content intangible assets removed from service in conjunction with the Company’s previously announced plan to improve its content creation and distribution platform.”

Content & Media revenue (ex-TAC) grew 15% year-over-year and increased 5% compared to the third quarter. That’s significant considering that Google first launched its Panda update about a year ago (though Q1 will be more telling as far as YoY goes for the initial Panda period).

Registrar revenue grew 17% year-over-year and 2% compared to the third quarter..

“2011 finished strong and was led by record revenue from both our Content & Media and Registrar business lines,” said CEO Richard Rosenblatt. “We enter 2012 positioned to expand our existing business lines while investing in areas where we see significant future growth. We plan to leverage our data, studio and extensive distribution in new ways to solidify our leadership in the rapidly growing digital content marketplace.”

“Demand Media’s record 2011 financial performance, while navigating early year search algorithm challenges, underscores the strength of our complementary advertising and subscription businesses,” said CFO Charles Hilliard. “Importantly, our fourth quarter results delivered both growth and significant free cash flow, reflecting the value of our long-lived content library as well as our disciplined investment approach.”

More from the conference call on the way…

Here’s the release in its entirety:

Demand Media Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2011 Results

Record Fourth Quarter and 2011 Revenue and Revenue ex-TAC⁽¹⁾
2011 Adjusted OIBDA⁽¹⁾ Grows 39% to $86 Million
Q4 and 2011 Cash Flow from Operations Up Over 30%
Fivefold Increase in Q4 Free Cash Flow⁽¹⁾ to $18.3 Million
Expands Share Repurchase Program by $25 Million to a Total of $50 Million

SANTA MONICA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb. 16, 2012– Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD), a leading content and social media company, today reported financial results for the quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

“2011 finished strong and was led by record revenue from both our Content & Media and Registrar business lines,” said Richard Rosenblatt, Chairman and CEO of Demand Media. “We enter 2012 positioned to expand our existing business lines while investing in areas where we see significant future growth. We plan to leverage our data, studio and extensive distribution in new ways to solidify our leadership in the rapidly growing digital content marketplace.”


Financial Summary
In millions, except per share amounts
	Three months endedDecember 31,								Year endedDecember 31,
	2010			2011			Change		2010			2011			Change
Total Revenue	$	73.6		$	84.4		15	%	$	252.9		$	324.9		28	%

Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC⁽¹⁾	$	43.5		$	49.9		15	%	$	140.7		$	193.0		37	%
Registrar Revenue	26.8			31.4			17	%	100.0			119.4			19	%
Total Revenue ex-TAC⁽¹⁾	$	70.3		$	81.3		16	%	$	240.7		$	312.4		30	%

Income (loss) from Operations⁽²⁾	$	2.8		$	(4.8	)	NA		$	(0.5	)	$	(13.1	)	NA
Adjusted OIBDA⁽¹⁾	$	20.1		$	23.7		18	%	$	62.0		$	86.0		39	%
Net income (loss)⁽²⁾	$	1.0		$	(6.4	)	NA		$	(5.3	)	$	(18.5	)	NA
Adjusted net income⁽¹⁾	$	5.6		$	6.8		21	%	$	15.9		$	21.9		38	%

EPS⁽²⁾	$	(0.54	)	$	(0.08	)	NA		$	(2.86	)	$	(0.27	)	NA
Adjusted EPS⁽¹⁾	$	0.06		$	0.08		33	%	$	0.18		$	0.25		39	%

Cash Flow from Operations	$	20.9		$	27.2		30	%	$	61.6		$	85.3		38	%
Free Cash Flow⁽¹⁾	$	3.3		$	18.3		455	%	$	(7.0	)	$	19.5		NA

⁽¹⁾ Non-GAAP measures are described below and are reconciled to the corresponding GAAP measures in the accompanying tables.

⁽²⁾ Q4 2011 and full-year 2011 loss from operations and net loss includes $5.9 million of accelerated non-cash amortization expense associated with content intangible assets removed from service in conjunction with the Company’s previously announced plan to improve its content creation and distribution platform.

Q4 2011 Content & Media revenue ex-TAC grew 15% year-over-year and increased 5% compared to the third quarter of 2011. The 5% sequential improvement represented the second consecutive quarter of accelerating sequential growth and included the return to sequential growth for eHow for the first time since the first quarter of 2011.

Q4 2011 Registrar revenue grew 17% year-over-year and 2% compared to the third quarter of 2011. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the number of registered domains grew by a net 482,000 compared to 404,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010, due to growth from new partners and organic growth from resellers.

Q4 2011 and year ended December 31, 2011 loss from operations and net loss include $5.9 million of accelerated non-cash amortization expense associated with content intangible assets removed from service in conjunction with the Company’s previously announced plan to improve its content creation and distribution platform.

Q4 2011 free cash flow grew more than fivefold year-over-year to $18.3 million. The increase was driven by a 30% increase in cash flow from operations, combined with a 13% decrease in capital expenditures and a 59% reduction of investment in intangible assets. The intangible assets investment decline was a result of decreased content spend on eHow as the Company changes its content and distribution platform.

At December 31, 2011, cash & cash equivalents balance was $86.0 million.

“Demand Media’s record 2011 financial performance, while navigating early year search algorithm challenges, underscores the strength of our complementary advertising and subscription businesses,” saidDemand Media’s President and CFO Charles Hilliard. “Importantly, our fourth quarter results delivered both growth and significant free cash flow, reflecting the value of our long-lived content library as well as our disciplined investment approach.”

Business Highlights:

Demand Media ranked as a top 20 US web propertythroughout 2011, and ranked #17 in January 2012¹.

Demand Media recently launched the first two major channels in its partnership with YouTube: eHow Home and LIVESTRONG Woman.

eHow.com ranked as the #19 website in the US, with 48.2 million unique users in the US in January 2012¹.

LIVESTRONG.COM/eHow Health ranked as the #3 Health property in the US based on unique visits inJanuary 2012¹.

Cracked.com was the most visited humor site in the US in January 2012, and its audience spent more time on the site than any other comedy website¹.

In 2011, Demand Media’s Registrar business added 1.7 million domains under management, surpassing the 12 million domain milestone.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, Demand Media repurchased 1.9 million shares of common stock for$13.3 million under its Board-authorized $25.0 million share repurchase program. To date, the Company has repurchased 2.8 million shares of common stock for $20.1 million. On February 8, 2012,Demand Media’s Board authorized an increase of $25.0 million to the program, taking its total authorized repurchases to $50.0 million.

⁽¹⁾ Source: comScore.


Operating Metrics:

	Three months endedDecember 31,							Year endedDecember 31,
	2010			2011		% Change		2010			2011		% Change
Content & Media Metrics:
Owned and operated
Page views⁽¹⁾ (in millions)		2,201		2,696		22	%		8,234		10,378		26	%
RPM⁽²⁾		$	15.81	$	14.53	(8	)%		$	13.45	$	15.14	13	%

Network of customer websites
Page views⁽¹⁾ ⁽⁶⁾(in millions)		3,866		4,935		28	%		13,155		17,436		33	%
RPM⁽²⁾		$	3.11	$	2.81	(10	)%		$	3.20	$	2.77	(13	)%
RPM ex-TAC⁽³⁾		$	2.25	$	2.18	(3	)%		$	2.28	$	2.06	(10	)%

Registrar Metrics:
End of Period # of Domains⁽⁴⁾ (in millions)		11.0		12.7		15	%		11.0		12.7		15	%
Average Revenue per Domain⁽⁵⁾		$	9.94	$	10.08	1	%		$	9.96	$	10.08	1	%

____________________

(1)		Page views represent the total number of web pages viewed across (1) our owned and operated websites and/or (2) our network of customer websites, to the extent that the viewed customer web pages host the Company’s monetization, social media and/or content services.
(2)		RPM is defined as Content & Media revenue per one thousand page views.
(3)		RPM ex-TAC is defined as Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC per one thousand page views.
(4)		Domain is defined as an individual domain name paid for by a third-party customer where the domain name is managed through our Registrar service offering. Beginning July 1, 2011, the number of net new domains has been adjusted to include only new registered domains added to our platform for which the Company has recognized revenue. Excluding the impact of this change, end of period domains at December 31, 2011 would have increased 22% compared to the corresponding prior-year periods.
(5)		Average revenue per domain is calculated by dividing Registrar revenue for a period by the average number of domains registered in that period. Average revenue per domain for partial year periods is annualized. Beginning July 1, 2011, the number of net new domains has been adjusted to include only new registered domains added to our platform for which the Company has recognized revenue. Excluding the impact of this change, average revenue per domain during the three months and year ended December 31, 2011 would have decreased 5% and 2%, respectively, compared to the corresponding prior-year periods.
(6)		The Company acquired IndieClick on August 8, 2011, which contributed 1,553 million and 3,069 million page views, respectively, during the three months and year ended December 31, 2011.

Share Repurchase Program Increase

On February 8, 2012, Demand Media’s Board of Directors authorized an additional $25 million of share repurchases bringing the share repurchase program to a total of $50 million. Under the program, Demand Media is authorized to repurchase, in addition to the $20.1 million of repurchases to date, up to an additional $29.9 million of its outstanding shares from time to time on the open market or in negotiated transactions. The timing and amounts of any purchases will be based on share price, market conditions and other factors. The program does not require the Company to purchase any specific number of shares and may be suspended or discontinued at management’s discretion at any time without prior notice.

Business Outlook

The following forward-looking information includes certain projections made by management as of the date of this press release. The Company does not intend to revise or update this information, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future. Due to a variety of factors, actual results may differ significantly from those projected. The factors that may affect results include, without limitation, the factors referenced later in this announcement under the caption “Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” These and other factors are discussed in more detail in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hilliard added, “Our guidance reflects sustained revenue growth throughout 2012, including during the first half of the year where comparisons are challenged by early 2011’s search algorithm changes. As such, we anticipate year-over-year comparisons to improve in the second half of 2012 and Q2’s year-over-year revenue growth to accelerate compared to Q1’s. In addition, we intend to generate positive free cash flow in 2012 while continuing to make data-driven investments that yield strong returns and long-term growth.”

Excluding up to $5 million of 2012 operating expenses, which the Company expects to incur related to its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, the Company’s guidance for the first quarter ending March 31, 2012 and fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 is as follows:

First Quarter 2012

Revenue in the range of $81.5 – $83.5 million
Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $78.0 – $80.0 million
Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $19.0 – $20.0 million
Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.05 – $0.06 per share
Weighted average diluted shares 87.5 – 88.5 million

Full Year 2012

Revenue in the range of $351.0 – $358.0 million
Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $337.0 – $344.0 million
Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $92.0 – $95.0 million
Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.30 – $0.32 per share
Weighted average diluted shares 88.0 – 90.0 million

Conference Call and Webcast Information

Demand Media will host a corresponding conference call and live webcast at 5:00 p.m. Eastern timetoday. To access the conference call, dial 877.565.1268 (for domestic participants) or 937.999.3108 (for international participants). The conference ID is 44670764. To participate on the live call, analysts should dial-in at least 10-minutes prior to the commencement of the call. A live webcast also will be available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s corporate website at http://ir.demandmedia.com and via replay beginning approximately two hours after the completion of the call.

About Non-GAAP Financial Measures

To supplement our consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), we use certain non-GAAP financial measures described below. The presentation of this additional financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. For more information on these non-GAAP financial measures, please see the tables captioned “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations” included at the end of this release.

The non-GAAP financial measures presented are the primary measures used by the Company’s management and board of directors to understand and evaluate its financial performance and operating trends, including period to period comparisons, to prepare and approve its annual budget and to develop short and long term operational plans. Additionally, Adjusted OIBDA/Adjusted EBITDA is the primary measure used by the compensation committee of the Company’s board of directors to establish the target for and fund its annual employee bonus pool. We believe these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors both because (1) they allow for greater transparency with respect to key metrics used by management in its financial and operational decision making and (2) management frequently uses them in its discussions with investors, commercial bankers, securities analysts and other users of its financial statements.

Revenue ex-TAC is defined by the Company as GAAP revenue less traffic acquisition costs (“TAC”). TAC comprises the portion of Content & Media GAAP revenue shared with the Company’s network customers. Management believes that Revenue ex-TAC is a meaningful measure of operating performance because it is frequently used for internal managerial purposes and helps facilitate a more complete period-to-period understanding of factors and trends affecting the Company’s underlying revenue performance.

Adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization (“Adjusted OIBDA”) is defined by the Company as operating income (loss) before depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, as well as the financial impact of acquisition and realignment costs, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“Adjusted EBITDA”) is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before income tax expense, other income (expense), interest expense (income), depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, as well as the financial impact of acquisition and realignment costs, the operating expenses related to its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

Management believes that these non-GAAP measures reflect the Company’s business in a manner that allows for meaningful period to period comparisons and analysis of trends. In particular, the exclusion of certain expenses in calculating Adjusted OIBDA and Adjusted EBITDA can provide a useful measure for period to period comparisons of the Company’s underlying recurring revenue and operating costs which is focused more closely on the current costs necessary to utilize previously acquired long-lived assets. In addition, management believes that it can be useful to exclude certain non-cash charges because the amount of such expenses is the result of long-term investment decisions in previous periods rather than day-to-day operating decisions. For example, due to the long-lived nature of a majority of its media content, the revenue generated by the Company’s content assets in a given period bears little relationship to the amount of its investment in content in that same period. Accordingly, management believes that content acquisition costs represent a discretionary long-term capital investment decision undertaken at a point in time. This investment decision is clearly distinguishable from other ongoing business activities, and its discretionary nature and long-term impact differentiate it from specific period transactions, decisions regarding day-to-day operations, and activities that would have an immediate impact on operating or financial performance if materially changed, deferred or terminated.

Adjusted Earnings Per Share is defined by the Company as Adjusted Net Income divided by the weighted average number of shares. Adjusted Net Income is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before the effect of stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, accelerated amortization of intangible assets removed from service, acquisition and realignment costs, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions, and is calculated using the application of a normalized effective tax rate. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

Management believes that Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share provide investors with additional useful information to measure the Company’s underlying financial performance, particularly from period to period, because these measures are exclusive of certain non-cash expenses not directly related to the operation of its ongoing business (such as amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, as well as certain other non-cash expenses such as purchase accounting adjustments and stock-based compensation) and include a normalized effective tax rate based on the Company’s statutory tax rate.

Discretionary Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as net cash provided by operating activities excluding cash outflows from acquisition and realignment activities, less capital expenditures to acquire property and equipment. Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as net cash provided by operating activities excluding cash outflows from acquisition and realignment activities, less capital expenditures to acquire property and equipment and less investments in intangible assets. Management believes that Discretionary Free Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow provide investors with additional useful information to measure operating liquidity because they reflect the Company’s underlying cash flows from recurring operating activities after investing in capital assets and intangible assets. These measures are used by management, and may also be useful for investors, to assess the Company’s ability to generate cash flow for a variety of strategic opportunities, including reinvestment in the business, potential acquisitions, payment of dividends and share repurchases.

The use of these non-GAAP financial measures has certain limitations because they do not reflect all items of income and expense, or cash flows that affect the Company’s operations. An additional limitation of these non-GAAP financial measures is that they do not have standardized meanings, and therefore other companies may use the same or similarly-named measures but exclude different items or use different computations. Management compensates for these limitations by reconciling these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures within its financial press releases. These non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for, measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. Further, these non-GAAP financial measures may differ from the non-GAAP information used by other companies, including peer companies, and therefore comparability may be limited. We encourage investors and others to review our financial information in its entirety and not rely on a single financial measure. The accompanying tables have more details on the GAAP financial measures and the related reconciliations.

About Demand Media

Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD) is a leading content and social media company that informs and entertains one of the Internet’s largest audiences, helps advertisers find innovative ways to engage with their customers and enables publishers to expand their online presence. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Demand Media has offices in North America, South America and Europe. For more information aboutDemand Media, please visit www.demandmedia.com

Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties regarding the Company’s future financial performance, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, financial condition, operating performance and results of operations, including certain assumptions related thereto. Statements containing words such as “guidance,” “may,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project,” “projections,” “business outlook,” and “estimate” or similar expressions constitute forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted, and reported results should not be considered an indication of future performance. Potential risks and uncertainties include, among others: changes in the methodologies of Internet search engines, including ongoing algorithmic changes made byGoogle to its search results as well as possible future changes, and the impact such changes may have on page view growth and driving search related traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; changes in our content creation and distribution platform, including the possible repurposing of content to alternate distribution channels, or the sale or removal of content, as well as our ability to successfully launch and produce new content formats; the inherent challenges of estimating the overall impact on page views and search driven traffic to our owned and operated websites based on the data available to us as Google continues to make adjustments to its search algorithms; our ability to compete with new or existing competitors; our ability to maintain or increase our advertising revenue; our ability to continue to drive and grow traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to effectively monetize our portfolio of content; our dependence on material agreements with a specific business partner for a significant portion of our revenue; future internal rates of return on content investment and our decision to invest in different types of content in the future, including video and other formats of text content; our ability to attract and retain freelance creative professionals; changes in our level of investment in media content intangibles; the effects of changes in marketing expenditures or shifts in marketing expenditures; the effects of seasonality on traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to continue to add partners to our registrar platform on competitive terms; our ability to successfully pursue our gTLD initiative; changes in stock-based compensation; changes in amortization or depreciation expense due to a variety of factors; potential write downs, reserves against or impairment of assets including receivables, goodwill, intangibles, and media content or other assets; changes in tax laws, our business or other factors that would impact anticipated tax benefits or expenses; our ability to successfully identify, consummate and integrate acquisitions, including integrating our recent acquisitions; our ability to retain key customers and key personnel; risks associated with litigation; the impact of governmental regulation; and the effects of discontinuing or discontinued business operations. From time to time, we may consider acquisitions or divestitures that, if consummated, could be material. Any forward-looking statements regarding financial metrics are based upon the assumption that no such acquisition or divestiture is consummated during the relevant periods. If an acquisition or divestiture were consummated, actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements. More information about potential risk factors that could affect our operating and financial results are contained in our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.sec.gov) on March 1, 2011, and as such risk factors may be updated in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, information under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Furthermore, as discussed above, the Company does not intend to revise or update the information set forth in this press release, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future.

Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Three months ended
December 31,

Year ended
December 31,

2010

2011

2010

2011

Revenue

73,579

84,415

252,936

324,866

Operating expenses

Service costs (exclusive of amortization of intangible assets shown separately below) ^{(1) (2)}

36,123

40,198

131,332

155,830

Sales and marketing ^{(1) (2)}

7,619

9,325

24,424

37,394

Product development ^{(1) (2)}

7,402

9,462

26,538

38,146

General and administrative ^{(1) (2)}

10,336

13,803

37,371

59,451

Amortization of intangible assets

9,268

16,393

33,750

47,174

Total operating expenses

70,748

89,181

253,415

337,995

Income (loss) from operations

2,831

(4,766

)

(479

)

(13,129

)

Other income (expense)

Interest income

Interest expense

(171

)

(151

)

(688

)

(861

)

Other income (expense), net

(122

)

(75

)

(286

)

(413

)

Total other expense

(287

)

(222

)

(949

)

(1,218

)

Income (loss) before income taxes

2,544

(4,988

)

(1,428

)

(14,347

)

Income tax expense

(1,515

)

(1,438

)

(3,897

)

(4,177

)

Net loss

1,029

(6,426

)

(5,325

)

(18,524

)

⁽¹⁾ Stock-based compensation expense included in the line items above:

Service costs

205

711

868

2,052

Sales and marketing

758

1,416

2,379

4,857

Product development

476

1,364

1,692

5,013

General and administrative

1,107

3,263

4,750

16,934

Total stock-based compensation expense

2,546

6,754

9,689

28,856

⁽²⁾ Depreciation included in the line items above:

Service costs

4,359

3,770

14,783

16,075

Sales and marketing

127

187

423

Product development

350

308

1,346

1,466

General and administrative

535

861

1,950

2,994

Total depreciation

5,303

5,066

18,266

20,958

Loss per common share:

Net loss

1,029

(6,426

)

(5,325

)

(18,524

)

Cumulative preferred stock dividends ⁽³⁾

(8,602

)

—

(33,251

)

(2,477

)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders

(7,573

)

(6,426

)

(38,576

)

(21,001

)

Basic and diluted net loss per share

(0.54

)

(0.08

)

(2.86

)

(0.27

)

Weighted average number of shares

13,966

83,592

13,508

78,646

____________________

(3) As a result of the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, all shares of the Company’s preferred stock were converted to common stock.



Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (In thousands)

	December 31, 2010			December 31, 2011
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,338		$	86,035
Accounts receivable, net	26,843			32,665
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	7,360			8,656
Deferred registration costs	44,213			50,636
Total current assets	110,754			177,992

Property and equipment, net	34,975			32,626
Intangible assets, net	102,114			111,304
Goodwill	224,920			256,060
Deferred registration costs	8,037			9,555
Other long-term assets	7,667			2,566
Total assets	$	488,467		$	590,103

Liabilities, Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Current liabilities
Accounts payable	$	8,330		$	10,046
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities	29,570			33,932
Deferred tax liabilities	15,248			18,288
Deferred revenue	61,832			71,109
Total current liabilities	114,980			133,375
Deferred revenue	14,106			14,802
Other liabilities	1,043			1,660
Total liabilities	130,129			149,837

Convertible preferred stock
Total convertible preferred stock	373,754			—
Stockholders’ equity (deficit)
Common stock and additional paid-in capital	36,723			528,045
Treasury stock	—			(17,067		)
Accumulated other comprehensive income	108			59
Accumulated deficit	(52,247		)	(70,771		)
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)	(15,416		)	440,266
Total liabilities, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit)	$	488,467		$	590,103

Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(In thousands)

Three months ended
December 31,

Year ended
December 31,

2010

2011

2010

2011

Cash flows from operating activities:

Net loss

1,029

(6,426

)

(5,325

)

(18,524

)

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:

Depreciation and amortization

14,571

21,459

52,016

68,132

Stock-based compensation

2,470

6,741

9,329

28,730

Other

1,115

1,128

3,374

3,491

Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of acquisitions

1,747

4,322

2,230

3,520

Net cash provided by operating activities

20,932

27,224

61,624

85,349

Cash flows from investing activities:

Purchases of property and equipment

(4,864

)

(4,222

)

(21,404

)

(18,246

)

Purchases of intangibles

(12,791

)

(5,294

)

(47,192

)

(49,283

)

Proceeds from maturities and sales of marketable securities, net

—

2,300

—

Cash paid for acquisitions

—

(38

)

—

(31,010

)

Net cash used in investing activities

(17,655

)

(9,554

)

(66,296

)

(98,539

)

Cash flows from financing activities:

Payment of debt

—

(10,000

)

—

Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net

—

(145

)

1,552

78,480

Repurchases of common stock

—

(13,336

)

—

(17,064

)

Proceeds from exercises of stock options and contributions to ESPP

524

3,242

—

7,599

Other

(694

)

(532

)

(2,089

)

(2,079

)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

(170

)

(10,771

)

(10,537

)

66,936

Effect of foreign currency on cash and cash equivalents

(18

)

(61

)

(49

)

Change in cash and cash equivalents

3,108

6,881

(15,270

)

53,697

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period

29,230

79,154

47,608

32,338

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period

32,338

86,035

32,338

86,035

Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Three months ended
December 31,

Year ended
December 31,

2010

2011

2010

2011

Revenue ex-TAC:

Content & Media Revenue

46,802

53,032

152,910

205,450

Less: traffic acquisition costs (TAC)

(3,302

)

(3,111

)

(12,213

)

(12,495

)

Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC

43,500

49,921

140,697

192,955

Registrar Revenue

26,777

31,383

100,026

119,416

Total Revenue ex-TAC

70,277

81,304

240,723

312,371

Adjusted OIBDA:

Income (loss) from operations

2,831

(4,766

)

(479

)

(13,129

)

Depreciation

5,303

5,066

18,266

20,958

Amortization of intangible assets⁽¹⁾

9,268

16,393

33,750

47,174

Stock-based compensation

2,546

6,754

9,689

28,856

Acquisition and realignment costs⁽²⁾

164

271

779

2,099

Adjusted OIBDA

20,112

23,718

62,005

85,958

Discretionary and Total Free Cash Flow:

Net cash provided by operating activities

20,932

27,224

61,624

85,349

Purchases of property and equipment

(4,864

)

(4,222

)

(21,404

)

(18,246

)

Acquisition and realignment cash flows

—

602

—

1,670

Discretionary Free Cash Flow

16,068

23,604

40,220

68,773

Purchases of intangible assets

(12,791

)

(5,294

)

(47,192

)

(49,284

)

Free Cash Flow

3,277

18,310

(6,972

)

19,489

Adjusted Net Income:

GAAP net income (loss)

1,029

(6,426

)

(5,325

)

(18,524

)

(a) Stock-based compensation

2,546

6,754

9,689

28,856

(b) Amortization of intangible assets – M&A

3,758

2,974

16,576

12,773

(c) Content intangible assets removed from service⁽¹⁾

—

5,898

—

5,898

(d) Acquisition and realignment costs⁽²⁾

164

271

779

2,099

(e) Income tax effect of items (a) – (d) & application of 38% statutory tax rate to pre-tax income

(1,910

)

(2,707

)

(5,837

)

(9,228

)

Adjusted Net Income

5,587

6,764

15,882

21,874

Non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted

0.06

0.08

0.18

0.25

Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted⁽³⁾

87,885

86,758

86,422

88,541

		___________________
⁽¹⁾		In conjunction with its previously announced plans to improve its content creation and distribution platform, the Company elected to remove certain content assets from service, resulting in $5.9 million of accelerated amortization expense in the fourth quarter of 2011.

⁽²⁾		Acquisition and realignment costs include non-cash purchase accounting adjustments, acquisition-related legal and accounting professional fees and employee severance payments attributable to corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these costs to be indicative of the Company’s core operating results.

⁽³⁾		Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted include the weighted average common stock and restricted stock for the periods presented and all dilutive common stock equivalent at each period. Amounts have been adjusted in all periods to reflect the revised capital structure following the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, whereby the Company issued 5,175 shares of common stock and converted certain warrants and all of the convertible preferred stock into 62,155 shares of common stock as if those transactions were consummated on January 1, 2010.



Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries Unaudited GAAP Revenue, by Revenue Source (In thousands)

	Three months ended December 31,						Year ended December 31,
	2010			2011			2010			2011
Content & Media:
Owned and operated websites	$	34,787		$	39,172		$	110,770		$	157,089
Network of customer websites	12,015			13,860			42,141			48,361
Total Revenue – Content & Media	46,802			53,032			152,911			205,450
Registrar	26,777			31,383			100,026			119,416
Total Revenue	$	73,579		$	84,415		$	252,936		$	324,866


	Three months ended December 31,						Year ended December 31,
	2010			2011			2010			2011
Content & Media:
Owned and operated websites	47		%	47		%	44		%	48		%
Network of customer websites	16		%	16		%	17		%	15		%
Total Revenue – Content & Media	63		%	63		%	61		%	63		%
Registrar	37		%	37		%	39		%	37		%
Total Revenue	100		%	100		%	100		%	100		%

Source: Demand Media, Inc.

February 16, 2012

2011: Year Of The (Google) Panda
Perhaps the biggest story line in Internet search this year has been the ongoing saga of the Google Panda Update. Let’s recap, and look ahead to next year.

Has Panda been the most significant thing to happen in search this year to you? If not, what was? Let us know in the comments.

At the beginning of the year, there was a lot of attention being payed to the quality of Google’s search results, as the content farm movement was reaching a high search result saturation point. There was also a lot of criticism. Eventually, Google finally took action. It launched in February (globally in April), and initially earned the nickname “Farmer” update. I believe this was coined by Danny Sullivan. Then Google came out and let the world know what its real name was: Panda, named after a Google engineer that goes by Panda.

“He was one of the key guys,” explained Google’s Amit Singhal in an interview with Wired in early March. “He basically came up with the breakthrough a few months back that made it possible.”

So, whether you think Panda has been a great thing for search, or it has ruined your life and/or business, I guess you have this guy to thank. Though, I’m sure if he didn’t come up with it, someone else at Google would have come up with something similar. The criticism was getting pretty strong, and Google can’t afford to lose users due to poor search quality. Though Google does many, many other things and offers many products that people use on a daily basis, search and advertising are still Google’s bread and butter, and Google’s quality has still kept it high above competitors in search market share.

We’ve probably posted close to a hundred Panda-related article at WebProNews this year, if you count the ones leading up to it, about content farms and their effects on search, and the ones about the update before it actually came to be known as Panda. I could probably turn them into a book if I wanted, so I’m not going to rehash it all here, but let’s go through some highlights.

Google “Panda” Algorithm Update – What’s Known & What’s Possible was an early look at some things that were evident, and what people were speculating about what might be hurting them with the Panda update. There were a lot of good comments on this one too, for further discussion.

Suite101, was one of the sites hit hard by Panda. In that Wired interview, Matt Cutts actually mentioned them by name, saying, “I feel pretty confident about the algorithm on Suite 101.”

Suite101 CEO Peter Berger responded with an open letter to Cutts. You can read it in its entirety here, but it concluded with:

Another level of depth may be added to this discussion if the word “quality” were more fully defined. “Quality” without much more precisely defining it, especially when the quality mentioned does only seem to be a quality signal relating to a given search query, leaves a lot still misunderstood…

HubPages, which eventually had some recovery success attributed to the use of sub-domains, noted a lack of consistency on how Google viewed quality. According to CEO Paul Edmondson, some of the site’s best content had dropped in rankings, while others went up.

Dani Horowitz of DaniWeb, which recovered, dropped, and recovered again, shared some interesting stories with us about how some of her most relevant stuff stopped ranking where it should have, while other less relevant pieces of content (to their respective queries) were ranking higher.

Google, however, has always acknowledged that “no algorithm is perfect.”

Panda hit a lot more than content farms, and sites that in that vein. E-commerce sites were hit. Coupon sites were hit. Affiliate sites were hit. Video, news, blogs and porn sites did well (at least initially).

Oh yeah, Google’s own properties didn’t too bad either, though some of its competitors did well also.

There was a lot of surprise when Demand Media’s eHow wasn’t hit by the Panda update, as this was essentially known as the posterchild for content farms, but that didn’t last. In a future interation, eHow eventually got hit, which led to the company deleting 300,000 eHow articles and launching a content clean-up initiatve. Yahoo just did something similar with its Associated Content this month.

Eventually Google simply put out a list of questions that all sites should consider when thinking about creating “quality” content. The moral of the story is that, no matter what kind of site you have, if you heavily consider these things, you should have a better chance of beating the Panda update, because you’ll be creating good, trustworthy content. Those questions were:
- Would you trust the information presented in this article?
- Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
- Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
- Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
- Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
- Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
- Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
- Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
- How much quality control is done on content?
- Does the article describe both sides of a story?
- Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
- Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
- Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
- For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
- Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
- Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
- Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
- Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
- Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
- Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
- Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
- Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
- Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
Other fun Panda nuggets:

Panda reference in Google Earth Day Doodle

Google Panda Update Gets Animated (And Kind of Weird)

Google Panda Update: A Delicious Set of Resources

Google tells you exactly where to let them know when you’ve been hit by Panda

Hitler Not a Fan of the Google Panda Update

Panda Bread: The Ultimate Treat For The Panda Enthusiast

So here we are, almost through with 2011, and we’ve seen numerous iterations of the Panda update. We’ll continue to see more next year most likely. Google has said flat out, that it is done with them for the rest of 2011 though.

In 2012, we can look forward to not only more Panda updates, but more focus on “above the fold” content from the sound of it, and who knows what else Google will have up its sleeve. The most important things to remember are that Google makes algorithm changes every day (over 500 a year), and there are over 200 signals the algorithm uses to determine rankings. Any of these signals or tweaks can help or hurt you. Stay on top of what Google is doing, and keep a focus on quality, and you should be fine. Remember, if you want Google’s RESPECT, you better RESPECT Google.

Panda has affected a lot of websites. It’s cost people jobs, forced companies to rethink their content strategies, and even inspired people to offer rewards for help recovering.

You can view all of our Panda coverage from throughout the year for more details, advice, case studies, parodies, and just about anything Panda-related that came up.

Has Panda improved Google or hurt it? Let us know what you think.
December 24, 2011
Skyword Gets $6 Million Investment From Cox

Update:Following the publication of this piece, we were reached by Skyword, who appears to take exception to being linked to the “content farm” label. I think people have somewhat different ideas of what the term means. Demand Media CEO Richard Rosenblatt has stated publicly, for example, that the company does not (and did not) run a content farm, Yet, this is the first company many people think of when they hear the word.

Anyhow, here is what Skyword CEO Tom Gerace tells us about Skyword. He says it is not a platform for content farming, but…

It is quite the opposite – we allow high quality content producers to compete with content farms by efficiently producing quality content that is optimized for search and the social web.

I guess in this case, quality is the differentiator. He continued:

Skyword operates a content production platform that is used by some of the best recognized media companies and brands to produce their digital content. In most cases, Skyword clients (which include The Wall Street Journal Digital, education.com, ImpreMedia) use Skyword to manage their own editors and writers. In other cases, Skyword assists with writer recruitment and management as well as editorial services.

Skyword’s platform integrates with client CMS systems, allowing Skyword clients to manage their content production, optimize their content for search and the social web and track the performance of their content in reaching and engaging audiences. Skyword analytics then allow their clients to better understand what content their customers are consuming to improve the performance of their content over time.

Original Article: Skyword announced that it has raised $6 million through an investment from Cox Media, indicating that companies still see value in the content farm model.

Skyword has been labeled a content farm, but it is a bit different than a lot of the other sites commonly referred to as such. It doesn’t flood the search engines with pages from Skyword.com or its own properties.

Skyword labels itself “The Leader in Search-driven media”. It’s actually more a platform for “content farming” than a content farm itself. Rather, it pairs its writers with brands who need content. Here’s what it tells writers:

Writers, use your talent and creativity as a Skywriter to create content for the websites of leading consumer brands and media companies. Learn the latest digital media skills, including cutting edge methods to drive traffic to their content from search and the social web. Expand your resume and build your online writing portfolio by contributing to some of the top brands and media sites on the web. Apply to become a Skywriter where you can share your perspective on popular topics or current news events across a variety of writing programs.

Here’s what it tells brands:

Brands and media companies spend $18B annually on Search Engine Marketing (SEM) to reach consumers when they search. By creating quality content that matches consumer search queries precisely, we help enable brands to reach the same searchers on the exact same searches through natural search—at half the price.

“Brands are becoming publishers at an increasing rate, with many making moves into the digital publishing space for the first time. The investment from Cox Media Group positions Skyword to capitalize on the continued growth of the $41B content marketing space, while further enhancing our ability to deliver strong results to our customers while they create exceptional content for theirs,” said Skyword CEO Tom Gerace.

“Cox is very excited to be investing in Skyword. Our hope is that our long history and their entrepreneurial spirit will make for a great combination and we will both learn more about this rapidly evolving market,” said Cox EVP Alex Taylor. “Skyword’s unique digital content platform allows brands and media companies to not only reach their customers directly with quality content, but to also interact with them like never before. Most importantly, their leadership team is passionate and impressive, and I know they will make a big impact on their customers.”

In addition to the Cox investment, an undisclosed representative from Cox will join the Skyword Board of Directors, which is currently made up of Jim Manzi, former CEO of Lotus Development Corporation and current chairman of Thermo Fisher, Former Senator Bill Bradley, currently of Allen & Company, Bill Kling, founder and President Emeritus of American Public Media Group, and Gerace.

December 19, 2011
Yahoo Gets Rid of 75,000 Associated Content Articles, Launches Yahoo Voices

Yahoo has now decided to follow Demand Media’s lead by deleting 75,000 articles from Associated Content, and is even going so far as to change Associated Content new a new network called Yahoo Voices.

In a post on Yahoo’s Yodel Anecdotal blog, the company says “We have retired more than 75,000 pieces of inactive and outdated content from Associated Content. None of this content will appear on Yahoo! Voices, and only content that meets our revised Submission Guidelines will be accepted moving forward. Older content that does not meet these standards will be gradually retired or returned to the original author for editing.”

This is obviously a reaction (albeit a very late reaction) to Google’s Panda update, which itself has been updated various times throughout the year, and will likely continue to be tweaked. I’m sure you know the story if you’re reading this. If not, you can find our past coverage here.

Demand Media ended up deleting around 300,000 articles from eHow, and seems to have been doing ok since (though they did implement a broader quality clean-up initiative and put a greater emphasis on social).

Here’s an email that Yahoo has sent out to writers:

We’re writing to notify you about some important changes to Yahoo! Contributor Network and our digital library of content.

First, allow us to introduce Yahoo! Voices: a new online home for millions of pieces of content created by our community of experts and enthusiasts.

Yahoo! Voices (http://voices.yahoo.com) replaces Associated Content as the official digital library of Yahoo! Contributor Network. Most content formerly published on Associated Content will now be found on the new site, andassociatedcontent.com URLs will automatically redirect to the corresponding pieces on voices.yahoo.com. You’ll now see Yahoo! Voices in place of Associated Content on your profile page, Account page, and Content menu as well.

We’re also pleased to announce these important changes in connection with the launch of Yahoo! Voices:

New Submission Guidelines: Today we are releasing revised Submission Guidelines, which better clarify what we’re seeking: unique content containing authentic perspectives from experts, enthusiasts, and citizen journalists, to complement Yahoo!’s broader editorial offerings. Read the new guidelines here.

Editing and retiring content: The above guidelines apply to new and existing content. Any published content that does not meet these standards may be returned for editing or retired. We ask that you review your own library to identify content that doesn’t meet our new guidelines, is outdated, or simply isn’t something you’re proud to call your best work. We’ve added two new options to our content flag tool. “Flagging my own content for retirement” will, pending editors’ review, remove that content from the site (without affecting your accumulated page views, pending Performance Bonus, or Clout score). “Flagging my own content for edits” will prompt us to return the content to you so that you can update and resubmit it.

“Yahoo! Style Guide” giveaway: The “Yahoo! Style Guide” is the ultimate guide to best practices in online content creation, and it has already become invaluable to many contributors. We’ve sent style guides to hundreds of contributors so far, and to celebrate the launch of Yahoo! Voices, we’re spreading the knowledge further. If you haven’t received a style guide from us already and you live in the US, those of you with more than 10 published articles who also publish a new article before the end of the year will receive an invitation to claim a free copy. Don’t miss your chance to get this amazing resource for free!

Additional information:

On the blog: Associated Content founder and Yahoo! VP Luke Beatty discusses the launch of Yahoo! Voices, and how we got here.

Yahoo! Voices FAQ: Learn more about how this launch may affect you.

If you notice any technical issues in connection with this launch, please contact us.

Thank you for helping us reach this milestone! We’re excited to provide an even better place to showcase your unique voice on Yahoo!. Check out Yahoo! Voices now.

Sincerely,

Yahoo! Contributor Network

Some writers were wondering why they hadn’t been getting assignments from Yahoo lately. That would explain it.

December 2, 2011
Helium Account Balances Appear Negative for Writers

Writing community Helium is apparently having some issues in the writers’ payments department.

If you’re not familiar with Helium otherwise, WebProNews readers may remember the site being discussed in the wake of Google’s Panda update. It’s a user generated content site (perhaps considered a content farm to some) often mentioned in the same breath as Demand Media, HubPages, Suite101, Associated Content, etc.

It was hit by the Panda update early in the year, but like many other Panda victims, soon began making a lot of changes to its site, and was able to raise $10 million in funding back in May.

Now, it appears some writers are seeing erroneous negative balances in their accounts. Today, Helium’s Steve Singer posted an update on the company blog:

We are aware of a problem that many writers have reported today, 12/1/11 regarding negative balances to their account. Helium’s tech team is currently working to correct this. We do know this is only an issue with the display and that the correct balances are in our database. Please do not contact the help desk — we’re working to fix this as soon as possible!

An update to the post later said:

The tech team believes they have isolated the problem and are working on a fix. Once the fix is coded, it will need to checked. So we don’t yet have a specific delivery time.

Helium has also been tweeting updates:

@HeliumWriter
HeliumWriterWe are actively working on a solution to a known problem with negative earnings displays. See our boards for more info: http://t.co/3Ycy6AJ9 1 hour ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

@HeliumWriter
HeliumWriterNo data has been lost, and all earnings are still in tact. We are doing everything we can to fix this display issue. 1 hour ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

From the sound of it, it’s not going to be anything to worry too much about, but it’s likely been an inconvenience for some.

Update: Singer has made a couple more updates to the blog post:

Update 12/1/11 12:15 PM Eastern Time –We’ve come up with a fix, that worked properly in our test environments, and then deployed it to production. However, apparently once in production it’s appearing only as a partial fix. So while your earnings may come up, it’s not fully complete. We are still working towards full resolution of this issue.

Update 12/1/11 3:15 PM Eastern Time – We are continuing to investigate this issue, with the assistance of several helpful members.

December 1, 2011
Demand Media Giving Top Writers Assignment Priority

Demand Media is no stranger to controversy, and while the company has clearly taken a much firmer stance on content quality this year, it’s leaving some writers lacking a significant source of income.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated from its original form. Just so everything’s clear right up front: Demand Media does have a new program called “First Look” but the company says another program that’s been discussed in various reader comments, “eHow Select” is “a scam”. Please see the end of the article for statements from Demand Media.

The company recently announced it would be cutting down on the number of writing assignments – something that a lot of writers will tell you was already happening. Now, it looks like it will be harder than ever for some of these writers to get their hands on assignments.

The email indicates that Demand is implementing a new program that gives its “highest-rated writer” first dibs on new assignments.

Thanks to reader Kim for sharing the email:

Studio Writers,

We are excited to announce a new program called First Look. It is intended to reward our highest-rated writers by giving them the first look at new titles. Starting this week, the highest-rated writers will have advanced access to view and claim new assignments for 48 hours before they are released into the Find Assignments pool.

We’ve all invested a lot and we want to further reward writers who best exemplify the attributes of good writing. The eligible group will be those writers who maintain an average structure of 4.0 or higher for their last 50 articles.

The score will be recalculated with every new article. While we plan to add this updated score to your Work Desk, it will not be immediately visible. We may also at some point modify this method of calculation. If your average falls below 4.0, you will lose First Look privileges until you bring your score back within the qualifying range.

In an attempt to be mindful and fair to all eligible writers, all writers’ assignment claim limits will be set to 10. As with the current system, once you submit an article, you may claim another assignment. We will notify those writers eligible for First Look via email. All changes will go into effect in the next few days.

We will continue to listen to your feedback and invest in programs like this. Please visit this forum thread if you have any questions
Thanks,

Jeremy Reed, SVP Editorial

Update: There was some question about the legitimacy of the email at first, as we had some trouble getting confirmation from Demand Media (which is not typical), but Noah Davis at Business Insider says he’s been able to confirm it, though he says too in his own article that he’s so far been unable to get further comment from the company thus far.

Information about the “First Look” program is scarce on the web. There is not even a post about it on the Demand Studios blog.

Finally, another reader, Geoff, shared a different email allegedly from eHow about something called “eHow Select”. This one says:

Dear eHow Select writers,
On behalf of the eHow Select project team, I would like to thank you for the articles submitted to the program so far. We are all extremely proud to be working with such a dedicated and passionate team of writers, as evidenced by the lowest rewrite and rejection percentages among all eHow sections.
Based on those encouraging numbers and on several other factors, we have decided to introduce a new feature that will allow you to nominate other writers for future inclusion in the program. At the bottom of each article published on eHow, you will now find a “Nominate” link that allows you, in effect, to vote for its author. The portfolio of writers who have been nominated by current eHow Select members will be reviewed by our team and, if their portfolio meets our quality standards, may be given access to eHow Select.
This new feature, however, does not affect the current recruitment procedure. Our team will continue to review non-nominated writers, as well as applications made through the HelpDesk.
We would also like to remind you of the confidentiality of the project. As outlined in the guidelines that were sent to you, discussing the project on third-party websites or in the general sections of the Demand Studios forums can lead to having your eHow Select privileges revoked.
Lydia Content Manager eHow Select

Geoff says, “More proof that Demand Media deliberately LIES to its writers. It has a section called eHow Select that the company pretends doesn’t exist, yet it has many assignments available. DMS forbids the writers within this section from telling other writers about it. This at a time when most sections over at Demand have zero titles for writers to write.”

Some replies to this comment indicate that this email was fabricated to make DM look bad. Others are defending it.

At this point, it’s looking like the First Look program is legit, but questions remain about the eHow Select email.

We will update as soon as we get response from Demand Media.

Update: Demand Media’s Kristen Moore tells us about First Look:

“We’ve just announced First Look to our writing community, and the formal launch is planned for tomorrow. In short it’s a program that allows us to reward our highest rated writers. For writers who maintain an average structure score of 4.0 or higher over their last 50 articles, they’ll have advanced access to new assignments. They’ll be allowed to claim those assignments 48 hours before they’re released into the general Find Assignments pool. In order to keep it fair we will only allow those with First Look access to claim 10 assignments at one time.”

“This is all part of our ongoing focus on quality and expertise. Let me know if you have any questions about the program.”

She also tells us: “’eHow Select’ is indeed a scam. It’s not an eHow or Demand Media program.”

October 18, 2011
Demand Media Writers Offer Different Viewpoints of Assignment Reduction

Demand Media recently alerted Demand Media Studios writers that it would be reducing the amount of assignments it would be given out. As discussed in a recent article, this has left a fair amount of writers without a significant source of income. While that article focused a bit more on Demand’s strategy as a business, we wanted to take a closer look at some perspectives from the writers.

Many have expressed frustration. Some have gone so far as to accuse Demand Media of lying at worst or misleading at best. Others think such claims are way off base. In this article, we’ll take a look at these different points of view.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments. And if you find this subject interesting, please don’t hesitate to share it on Stumbleupon, Facebook, Twitter, +1, etc.

A writer, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells WebProNews, “I’ve been writing for Demand Studios since 2009 and have only used the income for pocket money, however recently I intended to expand my writing with them. In May 2011 I qualified to write for eHow Money a specialized category for writers with professional experience and the appropriate credentials in addition to my current status as a general writer.”

“I retired as an Assistant Vice President in 2008 from a corporate career in Financial Services in mutual funds from a major financial institution,” they added. “I was a licensed registered principal and have over 30 years experience in financial services and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. My attention was to fulfill a lifelong goal to pursue a fulltime writing career post-retirement. I’ve had extensive business writing experience so I qualified very easily for the general writing and subsequently eHow Money based on my writing ability, business experience and education.”

The writer tells us that they, along with may other Demand Studios writers received vague responses when expressing concern at the lack of assignments. They said they felt “they were being strung along, which is akin to lying.”

“They continually developed new writing categories (eHow Money [and] eHow Garden are examples) as the titles disappeared and the promises that they were providing a better writing experience for their freelance writers,” the writer tells us. “Specifically, shortly after I qualified for eHow Money I contacted the editorial staff because the titles for this category were drastically reduced, and questioned them about qualifying me for a category when the titles were rapidly disappearing. Their response was that they were sorry but working on getting titles out. This is basically the standard response [to] all of their writers when the quantity of titles are questioned. It’s almost as if all of the changes for ‘new writing opportunities’ were a coverup when they were actually taking away the writing opportunities at the same time.”

The writer says Demand Media raised the pay for eHow Money articles, but that there were “no articles to write”.

“Many of the writers were optimistic and waited patiently,” the writer says. “Some writers also encouraged others that more titles would be available via our writers’ forum. There were a significant number of writers earning enough money to pay a good portion of their bills…Writers sincerely believed that they could depend on Demand Studios and continued to write for them because they are one of the few online organizations that pay upfront.”

The writer says they expected this when Demand Media went public and the Panda Update came. “I instinctively knew this was going to be a disaster.”

“It is also very important for the writing community to understand that Demand Studios had and still has writers who provide them with content of the highest professional quality,” the writer adds.

“I’m done with them and will not devote my energy to a company any longer who has no respect for its writers,” the writer tells us. “They’re still making money tens of times over the amount they paid me and all of the other writers.”

This is just the perspective from one writer, but we have seen plenty of other similar tales. Noah Davis at Business Insider shares a response to the freelancer backlash from Demand Media’s Chief Revenue Officer Joanne Bradford: “It’s still one of the largest pools of writing assignments available in the world. We don’t feel like it’s that dramatic of a change because it’s not like every assignment was being taken.”

Our anonymous writer says the response is an “insult.” Davis says he heard from other writers that the quote was “hilarious to those of us who are still working for [Demand Studios].”

Bradford is also quoted as saying, “The folks that are more generalists and have written the short-form how-to articles are finding less assignments. This goes hand-in-hand with our quality improvement and focus on using people who have expertise about the topics they write about.”

Not all Demand Studios writers are so upset though. Some don’t feel that they’ve been misleading at all.

Ken Crawford of The Freelancer Today, for example, has been writing for Demand since July of 2009, and says Demand was his “bread and butter” for quite some time. He acknowledges that things have changed, but he still writes for Demand on a regular basis, he says.

“The perception of whether Demand lied to writers or not, depends on who you ask,” Crawford tells WebProNews. “To be honest, Demand never lied to anybody or made statements that promised one thing while delivering another. Many of the writers that are accusing Demand of lying are ones who are finding themselves without work. Many of these writers are ones who didn’t apply the guidelines, had high percentages of abandoned rewrites/rejections or were basically writing the thinnest content just to grab the $15 justifying it with ‘you get what you pay for.’ Granted $15 is not a lot for content, but if the writer agrees to the rate of pay they should still put out quality work. Nothing is hidden.”

“Demand has not hidden the fact that changes were coming,” he adds. “Even in the latest announcement, the people claiming lies only scanned the information instead of actually reading it. Ehow is not going away, but there will be less title availability. Face it there are only so many ways you can write ‘How To Boil an Egg’ before you finally have to move on to ‘How To Peel a Boiled Egg.’”

eHow has been talking about its content clean-up initiative for a good portion of the year. This includes the deletion of at least 300,000 articles and a feedback feature that tells the company when users are unsatisfied with content, so it can then be more heavily scrutinized and either deleted or edited as necessary.

“While Demand hasn’t come out and spelled out specifically what they are doing in detail, they haven’t outright lied to anybody,” says Crawford. “People make assumptions on limited knowledge. People make accusations out of fear and anger.”

“The work is still there,” he adds. “I, like many other writers, manage to keep my queue filled daily and write consistently. Sure there are issues with editing consistency and so forth, but the work is there for those that work within the system.”

In our previous article, we mentioned the potential financial impact on Demand Media. Is it possible that less assignments means less growth?

“My gut feeling is that this is a good move for Demand,” says Crawford. “It will ‘weed’ out writers who are simply there to put words on a screen for a quick buck. Demand is making efforts to match both writers and editors in their fields of expertise. It’s a growing process and one that is not without it’s challenges. But looking at it long-term, I believe it will benefit not only Demand Studios and it’s writers but also the reader. Less articles at the moment generated for eHow will bring better quality and, one would hope, more value to the reader.”

“Demand Studios is accountable to the shareholders and not just themselves,” he adds. “While the ‘creative’ plan to show profit over 5 years on content is nice, it is vital that they show profit now. It’s business. They will concentrate in areas that give more of a return on investment. Ehow is still a big part of that process, and as far as I can see it will continue to be a big part.”

Crawford also wanted to make one last point about his own position.

“People tend to think I’m a cheerleader or somehow stir the vat of the DMS Kool-Aid,” he says. “My only affiliation with Demand is that of a service provider, plain and simple. The fact is, Demand fills a void for writers. Unfortunately the way the system was set-up in the past, it also provided income for those who simply wanted to make a quick buck. Regardless if you agree to write for $15 or $100, the end result of a writer’s work should be the same. It’s about quality. It’s about bringing value to your client and the readers. If $15 is beneath you, don’t write for Demand Studios.”

A lot of writers apparently don’t feel like they have much of a choice.

Jennifer Mattern at AllFreelanceWriting.com writes, “I’ve also seen writers’ responses to this news. On one hand it’s difficult for me to have sympathy when we’ve spent so much time and energy here helping writers improve their freelance businesses. The information is out there — not only here, but from many great freelancers such as Lori Widmer, Anne Wayman, and Peter Bowerman, and the folks at Freelance Zone, Freelance Folder, and Freelance Switch. If you want to be a more successful freelance writer, you have seemingly endless information available to help you do that.”

“On the other hand, I can’t help but sympathize with some of these writers,” she says. “The news came somewhat suddenly and not long before the holidays. While it’s true no one should have been relying too heavily on any single client, content mill or not, I know they’ll have a tough road ahead as their own business models are forced into a period of transition.”

It’s not a simple situation. There are other opportunities out there for freelance writers though, and it’s clear that quality is a highly sought after quality to have. I suggest continue improving your skills and writing about what you know about. Prove to your prospective clients that they would be better off with your content.

Content can still goes a long way on the web.

What is your position on this discussion? Share your thoughts in the comments.

October 15, 2011
Demand Media Shifts from “Content Farm” Approach, Writers Lose Income Source

Demand Media, with its site eHow, has essentially been the poster child for the term “content farm” – something the company has done much to distance itself from. CEO Richard Rosenblatt has said flat out that he doesn’t consider what the company does to be a “content farm”. Fair enough, but plenty disagreed.

Do you think Demand Media is moving in the right direction? Let us know in the comments.

Eventually, Google’s Panda update, sometimes referred to as the “farmer” update caught up with eHow, but the damage wasn’t as bad as one could have imagined. However, as we told you about earlier this year, the company did begin a large effort to boost eHow’s reputation and content quality. This included new feedback tools for readers, partnerships for niche content, and the deletion/further editing of a lot of articles.

During Demand Media’s last earnings call, it said that it had already removed 300,000 articles. After a recent iteration of Google’s Panda update, we reached out to the company for comment, and VP, Corporate Communications Kristen Moore told us, “I can tell you that we’ve been really pleased with the pace and the results of the new initiatives we announced and implemented in the spring to ensure tighter controls around quality on eHow and across our studio model. We’ll be providing a more specific update on those initiatives and what our sites have seen relative to the Panda updates when we announce Q3 earnings in just a few weeks.”

Since then, Demand Media Studios has sent out the following email to writers and editors (hat tip to Noah Davis):

Dear Writers and Editors,

We realize there has been recent concern around assignment availability. We know many of you rely on Demand Media Studios as a regular income source and as a way to grow your careers. For those reasons and others, we want to be as transparent as we can about the future.

In just a few years, we’ve worked together to grow the eHow.com library to an astounding 3 million articles. While eHow has been the main publisher of content produced by DMS writers, we’ve also developed other writing outlets on our own properties like typeF.com and LIVESTRONG.COM as well as through partnerships like Chron.com and USAToday. With our eHow.com library already so comprehensive, we saw the opportunity to shift our focus to more targeted categories and other forms of content such as slide shows, video series and feature articles. Good examples of these new formats can be found on eHow and LIVESTRONG.COM.

None of this would have been possible without having spent so many years working with you, our writers and editors, to build our comprehensive library.

Looking ahead, as we continue to publish articles for eHow and our other sites, we want to be sure we are building on what already exists, not replicating it. This is not to say we will stop assigning standard titles in How to and Topic View format for eHow.com. But it does mean that we will have fewer eHow.com assignments for the foreseeable future.

However, we will continue to add more publishers and sections as we’ve done over the years, and ultimately the work and opportunities will grow for our best writers and editors. We are also excited to completely execute on our vision of having the most qualified writers and editors working on titles within their areas of expertise.

In order for this to happen, we need to make sure of a few things:

• That only executable, valid and unique titles make it to your Work Desk.
• That every article is written and copy edited by a qualified professional with background, knowledge or experience in the topic.
• That every article has the appropriate format and word count for the topic to be comprehensively covered.

We will also be putting additional focus on helping you grow within your fields. This means offering ways for you to gain exposure on our sites and new tools for you to promote yourself and your work. We will send additional updates and information on assignments going forward. We will also set up some new avenues for you to ask questions and offer feedback. For the time being, if you have any additional questions, please use this forum thread.

Best Regards,
Demand Media Studios Team

This, along with the aforementioned eHow content clean-up initiative, seems to signal a drastically different content strategy than what Demand Media has come to be known for – the “content farm” (or call it what you like) strategy. That’s a strategy, mind you, was generally about writing assignments based on what people are searching for, and including numerous articles on the same topics, covering a variety of different title options. The strategy worked for Google search visibility. No question about it. At least it did for a while. That doesn’t mean that they’re not assigning content based on “demand,” but it seems to be less about saturating the web with run of the mill content.

The company has also talked a lot this year about the increasing diversity in its traffic sources, and its earnings reports have indicated the company is not completely reliant on Google.

We reached out for further comment on the company’s evolving strategy, but they’d not comment on my specific questions. They did say, however, that they’ll be sharing more details in the weeks to come around the new tools they’ll be using to help promote writers, as mentioned in the email.

We’ll certainly be covering the Q3 report when it comes. It’s going to be interesting to hear more about the company’s post Panda content strategy. It may even provide some insight into how others impacted by the update may be able to recover.

Another angle to this whole thing is that a lot of people just lost a source of income, and from the sound of it some of them are taking it pretty hard. In this economy, that’s not hard to believe. In the comments of this article, for example, Vicky Hunter writes:

There were no articles available in the main eHow pool today for the first time ever. All but a few other specialty channels have been empty, as well. Demand’s thousands or writers are panicking on their forums. Crying, screaming, blaming, begging, fighting, pleading for help from fellow writers – even hinting at suicide. No matter what you think about them, you can’t help but feel some real pain for some of these writers. And Demand still won’t be honest about what’s going on, or when things will stabilize. Some of the jumpers are still hanging on at the site, waiting for things to get better, which, at best, means some few articles for some few lucky writers to grab each day.

The bottom must have dropped out, in terms of revenue, for this to happen. I assume the next earnings report will show this. The stock will really tank after that. I feel bad for the writers. Some were making $4,000+ a month, and many were able to keep families afloat during this bad economy – and now it’s all gone, like that – poof.

One major factor about cutting off these writing assignments is the potential loss of the growth curve, which could come back to haunt the company.

That said, in the last report, the company reported a 32% increase in revenue, with 76% growth in cash from operations. You have to remember that the Demand Media Studios isn’t Demand Media’s only source of revenue. Rosenblatt cited not only the company’s content and media business, but its registrar business as providing significant year-over-year growth. ““We plan to build on this momentum by expanding our brand advertising relationships and accelerating our content platform’s international and social media growth initiatives,” he said.

I guess we’ll find out more about those initiatives during the next call.

There are a lot of questions surrounding Demand’s shift in strategy. Has Demand Media taken too drastic an approach to improve quality? Are writers getting the short end of the stick? Is this going to hurt Demand Media in in the long run? Or is this what’s best for the company, and ultimately for search engine results?

We want to know what you think. Let us know in the comments.

October 10, 2011
Google Panda Update: eHow Untouched, Says Pleased with Progress on Content Quality

While escaping the wrath of the Panda update again, Demand Media tells WebProNews that it’s pleased with the results of its eHow clean-up initiative.

Demand Media and its eHow property in particular were always part of the Google Panda update conversation. In fact, it was a major part of the discussion even before the update came to be known as Panda, and even before it was rolled out. eHow was often characterized as the poster child of content farms, despite Demand Media’s continued efforts to clean up its reputation and denials that it actually is a “content farm”.

Waves of astonishment rippled throughout the industry when Google finally launched its Panda update, supposedly targeting content farms, and eHow didn’t take a hit, but actually gained in search visibility. The update was even referred to as the “farmer” update throughout the industry before Google mentioned the “Panda” name in an interview.

Demand Media no doubt breathed a gigantic sigh of relief, as the initial update and the company’s IPO were interestingly close together on the timeline. But eHow (not to mention some other DM sites) would not escape the Panda for long. A later iteration struck a blow to eHow, and Demand Media inevitably announced a big clean-up initiative to help weed out the lower-quality content and get the site’s search visibility back up.

When asked for comment last week’s update, Kristen Moore VP, Corporate Communications at Demand Media gave us the following statement:

We don’t comment on whether or what kind of impact our sites see with each individual Panda update. As you know Google continually adjusts their algorithms, so the updates are pretty frequent.

I can tell you that we’ve been really pleased with the pace and the results of the new initiatives we announced and implemented in the spring to ensure tighter controls around quality on eHow and across our studio model. We’ll be providing a more specific update on those initiatives and what our sites have seen relative to the Panda updates when we announce Q3 earnings in just a few weeks.

Looking at SearchMetrics’ data it seems pretty clear that eHow was not “pandalized” this time around.

During the last earnings call in August, Demand Media indicated that Panda turned out to not be too big a blow to the company’s revenue. At the time, the company had said that 300,000 eHow articles had already been removed.

October 3, 2011
Google Panda Update: HubPages Enables Subdomains to Help Content Recover
Is subdomaining the answer to a recovery from the Google Panda update? After some testing, HubPages is convinced that it can play a significant role, at least for a site of its type, which includes numerous article from numerous authors.

The company announced new changes to its site on its blog today reflecting this thinking, and saying that as a result, it “should allow each author to be judged by Google separately.”

Right now, HubPages is letting authors set up their own subdomains. HubPages’ Simone Smith writes:

To test the success of moving accounts to subdomains, we ported over several accounts over with the expectation of some traffic improvement based on an earlier experiment, but with the understanding that there was some risk involved. We have concluded the test, and after 2 weeks of observing Google’s response, we saw a dramatic recovery among many accounts, validating the decision to move each Hubber’s account under his/her own subdomain. We expect that, with the move, some accounts will recover traffic, while others won’t.

Based on these positive results, we have opened up the option to move Hubber accounts over to subdomains to the entire community. Moving to your own subdomain will comprise 2 steps:
1. Selecting your subdomain, and
2. Activating the move.
HubPages has a more detailed walkthrough of the process here.

The company says that in most cases, the subdomain will be users’ usernames or usernames without spaces, periods, underscores, etc. For those that aren’t available, they’ll present other, similar options or let users suggest other options.

Users will be able to claim subdomains for about a week, then they’ll be automatically assigning subdomains based on usernames.

It will be interesting to watch HubPages over the next couple months, and see how its overall traffic is affected buy this change. If it proves successful, I suspect we’ll see some other victims of the Panda update implementing similar strategies.
July 19, 2011
Google Panda Update: The Solution for Recovery?
Many sites are still wondering how they can come back from being hit by the Google Panda update. Google has certainly stressed quality, and victims of the update have been striving to improve it, but have had little luck in terms of boosting their rankings for the most part.

Have you been able to recover any search traffic after being hit by the Panda update? Let us know.

When we talked to Dani Horowitz of DaniWeb, she told us about some other things she was doing that seemed to be helping content rank better, but it was hardly a full recovery in search referrals.

An article ran at WSJ.com about HubPages, one of the victims that we’ve written about a handful of times. CEO Paul Edmondson is claiming that the use of sub-domains is helping its content work its way back up in Google – something he stumbled upon by accident, but also something Google has talked about in the past.

The article quotes him as saying that he’s seen “early evidence” that dividing the site into thousands of subdomains may help it “lift the Google Panda death grip.” Amir Efrati reports:

In June, a top Google search engineer, Matt Cutts, wrote to Edmondson that he might want to try subdomains, among other things.

The HubPages subdomain testing began in late June and already has shown positive results. Edmondson’s own articles on HubPages, which saw a 50% drop in page views after Google’s Panda updates, have returned to pre-Panda levels in the first three weeks since he activated subdomains for himself and several other authors. The other authors saw significant, if not full, recoveries of Web traffic.

The piece also points to a blog post Cutts wrote all the way back in 2007 about subdomains. In that, Cutts wrote, “A subdomain can be useful to separate out content that is completely different. Google uses subdomains for distinct products such news.google.com or maps.google.com, for example.”

HubPages is rolling out subdomains for all authors, which in theory, should help the site’s performance remain tied to the quality of the output by specific authors. This is also interesting given that Google recently launched a new authorship markup, putting more emphasis on authors in search results.

When that was launched, Google said in the Webmaster Central Help Center, “When Google has information about who wrote a piece of content on the web, we may look at it as a signal to help us determine the relevance of that page to a user’s query. This is just one of many signals Google may use to determine a page’s relevance and ranking, though, and we’re constantly tweaking and improving our algorithm to improve overall search quality.”

It may be a little early to jump to the conclusion that subdomains are the silver bullet leading to a full Panda recovery, but for those sites with a mix of great quality and poor quality content, this could very well help at least the great stuff rise. It will be interesting to see how HubPages performs over time, once the new structure has been live for a while.

Google’s statement on the matter (as reported by Barry Schwartz) is: “Subdomains can be useful to separate out content that is completely different from the rest of a site — for example, on domains such as wordpress.com. However, site owners should not expect that simply adding a new subdomain on a site will trigger a boost in ranking.”

To me, it sounds like if your entire site was hit by the Panda update because of some content that wasn’t up to snuff in the eyes of Google, but some content is up to snuff, you may want to consider subdomain, at least on the stuff that Google doesn’t like – to “separate it out”. You’ll have to do some content evaluation.

Edmondson’s concept of doing it by author actually makes a great deal of sense. It makes the authors accountable for their own content, without dragging down those who have provided quality content (again, in theory). Not everybody hit by Panda is a “content farm” (or whatever name you want to use) though. For many, it won’t be so much about who’s writing content.

Content creators will still do well to consider Google’s lists of questions and focus on creating content that is actually good. I case you need a recap on those questions, they are as follows:
- Would you trust the information presented in this article?
- Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
- Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
- Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
- Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
- Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
- Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
- Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
- How much quality control is done on content?
- Does the article describe both sides of a story?
- Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
- Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
- Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
- For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
- Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
- Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
- Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
- Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
- Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
- Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
- Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
- Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
- Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
Those are, by the way, “questions that one could use to assess the ‘quality’ of a page or an article,” according to the company.

What do you think of the subdomain theory? Tell us in the comments.
July 13, 2011
Panda Victim Xomba “Dances on the Bones of Content Farms”

Earlier this year, we had a conversation with John Citrone, editor of the online writing community Xomba.com, which fell victim to Google’s Panda update. He gave us a preview of a redesign of the site, which had been in the works for some time prior to the update, as he told us the company saw the update coming and started preparing for it last summer.

“Around the first of the year, we began creating a new site design with new community networking features for people who want to express themselves in more than 140 characters,” he told us. “Our new design will reduce or eliminate our dependence on Google to bring us traffic through its search results; our focus is to build a community of people who want to network with each other and share their experiences and their passions.”

Today, Citrone tells WebProNews, ” Well, it’s official — we’ve relaunched with a new model and vision.” The company’s announcement comes with the title, “Xomba.com Dances on the Bones of Content Farms with New Site, New Direction, New Philosophy.” Here’s that:

The days of writing on content farms for fat payouts are over, and sites that continue to operate on that model are collapsing with a resounding “WTF?”

Not Xomba.

Long before Google decided to single-handedly wipe out content farms with the innocently named Panda update, Xomba was in the process of building a new site where users can share ideas, without fear of the corporate monolith search engine ruining the party. “Last summer,” says CEO Nick Veneris, “we began stripping low-quality content from Xomba while restructuring the site — from design to philosophy to purpose — to put the user, rather than the content, at the center of attention. This was nearly a year before anyone had even heard of Panda.”

“Too many sites, including the old Xomba, relied on substandard content to bring in revenue,” says Veneris. “We believe that method is dead, and we are ushering a new age of writing online. Xomba is, in a word, a social networking site for people who like to write — a place where people can share ideas in more than 140 characters, make friends and have a good time.”

With the new design, Xomba has introduced a follow system, easy-to-use writing templates, Author rankings and an educational component (called Xomba University) to help along inexperienced writers. Since relaunch, Xomba has seen an uptick of between two and three times the Article submissions, most of which are coming new users. And Xomba is already prepared to move — literally — to the next level, even considering investment capital to get them there. The redesign is just scratching the surface, as Xomba plans to introduce niche sites (sites focusing on a single topic) as part of the new Xomba publishing network.

It remains to be seen whether the changes will boost Google’s perception of content quality from Xomba, but the search engine has certainly been placing more emphasis on authors too. Last week, the company announced the rel=”author” authorship markup.

Google says it is experimenting with using data from this to help people find content from authors in search results, and will continue to look at ways it could help the search engine highlight authors and rank search results.

June 16, 2011
4% Say Sites Fully Recovered from Panda Update

We recently ran an interview with Dani Horowitz, who runs Daniweb, an IT discussion forum that got pounded by Google’s Panda update. Horowitz told us about some things she’s been doing to the site, which have led to a consistent uptick in search traffic post-Panda.

While nobody ever claimed the site had gone through a full recovery, we had seen other stories about some sites hit by Panda getting some search traffic back. While Dani noted, “We’re still nowhere near where we were before,” she said she was seeing improvements week after week.

The main takeaway from the discussion was that there is hope if you’ve been hit by Panda. You can still do things that help your content rank better. Google has openly discussed some of them.

Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable polled his readers to see how many have experienced recovery from the Panda update. Over 500 responded, and 4% said they have recovered fully, while another 8% said they’ve recovered, but not fully.

Image credit: Search Engine Roundtable

Obviously this is not representative of the entire web and how sites have performed in Google. It’s a simple poll of 500 people who presumably pay fairly close attention to the search industry. You also have to take into consideration that a lot of people think they were hit by Panda, but may have actually been hit by other less-publicized updates.

Either way, it’s likely accurate in that the majority sites hit have not recovered. If most sites recovered, it would be indicative that Google had not done its job very well. Either that or that tons of low quality content sites have shifted dramatically in favor of truly great content.

June 8, 2011
Google Panda Algorithm Update (And Related Stories) – A Roundup

We’ve been covering a Google’s Panda Algorithm update a lot since its initial launch (in some ways even before its launch). We thought it might be useful for some to provide something of a round-up of coverage as a one stop shop for those looking to learn more about the algorithm update, its impact on websites, and related stories.

So here is a list of our articles related to the Panda update, content farms, and search quality from the past several months (updated continuously).

Despite New Panda Guidelines, Google Still Burying Authoritative Results
Panda Update Already Happened. Not Every Google Tweak Is Still Panda.
What Would Google Search Quality Be Like Without AdSense?
Helium Raises $10 Million After Being Victimized by Google Panda Update
Don’t Expect a Lot of eHow Content to Be Removed from YouTube
Google Panda Update: New Advice Directly From Google
Google Competitive Practices Brought Into the Panda Conversation
Demand Media Announces 20% Decline in eHow Search Referrals Due to Panda
Demand Media Earnings Report – Revenue Up, Questions Remain
Demand Media Deletes eHow Articles, Edits Others in Quality Clean-up Initiative
Google Algorithm Update – Is Bounce Rate a Ranking Signal?
Demand Media Search Data Released Ahead of Earnings Call
Google Panda Update – Webmasters Still Trying to Crack the Code
eHow Getting Serious About Quality
Mashable Affected By Google’s Panda Update? Not Likely.
Google Panda Update – A Broader View of U.S. Traffic Patterns
Panda Reference in Google Earth Day Doodle
Google Panda Update Victim HubPages Tweaks Approach to Boost Search Visibility
Panda Update: HubPages Asks Google Why YouTube Gets Away With Softer Content Policy
Google Panda Update Helps Local Search Results
Google Algorithm Update Fallout, eHow Response
Google Panda Update Winners, Losers, and Future Considerations
EzineArticles Hit By Google Panda Update Again
Google Panda Update Hits Demand Media’s eHow This Time
Google Panda Update Benefits Google Properties
Ranking in Google Now That Panda Has Gone Global
Google Panda Update Winners: Video, News, Blogs, and Porn
Google Panda Update Victim Xomba Loses AdSense Ads Too
Google Panda Update Officially Goes Global (In English)
Google Panda Update Launched in More Countries
Google Panda Update – Made for Big Brands?
Google Does Guest Post for Panda Victim HubPages
Examiner’s Approach to Content Quality Post Panda Update
MerchantCircle Goes From Panda Victim to Blekko Curator
EzineArticles Tells Authors How to Get Accepted Post Panda
Google Panda Update Hit E-Commerce Sites Too
Google’s Algorithm Impact Over the Years in Graphic Detail
Why Panda is the New Coke
EzineArticles Traffic Update Post Panda
Google Panda Update: Lack of Consistency on Quality?
Google Panda Update Still Encouraging Higher Quality
Suite101 CEO Writes Open Letter to Google’s Matt Cutts
Google “Panda” Algorithm Update – What’s Known & What’s Possible
Calacanis on Google Algorithm Aftermath and Impact on Mahalo
Google Algorithm Update to Get “New Layer” to Help “Falsely Caught” Sites
EzineArticles Aims to Get Rankings Back, Following Google Algorithm Update
Did Google’s Algorithm Update Go Far Enough on Content Farms?
Is This Google Algorithm Change About Content Farms or Not?
Quora vs. eHow: Where’s the Better Quality?
Decreasing Google Dependence: A Growing Trend
Demand Media Redesigns eHow with Quality Control Feature
Will Google Fill In Its Own Search Gaps, Demand Media-Style?
Retrevo Says Google Update Pushed Bigger Brands Up
AdSense and Its Relationship to Search Rankings
Google Algorithm Update Casualties Speak
Google Update Costs Mahalo Employees Their Jobs
Google Algorithm Update Helps (Not Hurts) eHow
Google Finally Cracks Down on Content Farms
Demand Media Responds to Google Content Farm Update
Demand Media Goes on the Defensive About Content Quality
Content Marketer or Content Farm?
If Google Tweaked Its Search Results …
An Inside Look at wikiHow Content Quality Control
User Feedback: The Next Google Ranking Signal?
Why It’s Easier for a Startup (Than For Google) to Take Action on Content Farms
wikiHow On Why Wikis Deliver Higher Quality Than Content Farms
DuckDuckGo Follows Content Farm Banning With Promoting wikiHow Content
Blekko Queries on the Rise, More So Since Content Farm Blocking
What If Content From One Company Dominated Google’s Search Results?
Confirmation: The Google Algorithm Change Was Not for Content Farms
Blekko Bans eHow and Other Content Farms
Demand Media CEO: Google Not Talking About Us
Google, Bing, and Blekko Talk Content Farms and Search Quality
The Real Problem With Content Farms is Google

Nobody said we’re done yet either. We’ll update the article as new developments, insights, and research occur.

Meanwhile, we might as well use the comments section to expand the article as a useful resource. If you have any of your own Panda-related stories or insights, please don’t hesitate to share them with the rest of us.

May 14, 2011
Helium Raises $10 Million After Being Victimized by Google Panda Update

Helium is showing that life can go on for victims of Google’s Panda update. Helium is a user-generated content site, often compared to other known Panda victims like Demand Media, HubPages, Suite101, Associated Content, etc.

Of course, Demand Media (now a publicly traded company) posted better-than expected earnings, but Helium has managed to secure a new $10 million in financing. It would appear that a commitment to improved quality, an increased focus on local, and/or dialogue with Google has been enough to convince somebody that Helium is here to stay. VatorNews points to an SEC form that indicates as much.

“Helium has engaged in an on-going dialogue with Google for the last three years or more. Google understands the Helium business and content model and agrees that the Helium site publishes quality content,” Helium VP Architecture and Technology Tracy Flynn recently said.

The main way writers earn money from Helium comes from views, which are largely driven by search. Clearly, the site’s performance in Google results plays a key role here. However, there are other ways writers can make money from Helium. These include payments from Helium when third-parties purchase articles for use elsewhere, and one-time incentive payments through various programs run by the site, such as contests, up-front payments, customer sponsorships, etc.

Of course, like many other big victims of the Panda update, they’re doing numerous things to adjust their content strategy, to comply more with what Google is seeking out in terms of higher quality (and less shallow) content. Among other things, Helium is asking writers to submit their articles to Helium only, to avoid duplicate content issues, and to use social media to promote articles (which in turn, Google can see and apply it in its own rankings).

Over the months, Helium has been providing writers with various tips and guidelines on its blog. For example, a recent post entitled, “Why your article or blog posts just aren’t making the cut” lists:

1. You didn’t cite your resources
2. You didn’t proofread or use spell-check on your article
3. You don’t format the article to your advantage
4. You don’t include simple SEO techniques
5. You neglect to add it to your social networking realms like Twitter, Facebook and even your own blog.
6. You posted it in more place[s] than one.

Helium also pointed to some do’s and don’ts for writer bios, which is probably a good idea, as bios can be indicative of authority on a given subject. Keep in mind that one of the top questions Google is asking itself as it tweaks its algorithm is, “Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?”

Helium has also made adjustments to its assignment system. “A highlight of the new system is the ability to tailor assignments by writing skills and expertise, as well as allowing all writers to pick up general assignments,” the company explains. “As we learn more about your strengths, we can provide more opportunities that are targeted for your favorite subjects and writing style.”

In April, Helium encouraged writers to get more involved with local-based writing, as the company has filled positions for local writers for city guide websites, a national real estate web site, a regional newspaper, and a neighborhood profiler for a “major daily newspaper” in LA. “Helium Content Source staffers are constantly on the lookout for writers for these types of assignments,” the company said.

Google has been placing a great deal more emphasis on local these days, no question. Local results seem to have even been helped by the Panda update.

Last week, Helium launched a new mobile version of its assignment system for Android and iPhone.

May 9, 2011