New Google Update 24th April

[dazc]

However the Daily Mail can make millions online...

Doesn't that prove my point?

 

[Jamie101]

Jamie, you misunderstand me, I'm not criticising you in the slightest. You're filling a need and I take my hat off to you for being enterprising. My point was that if their site is only worth £7.50 articles then am I wrong in thinking that the owners of these sites have little to moan about if Google penalises them?

Yeah I probably have misunderstood you actually. I suppose that I didn't want people to think that a £7.50 article will always be terrible, although it'll obviously not be as good as a really expensive article. But I see where you're coming from.

Then again, if you're in a small niche I personally believe that £7.50 articles will be fine in most cases. If you want to rank for something like "loans" then you might want to spend more though.

 

[Blossom]

I've run a website site that used specialist writers and journalists for well researched content and we got special rates of £250 for 1000 words. One of the people we used wrote for the Times and at the time they paid £1250 for 1000 words, that's great content.

The price is often decided by how much people will pay, not how much the content is worth. I wouldn't pay £1250 for 1000 words unless it was written by someone like Stephen Fry and even then I'd consider it overpriced. You said yourself you got special rates of £250 for 1000 words, yet from someone else they earned £1250 for 1000 words. More often than not it's the person, their writing and their approach that counts. Of course niche and specialisms are a factor too, but they don't count for THAT much.

If Jamie started charging £15 per 500 words, I guarantee enough people would still pay it, even if his writing was exactly the same quality as it is now. If a decent sized company approached him and wanted to buy articles, he could charge £100+ for 500 words for exactly the same quality. It's all about scale. People just assume that because the price is higher the quality will be better, which is why it's so important to have samples from the writer beforehand.

 

[Alien]

My point was that if their site is only worth £7.50 articles then am I wrong in thinking that the owners of these sites have little to moan about if Google penalises them?

I think that's an excellent point, Sean and it's all about charging for what something is ultimately worth ('worth' is of course a subjective issue).

From experience I have lost count of the times we have quoted for extremely specialised copy for site owners who need highly specific content of exceptional quality (e.g. one recent example for a set of highly specialised pieces springs to mind). Now, rather than pay 15p a word for a highly skilled set of work from an expert on my team who could have personally created the content required (to place within a top notch domain name), they instead turn to a low quality, cheap solution which produces poor quality, rehashed content.

In that case it was a bit like buying a F1 car and putting vegetable oil in it to run it around the track. You can't moan when the car breaks down, your mechanic gives up on you, your audience goes home bored, you lose F1 sponsorship or the car blows up...

 

[vizzo]

"Great" content can be a bit of hyperbole. I would suggest that most sites don't need copy costing £250 for a thousand words and to be honest the visitors wouldn't notice the difference between £10 copy and £250 copy.
There are however far too many sites with rubbish content.

I think the cost of the content is taking this thread a bit off topic - but lets rephrase: There are lots of sites with good/decent/adequate content that have been hit by this update.

 

[Blossom]

Sorry Jenni, I disagree. Media organisations know that if they want to keep their readers engaged then they need the best copy and to get that means employing the best writers for the given subject. The rates are what they are because becoming an expert on a subject often takes years of research and dedication, you also have to be able to articulate that knowledge in an engaging style which is very difficult. Smart companies recognise that finding the complete package is tough and are willing to pay what it takes for it, the rest is down to supply and demand.

Oh, I agree that they need the best copy and writers. I just disagree that those writers are worth that money. And it's kind of proved by them willing to write for you for a quarter of what they're paid elsewhere. But I guess it's like footballers really, except in the writing world it's more about who you know. And a lot of people are overhyped, especially in freelance capacities where people set their own worth and prices. Who doesn't know a designer or a developer who offers budget or average work at premium prices because they're 'known'.

What I will concede is that Jamie is articulate and if you paid him for his time he probably has the skills to research and cross reference a given subject and give you a reasonably interesting article but he's not going to do that for £7.50 so going back to my original point, why should a site that values its content so low have any right to Page 1, position 1 of Google.

You're assuming that Jamie knows his worth and has priced himself accurately. In my opinion and from what I've seen Jamie is (still) vastly underselling himself. That's another issue - people see extremely cheap prices and assume that's the standard when in fact it's usually machine or virtual assistant created drivel knocked up in seconds that makes up the lower end of the market and forces prices down. Lots of people are afraid to price their work higher when they should. I agree that content that bad shouldn't rank anywhere in Google, let alone a first page ranking, but the cost isn't the best judge of value.

 

[Jamie101]

I know this thread has kind of gone off topic, but personally I think it's worth talking about content since as we all know it has a big part to play in how google ranks a site obviously (or it should do!).

Blossom - I appreciate what you're saying that I'm still undercharging. I suppose some people assume that my content isn't great since its cheap. The reason why it's cheap is because I don't have bills to pay and so on like most writers would have (I'm 18 - living at home) so I can charge much less and still be able to survive!

Sean - About your comment in relation to number 1 spots being taken up by sites that use cheap content, I think it depends on a number of things. I've a few sites that are ranked #1 on G that have used "cheap content" (ie. my content). I actually think that the content that I write for others is better than the content that I write for my own sites too.

 

[dazc]

The most I've paid for content was £98 and that was with a discount. Now I pay around £15 - I can't see any difference.
I've paid £7.50 before and the quality was poor but only because the writer was trying to make a living - you could get someone like Jamie who doesn't need to make a proper wage and he might be a lot better?

There are highly paid journalists who re-hash other people's content btw - so the cost/quality argument is a misnomer really?

People tend to pay what they can afford - if I could afford to use a celebrity I would do - as would most people. So because I can't afford a celebrity I have to call it a day while sites that are equally as average as mine are making a killing by doing nothing because google are now chucking sledge-hammers about and missing a lot of their targets?

Not saying google owe me a living and I'll always be grateful for the free traffic I got - but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of their recent efforts - aka matt's ego trip.

 

[julian]

within reason I can't see how g is capable of analysing content quality to any extent.. or are we saying it knows the web needs more than:

WP + keyword.org.uk (@ £7.00) + 5 pages of 500 word fodder (@ £7.50)

__________

TOTAL: £44.50
__________


Priceless...

I forgot to add - hows this for irony, I don't even do content writing - my latest site: content writing i've put a lot of time and effort into that site as you can see - now... I need 250 words on 'seo content writing'..

 

[Ashton]

nevermind.

 

[dazc]

I forgot to add - hows this for irony, I don't even do content writing - my latest site: content writing i've put a lot of time and effort into that site as you can see - now... I need 250 words on 'seo content writing'..

Irony indeed - best leave it, they might penalize you for over-optimizing.

 

[julian]

people like me who are ruining the internat

- i'm scuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum.

Look at old mately on the same page [content writing] with content/co/uk paid a princely sedo sum, nice site all the bells, wants to do it proper like - not some overnight .org.uk cowboy..

 

[Alien]

people like me who are ruining the internat

- i'm scuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum.

Look at old mately on the same page [content writing] with content/co/uk paid a princely sedo sum, nice site all the bells, wants to do it proper like - not some overnight .org.uk cowboy..

ROFL! Sin bin for you Julian, cooler, now! :grin:

 

[Marcoose]

LMAO @ this serp. Look at no1 - what a joke!

 

[Blossom]

This is an interesting read - sites/pages without any content at all ranking well: http://www.potpiegirl.com/2012/04/the-real-reason-i-broke-up-with-google/

 

[philiporchard]

LMAO @ this serp. Look at no1 - what a joke!

Looked at the code to see if there was something going on to make it rank so well... even the code looks a mess.