4 ms·

If he was being paid $28,000, he had to be producing at least $28,000 worth of value to AOL. In trying to be neutral, the articles the AOL farmer wrote had to o

by ssharp 15y ago

If he was being paid $28,000, he had to be producing at least $28,000 worth of value to AOL. In trying to be neutral, the articles the AOL farmer wrote had to of be of some value to produce that return (the actual required return is probably some percentage higher than the $28k)-- eyes were reading the content and there was some demand for that content. The ultimate issue should lie with the mechanisms used to drive that $28k+%return in value. If that mechanism is the Google organic funnel -> AdSense revenues, and if your demand is for quality content, isn't Google more of the problem than AOL? AOL is trying to survive and compete in a landscape where bad articles written on the cheap produce a higher aggregate value than quality articles written by authors who command a higher wage.

AlisdairO 15y ago
YOu're characterising value differently. I think the point being made is that the practical value of the articles is usually negligible - few who read them will get anything out of them. They're successful only because they game the existing system - essentially parasitic articles.
- ssharp 15y ago
  I'd agree, but isn't it somewhat unrealistic to expect companies to operate altruistically in a market where you have to dumb down writing in order to maximize profit on a large scale? I wouldn't want to operate a business the way AOL does or the way Demand Media does, but if there is such a huge area of Google and search engines available for gaming, it's going to be gamed. There is too much incentive for some entity not to step in and profit.
  - AlisdairO 15y ago
    Right, but nobody (well, probably a few people...) is asking human nature to change, much as we might find it distressing. I'd instead advocating changing the rules of the system to encourage actual value as opposed to the parasitic value generated by these articles. (getting on a soapbox here) I think it's easy to forget that we don't use the capitalist system because it is somehow morally right and pure - it's because so far as we know, it's what works best to motivate people to generate real value for humanity as a whole. If the system stops working, then you tweak it - which is why we have regulation on things like monopolies, for example. In this case, google has changed the system for us, and for that I'm very glad - incentives are now more aligned with producing quality content that's actually useful to someone.
Retric 15y ago
Institutions are not strictly rational. It's not hard to find cases where people have been payed 6+ months without actually doing anything other than showing up and reading a book.

by ssharp 15y ago

AlisdairO 15y ago

YOu're characterising value differently. I think the point being made is that the practical value of the articles is usually negligible - few who read them will get anything out of them. They're successful only because they game the existing system - essentially parasitic articles.

ssharp 15y ago
I'd agree, but isn't it somewhat unrealistic to expect companies to operate altruistically in a market where you have to dumb down writing in order to maximize profit on a large scale? I wouldn't want to operate a business the way AOL does or the way Demand Media does, but if there is such a huge area of Google and search engines available for gaming, it's going to be gamed. There is too much incentive for some entity not to step in and profit.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  Right, but nobody (well, probably a few people...) is asking human nature to change, much as we might find it distressing. I'd instead advocating changing the rules of the system to encourage actual value as opposed to the parasitic value generated by these articles. (getting on a soapbox here) I think it's easy to forget that we don't use the capitalist system because it is somehow morally right and pure - it's because so far as we know, it's what works best to motivate people to generate real value for humanity as a whole. If the system stops working, then you tweak it - which is why we have regulation on things like monopolies, for example. In this case, google has changed the system for us, and for that I'm very glad - incentives are now more aligned with producing quality content that's actually useful to someone.

Retric 15y ago

Institutions are not strictly rational. It's not hard to find cases where people have been payed 6+ months without actually doing anything other than showing up and reading a book.