Content farming may be a big business, but that doesn't mean that companies in the business of content farming are particularly well-liked.

The questionable quality of content produced by armies of authors paid to crank out search engine-friendly content has, not surprisingly, led Google to crack down on the content farmers.

But the internet is increasingly finding content from a new and perhaps even more controversial source: computers themselves.

As detailed by The New York Times, a growing number of publishers are using technologies that use CPU power, not humans, to produce content:

[Narrative Science's] software takes data, like that from sports statistics, company financial reports and housing starts and sales, and turns it into articles. For years, programmers have experimented with software that wrote such articles, typically for sports events, but these efforts had a formulaic, fill-in-the-blank style. They read as if a machine wrote them.

Currently, most of these articles are simple, if still impressive. They take data that may otherwise have to be deciphered by a human, and put it into a format that's easy to read, if not pleasurable to read.

While I'm sure we'll see more sophisticated attempts at letting computers produce content, right now, one might argue that today's computer-generated content is being used to do something useful: take interesting data and present it in human-readable articles. Nothing more, nothing less.

Content farming, of course, relies on human authors to write articles, often under the guise that those human authors have subject matter expertise, even though they frequently don't.

The end result: readers are lured in hoping to find information of a certain depth but they're often left disappointed because the articles are little more than search engine fodder.

Case in point: compare the Narrative Science-produced summary of a football game to the Demand Media-produced article about starting a business. If you were hoping to learn about the Wisconsin-U.N.L.V. football game, the former does a decent job. If you want to start a business, however, the latter is pretty lacking by any reasonable standard.

Which begs the question: is computer-generated content superior to content-farmed content? Looking at the above. there's a good argument that the answer is 'yes -- in some instances'.

While SEO is certainly a motivator behind both computer-generated content and content farming, taking raw data and turning it into informative, human-readable text will often be of value to a reader who would otherwise have to analyze the raw data herself, or read a similar article produced by a human.

On the other hand, content farmed content today is typically of much greater use to the publisher than the reader, suggesting that content farming in its current incarnation may have more limited longevity than might have been expected.

Patricio Robles

Published 14 September, 2011 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2647 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (3)


Klaus Junginger

See, as journalism migrates from an informational to a rather entertainment orientated industry, it is quite logical that some organizations will launch softwares to scrape around in Social Media circles for keywords in order to build up articles which may grant them some time and the needed audience.

I think traffic and readers' reaction answers to this quite clearly: it is what readers want to (of course) read.

Long live AOL and Co. (sigh)

Klaus Junginger

almost 7 years ago



I find this fascinating but I wonder, why don't we just get their computers to start having conversations with our computers and skip the reading all together.

I don't believe I have read any such article as yet however I suspect it'll have no soul. Like a robot giving you a nice warm (warm on a cold day, cooler on a sunny day) hug.

almost 7 years ago

Paul North

Paul North, Head of Content and Strategy at Mediarun

This isn't about whether it's computer-generated or written by a human. It's about primary-source content. If the site or page is the primary source of information, then Google wants it more than all the secondary and tertiary re-written stuff.

Lots of useful content on the internet is heavily data-based and it makes sense that a computer could output this more efficiently than a human.

It therefore doesn't matter if an AI or human has produced it. If a computer is used to churn out re-written crap then the it's no better than the human content farmers.

almost 7 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.