Is content the web's biggest weakness?

[Dcrux]

Content is king; or so the saying goes. Well, as history shows, there have been some pretty lousy kings. A few have been bad enough to be overthrown.

Signs The Peasantry is Revolting

Forsooth (sorry ...I never get to write that) there are portents...

Kevin Airgid Uncovers a Web Design Trend: Monkey See Monkey Do

State-of-the-art interactivity?, by Jeffrey Veen

There was little content and even less user science.
Many sites submitted had no concern for the user on the most basic levels. Rarely could you identify an idea or purpose behind the site, or name a possible user goal the site was intended to facilitate. There was no flow, no legibility, no usability. It wasn’t so much that the designers had contempt for their users as that they seemed never to have been taught to think about users at all.
-- Zeldman: The rebooter’s children go rebootless

So What?
Innovative content generates links without you having to work at it. And yet, everyone pays homage to the queen while the king gets little respect.

Most sites use content as filler, often a reason is the purpose for the site is to have a site. So yet another "me too" site is born. When the content doesn't differentiate, it automatically works to cammoflage such a site.

But the more I talk to companies, the more I feel that their real business problems concern content—their content sucks, or there’s too much of it, or too little or whatever.
-- Digital Web Magazine interview: Tony Byrne

You don't need fancy code or latest flash antics to differentiate. Most web users have seen the spectacle, they want the substance. Start with a site purpose which can be identified by someone who wasn't in on the design stage. Develop a Unique Selling Proposition. Most content is too long because is just isn't very good. So many sites play it "safe" with short copy. The trouble with short copy is it can never be short enough.

Jeffrey Veen's article could be interpreted as reactionary. Veen's critique isn't a reaction against flash, or innovation. He's saying designers aren't being innovative enough. Digital economics lowered thresholds to competition. At the same time it exponentially boosted the value of innovation and differentiation.

So the question is 1) Do you think content is the web's biggest weakness? 2) If so, what would change things?

[bj]

So the question is 1) Do you think content is the web's biggest weakness? 2) If so, what would change things?

Bad content, trashy sales copy and duplicated content are the web's biggest weakness. It's why good sites with good content thrive (providing people and spiders can find said content!)

As to your second question it shouldn't be "what would change things?" but rather "what IS changing things?" The answer to that is in the changing search engine algorithms. Those sites that have good and original content in a design/architecture that allows both web users and search engine spiders to find that content will continue to do well, while the junk will eventually be at the back of the pack.

The cream is rising to the top.

[ADAM Web Design]

I don't think content in and of itself is the web's biggest weakness. With search engine databases over the 10 billion mark in terms of pages, I'm inclined to think a little less may be in order.

The biggest weakness among most websites is structure. There isn't an intuitive path most people are supposed to take. And the way to fix that is consistent navigation and engaging dialogue.

[JKomp]

In some ways you might be right. We all know there is a lot of junk out there. However, the web has to cater to everyone's needs and therefore one person's paradise might be another's rubbish tip. Having said that, I have found since the arrival of Google adsense a lot of very poor content sites have sprung up (in breach of ToS) - this is something Google seems to be taking more and more seriously - So perhaps quality of content will improve.

Sites should certainly invest a little more into their content. People understand that they aren't best placed to design their own site and hire web designers, however, people are reluctant to hire copywriters even if it would mean a better ROI.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by JKomp

People understand that they aren't best placed to design their own site and hire web designers, however, people are reluctant to hire copywriters even if it would mean a better ROI.

How true. Spend 5k on design and website building and then fill it with cheap, lousy copy ... "just scan in our company brochure, this will suffice".

Same applies to pictures. Since everyone owns a digital camera, in most cases you get crappy, absolutly amateurish photographs, and the proud photographer states "It is a Koxon X11 with tachyon filter - amazing, isn't it? And I even enhanced them with photoshop!"

Todays credo seems to be that it suffices to own the hardware/software to be a master.

faglork

[bj]

Photos! oh yes! One expects to see amateurish product shots on Ebay if you're browsing through the gently used or antique sections, but on an ecommerce site?

[MsLeigh]

As a writer, I see ads like this:

I need content on advertising, real estate, travel, etc. I will pay $2.00 an article with possible bonuses in the future.

I bet you can imagine what $2.00 gets a website owner.

Quality content works wonders. I find that most $2.00 article buyers are only looking to generate Adsense income. This does leave customers/people searching the web frustrated with trying to find the answers they are looking for.

So I think if you have the quality content, people will remember and they will come back for more answers.

[Dcrux]

What's really disturbing are the sites that look perfect. Photogenic models, with no connection to the company, stare vacantly off into the ether.

One of the more successful campaigns was "the Snapple lady." Real customers, real employees doing good things for customers.

The web is like 'Stepford Wives' on steroids. Web design crossed over superficial a long while back. Take a look at huhcorp.

[ADAM Web Design]

LMAO DCrux...that site RULES!

[SpectateSwamp]

For anybody to keep their web site fresh.
They must have control over all the data
on their Desktop Computer first.
Current video of the great outdoors can be
incredible. Content is there, but the search
engines won't find it for you.
Sure could use a Random option on search.
I know it works wonders with my Desktop Search.

[ADAM Web Design]

I think I may have figured out part of the reason for the perception of content being a weak point.

As some of you already know (and some don't), I wrote an article recently and have been happily submitting it to the article sites, and for the first time last night, Yahoo! and Google Groups. Upon checking the results this morning, not one of the article links themselves had been indexed, although Google did index 8 pages that linked to the article.

I don't expect the Yahoo! and Google Groups submissions to be indexed by now, but I would expect that at least the ones that have been approved as well as the one on my own site would be indexed by now. It used to take less than 24 hours; now it's been 40.

(Yes, I know I'm impatient, but we're talking almost twice the time at this point.)

[JKomp]

I think it's the same as anything else, when the quality of the content is low then it becomes a weakness, when the quality is high it becomes a strength.
I wrote an article a while ago about google polluting the net with adsense only sites (not saying they did it on purpose, indeed the ToS say it shouldn't happen). This is an increasing trend, quality goes out the window and the only thing people care about is whether high paying keywords will get displayed.
Indeed for many the worse a page is the best, as the more like to click out, perhaps through the adsense channel.

It really doesn't make much sense when you think about it logically but logic never was one of the web population's strong points.