Hey, I'm the author of this post on Indie Hackers. I added some data and evidence at the bottom of that post. The content and site is performing really well.
I’m sorry I’ll be bashing your content but this is, to me, the worst spam of all: the one that doesn’t add a single thing to the problem, an endless list of subject-verb-complement with phrases like “this tire is cheaper than other tires”. This is the epitome of taking people for idiots and you having the hubris to tell others that this is not spam is just wrong to me. You’re making people lose time while you rack up their eyeball’s worth of ad revenue.
This is NOT a review, this is an alternate serp where you don’t even have the correct sources. People will read that, spend time figuring out this is just rolling them into fake words, and close the page in rage because they just lost 5 min. Nowhere in that site is there any sign of expertise, value add, or just the barest human touch. You’re alone maintaining the illusion of a professional website where in reality you don’t have a single clue of what your bot is writing.
Sorry this is harsh but I have the baffling feeling that people like you are taking over the internet and waste immense amount of time for the 99% of people who use the web for actual, hands on, research about any topic.
Your software just copies what others have written. This is q tool to create blog spam, this makes the web worse and punishes people who create original content, that you just copy
Do you think GPT3 is spam? Where does it get its information? Are Google quick answers spam? While all A.I. be considered spam? Interesting questions.
The way that I see the value is that it assists the user with research by pulling together answers across thousands of sources, doing work that a single person would struggle with.
Then the user can change, add on top, or modify the research however they want, saving a lot of time in the process.
You just asked a question. How about I don't answer the question but just tell an ai to grab some random stuff about spam and pretend I wrote that as my answer to your question.
Your site and your action are the worst form of parasite infesting the web.
You aren't even providing the tiny added value of a broker or legit curator or aggregator.
The material you "sell" all came from other people who you didn't pay. The way you derive income is by perpetuating the ad model that makes everyone's browsing experience horrible and inefficient and even dangerous thanks to malware delivered through ad networks.
I do not congratulate you. You have not earned a penny or generated a penny, you have merely figured out a way to collect a penny from thousands of people through a mechanism that is difficult to audit and prevent. No end user would agree to pay you what they are all paying you, if they actually understood the whole picture and had any practical way to choose.
How can you NOT consider this spam? Answer: the Upton Sinclair quote someone already posted. Although there is another version from Williams Jennings Bryan 40 years before that: "It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest."
If you post others' words as truth, you're either amplifying good information, or amplifying bad information.
If you're confident your sources are never gravely wrong, or cool with a more poorly informed society (now potentially in part due to your tool!), then, keep on rocking in the free world.
Could you expand on the content performing well? If it is useful and informative and accurate, I wouldn’t consider it spam. Someone who gets targeted ads for a brand in their email and finds those ads useful for sales probably doesn’t consider the email spam. Similar line of logic here for me.
Absolutely. The link contains research, screenshots, etc. to show how the final content looks, how it is performing, etc. Feel free to take a look.
If you create a webpage that has 10s or 100s of different answers to questions for a topic, and it saves everyone time researching; then I would consider that useful and not spam. Just my opinion of course. And I'm not saying this is a substitute for creative content, and I don't think it is an either or. Informative content vs creative content is just different in my opinion.
See your article: https://www.car-engineer.com/general-altimax-rt43-tire-revie...
This is NOT a review, this is an alternate serp where you don’t even have the correct sources. People will read that, spend time figuring out this is just rolling them into fake words, and close the page in rage because they just lost 5 min. Nowhere in that site is there any sign of expertise, value add, or just the barest human touch. You’re alone maintaining the illusion of a professional website where in reality you don’t have a single clue of what your bot is writing.
Sorry this is harsh but I have the baffling feeling that people like you are taking over the internet and waste immense amount of time for the 99% of people who use the web for actual, hands on, research about any topic.