[asebold]

This experiment isn’t about creating “Nonsense content”. I agree the internet definitely doesn’t need more misinformation or fluff. And that isn’t my goal with this experiment.

I don’t think content is automatically low quality with automated SEO. And if it is, it won’t work because users won’t find it helpful. The goal, like all good content, is to help people. But I understand if you’re skeptical.

[antisthenes]

> I don’t think content is automatically low quality with automated SEO. And if it is, it won’t work because users won’t find it helpful. The goal, like all good content, is to help people.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that. After all, most content produced by humans is low quality as well.

Generating good content generally requires someone to be a subject matter expert and to present the issue at hand in sufficient depth. Most content answers questions, but good content answers the right questions.

Looking at your site, I believe the main issue is that so much content is repeated between each individual plant. There's also just not that much content to begin with. A human could have copy-pasted these articles and swapped out the pictures within a few minutes.

[asebold]

Yeah I agree with that. I talked about it at the bottom of the article in “the sourcing problem” section. It’s something I’m aware of and hope to correct.