Note: As I read more about Search Engine Optimization I have decided to write up the various thoughts which may cross my mind. They are unlikely to very insightful at this stage – but eventually I may say something useful!

Currently I have been reading about User Generated Content (UGC) and I came across Bill Slawski’s enlightening articles “How Search Engines May Rank User Generated Content”. In this article Bill outlines some of the problems with UGC and the ways in which Google and Bing may consider UGC for ranking.

The problems with User Generated Content identified by Bill Slawski are:

1. User Generated Content tends to be fairly short.
2. There usually aren’t links to or from UCG.
3. Spelling mistakes tend to be common in UCG.

The question is, how do we fix these problems with User Generated Content? How do we make User Generated Content better? As we have little or no control over the content submitted to our sites (beyond manually sub-editing all submitted content, and on larger sites this is almost impossible as well as costly). We must rely on other methods to encourage users to create worthy content.

All of the above problems can be overcome by the implementation of user tools.

1. User Generated Content tends to be fairly short.

There is no direct answer for this but one way to tackle this issue would be to offer supplementary ways of submitting information. For example: if you ran a questions and answers site on which users sometimes offer advice in a single convoluted paragraph you may want to offer a “list,” option to supplement their comment. A list could be seen as an optional extra for the users – but one which those helping out would actually use to clarify their argument. In the same way Twitter occasionally forces people to rethink the way they are saying something by imposing a 140 character limit, a list can help users rethink the information they are offering.

Taking the time to think over your post is a luxury most users don’t usually take, so anything which may slow down the process will produce better content. Even those user who do want to look through their work for errors will be less likely to find them in the time-frame they’ve got between writing and posting (No user wants to be late on an issue – the thread of a conversation may well have moved on). To avoid this “edit blindness” the implementation of a “preview,” feature which changes the format and view of the entered data. Changing the width of the page or the text box is one way to shake the blindness from users. This helps the user look at their work afresh and edit more effectively – users will be grateful for the service and you gain better quality content.

2. There usually aren’t links to or from UCG

UGC doesn’t necessarily have links in it. Two ways to gain links in UGC is: become a publisher/warehouser of content or offer spaces for links as a matter of course – much like Digg or any other sharing application.

It is well known that most, when left with a silence in a conversation, will try and fill it. Applying this logic to links is worthwhile. Offering some “link space,” – empty fields which ask to be filled with a link – might be one way to encourage linking.

To be linked to you need to have interesting content. You mostly have to rely on user for this. The ability for users to enrich their content with pictures and videos (as well as lists and the like as mentioned before) is one way to encourage high-quality content.

3. Spelling mistakes tend to be common in UCG.

The simple answer to this is to create and maintain a spell-checker of some sort. One which works actively as the message is typed is more likely to yield better content. This also helps reduce user frustrations. Nothing is worse for a user than their ability to communicate being compromised and therefore misunderstood by other uses. The internet is a dangerous place for misinterpretation at the best of times!

Limiting spelling-mistakes will ultimately return better quality content from users.
Limiting these issues is one way to improve the quality of content which is already be offered.

Bill goes on to talk about the other various ways that the major search engines rank user generated content – but this was a little out of my depth. While I understand the concepts I have little or no knowledge about the technical side; I thought it best to leave that for a later blog post (i.e. when I know what I am talking about).

About these ads