Open Media Standards Foundation Content Principles Version 0.90

by admin on March 15, 2010

Last Update 3/15/2010

Update: At request of a few, I’ve added example for each of the Content Principles listed here.  They will not be included in the final documentation (at this point at least), but are included to better explain the Principles.

1 – No content spinning was used in the creation of the media.
2 – Creator has rights to use all content within the media.
3 – Commercial relationships are disclosed.
4 – Contact information is clearly given.
5 – Description, title, and keywords are accurate as to content contained within.

Here is a copy of the Document at Google Docs.

Additional Comments (not part of the master document):

1 – The Internet offers a number of “content-spinning” programs that take legitimate media and randomize elements of the media to produce new pieces of media.  These include article spinners, video article generators, etc.  The “results” of these programs are never legitimate.  We believe that media on the Internet should be produced by people – not random number generators.

2 – If a media producer uses content from anyone else in their production, they need to do so with permission.  This includes content, graphics, audio, video clips, etc.

3 – If media can have, or does have, a direct financial impact on the media creator, such relationships need to be disclosed.  This includes everything from content that came from free samples to affiliate and/or sales relationships.

4 – Media producers need to offer a simple means for content consumers to contact the producer.  No expectation of response is required.

5 – It is a common practice of content spammers to produce media with keywords optimized for traffic and clicks (not specific to the content creation).  This can no longer be accepted.

Please leave your comments below.  All comments will be considered an integrated into future versions of the document.

  • CBJason
    The other problem with online content also goes to credibility and validity of the author. Because these are built up over time, and through things like reader loyalty that is tough to address in the scheme of creating any "Open Media Standards".

    Having said that, if content uses good references and citations, that can speak volumes toward credibility and validity as well (i.e. does research and documents accordingly in their own content). Perhaps this should be incorporated into the standards...
  • paulcolligan
    Like the concept but not quite sure how we'd integrate it into these specific standards.
  • Jerry
    I really like this idea. There is too much bad "content" out there.

    Let me play devil's advocate here. What would prevent the spammers from falsely stating that their content adheres to the five principles? Spammers are relentless and would be looking for a kink in the armor if this catches on.
  • scottjunner
    Could a certification program work?
  • paulcolligan
    Yes. But it has to be different, voluntary, affordable, etc. Stay tuned for another blog post.
  • paulcolligan
    Great question - very realistic question.

    Basically, some will sneak through the first phase - but the amount of good stuff that will come through it will bring the good noise to a level where it is louder than the bad noise.

    And, there is a level 2 and level 3 option here that the spammers won't be able to get through. Won't work until we get #1 going first though.
  • I read this article and most of the stuff in those five should be considered as 'givens.' But in order to cut through the garbage content, perhaps networks, or organizations, or unions, or something needs to be established.

    We need DJ/Editors with money to help people navigate the good from the bad. I don't think I articulated this perfectly, but I'd like to hear other's feedback.
  • paulcolligan
    I agree - we need something, but the open nature of who we are and what we do will make things like editors/DJs pretty hard. I've got a 3 part plan here that I'll post about soon, but I think it meets us and who we are.

    I'd like to hear the feedback of others as well.
  • scottjunner
    These must be principles of good relationships to. I am delighted and proud to say I apply these principles to my own website content already as a matter of honesty and integrity.

    Thumbs UP
  • paulcolligan
    Well good, because when we go live, I'm going to want people to sign their name for support this all.
  • Paul I love the idea that when we go to an article, post, video, audio, etc that we could go there believing that the quality and integrity of the piece is high. Building this idea into all of the content of the web will help us all to understand the level of credibility to give various content.

    In school we were taught to go to sources we could rely on, believe, and quote. We were taught to choose authories over random comments, the studied over the snap comment, and to pick and choose wisely. Today it is harder because we have more sources more quickly and deliberation is less common in our newer information styles.

    We are rapidly loosing our traditional sources of instantly credible information. The loose of newpapers, news rooms, and magazines which typically had multy source verification requirement mean that we can certainly use a few more ways to differentiate the quality level of user generated content. I am all in favor of the idea of creating a discussion and standard that we can all respect. Thanks for starting that discussion.

    I suggest that you add some of what you have said publicly as a preamble to give people a reason to engage in this discussion. Coming in cold leads to some interesting off shoots of your goal.
  • paulcolligan
    Fascinating, and well taken point. I was going to do a Teleseminar to small group of people on this topic that I am now going to open to the general public. More details coming soon.
  • Kay Ballard
    I agree completely with your stand on article spinning!

    Another practice which is almost as annoying and almost as ridiculous--because it is generally obvious to the reader--is writing articles for the sole purpose of driving traffic to one's site. A well-known article guru recently sponsored an initiative to encourage each of his clients and constituents to write 100 articles! This was without consideration for having a reason to write other than traffic generation and the (sad if true) possibility that writing such drivel would establish the writer as an expert.
  • paulcolligan
    Thanks. Remember, it isn't just article spinning here. There are programs that spin content in the audio and video areas as well. In short, it's an issue of a computer making content instead of a human. (That was actually how we wrote this one but based on some advice, we specifically used the spinning term).

    Basically, if this industry is going to kick things up a notch or two, we need to be taken seriously - across the board. And to do that, we need to act like we're about the content - not about "tricking" the SEs.

    Personally, if someone writes 100 articles for the purpose of getting traffic, I have no problem with that. I of course, have to laugh because a blog with 100 postings would actually do much better - create focus - and make a destination site that the SEs will love.
  • Kay Ballard
    The point is, Paul, that even "unspun" content generated by a human solely to gain traffic and cranked out in abundance to meet some sort of ambitious arbitrary numerical goal, by an author with nothing of importance or substance to say is troublesome. To me. Perhaps not to you.

    But it is germane to your point about wanting the "industry" to be taken seriously.
  • paulcolligan
    I get that point - and in many ways agree - but these 5 items (refined, once comments are done) will help cut 99.9% of the crap out there.

    Basically, if our biggest complaint about content was bad writers or media editors, we'd be MUCH further along.

    This is much easier that determining the "value" of anyone's content. Hopefully, this is not an editorial stance as much as it is an ethical (and perhaps logistical) stance.

    And, as a side note, people who write a random 100 articles with no goal but writing 100 random articles seldom make it past the first dozen. The same is true for lousy audio podcasts, youtube video series, etc. Humans get tired quickly - computers don't.
  • Hi Paul,
    I agree with what you are trying to achieve, but for point 1 provided that all key principles of 2-5 have been observed, and that the spun content is from an original piece created by the author, I don't see why using a content spinner for the purpose of generating traffic and backlinks to increase PR should be prevented. I currently create all my own content and don't use a content spinner, but i have to be honest it is something I am considering for the purposes I have stated.

    Kind Regrads
    Paul
  • paulcolligan
    Appreciate the honesty. Thank you. I knew many would have a problem with this one - I thank you for being willing to speak accordingly.

    Content spinners have only one purpose - and that's to create "new" content to grab more traffic and backlinks. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for creating such.

    In short though, it's content created for the search engines, not for humans.

    Well, let's talk about what's wrong with that?

    Your first article may be BRILLIANT - but if I by happenchance read a spun article that makes you look silly (although might, and I stress MIGHT full the search engines), what have you really accomplished?

    In the mean time you articles get spun to the point of not making any sense anymore and when the average person looks at an article site and reads gibberish, we all lose.

    I know this point will make many people upset - but it's the truth.

    And it isn't just articles either - it's autocreated video and audio content taken from other sources of content, again for the purpose of "fooling" the search engines.

    That's my take - I'd really appreciate your thoughts.
  • While I am in agreement with your position, I also side with Reiki. Granted that spun content is for use by machines and not people but for many entering businesses, people will never get to see the content without the back links and subsequently traffic. I might wright the most brilliant piece that no one would ever see (and I think I have approached this a couple of times). So there is a circular argument. Don't spin and don't be seen Spin to be seen but the stuff that is seen is junk so no one will read the second one. Seems to be a conundrum.
  • paulcolligan
    Terry, thank you for being honest. We won't get anywhere without this kind of honesty so I thank you so much.

    And, I'm sure you've reached brilliance many of times in your pieces ;-)

    If we assume your statement of "no spin means no seen" is true, it's because there is SO MUCH CONTENT out there (often times because of spinning) that it's hard to sort through it all.

    Part of my goal is here is to establish a new level of content that if we get enough people involved with will bring the value of a link from your article up from the terrible level it gets in a traditional article site.

    Imagine an article site with only good content. Think Google would treat it better? We know it will. That's been proven. Imagine people making content sites better because they now have sources of better content (like yours). We know rising tide works online.

    Now, one could also argue that "no spin means better content which will mean better inbounds and better positioning."

    It's a hard stand to take but, if enough of us do it, we can rise the tide together.

    And if we don't, our content gets stored in the cesspool and we just complain about how it isn't picked up by anyone of worth.

    Again, appreciate your thoughts, they're of value, but we can, and need to, do better. That's what this is all about.
  • I think this is a great initiative! Simple and to the point.
  • paulcolligan
    Appreciate the kind words - but how can we make this better?
  • I'm in agreement with Kelly here Paul - these 5 principles do help clarify and set rules, but examples could help nail the intent down. If it's content SPAM that you are trying to get rid of - the more spelled out the rules the better the outcome.
  • paulcolligan
    Read my comment to Kelly as well, but I'm trying to go for simplicity here. Of course we'll see if that's even possible.

    Do the comments help - do we need more?

    is there anything else you would add?
  • I think the comments here have definitely helped. Too many more and it would become unwieldy.

    I get the simplicity too. I retract my comment about needing examples.
  • paulcolligan
    well cool - but for the time being, i'm going to leave the examples up.
  • aribadler
    You have a solid list here. What about a rule about how people can or cannot use the content that's been submitted by others?
  • paulcolligan
    Thanks. Was hoping that was covered in point 2. Basically, if you use someone else's content, you need their permission.

    Help me make this more clear.
  • aribadler
    I read #2 to be more about people posting stuff to the site, but my question was about people pulling stuff off the site. Maybe that's not necessary on this site though? I may not have a clear understanding of what you're after here.
  • paulcolligan
    My goal is to produce a self-policed level of content that anyone can consume without concern. By promising elements in the content (as per this list), people can face out content with confidence, not skepticism.
  • Kelly
    I like the concept, I can see this clarifying content relationships a lot. Do you have example scenarios that would help illustrate the key principles you give? That would help me better understand the implementation a bit better.
  • paulcolligan
    I added those to the piece, but don't, at least at this point, want to place them in the final document. Initially at least my goal was to make this as simple as possible, in as few words as possible, etc.

    Basically, we're going for a simple checklist that any legitimate content creator can pass quickly and easily - but will stop content spammers quickly in their tracks.

    But, I've added comments to this posting at least. Do these help?
  • Kelly
    The comments help some. My experience is, however, that people are stupid (myself included)... Seeing the different content types like an article, a video, audio etc. that are "OMSF" compliant would be helpful in seeing what this all means, and would be easier for me to comment on your points (which seem generally clear and your comments helped).

    For example, if the OMSF idea for audio content is a verbal declaration, or is it in the media tags, or just somewhere in an asterisk footnote on the page the content is posted, makes a big difference... and would music be handled differently than other types of audio? Are there differences in a 1 person commentary type content vs. an expert interview vs. a news/public event?

    I'm may be getting this too complicated, but that's why seeing these simple concepts applied to the broad types of content can be helpful.

    (File under FWIW.)
  • paulcolligan
    I appreciate this - but want to give people some benefit of the doubt and let them make decisions based on who they are an what they're doing. The goal isn't to be a content cop - but to be a force for standards within our space.

    For example, an Audio Podcast that gives a Website address within the content (to a site that actually has contact information) is absolutely fine - and highly recommended. But an audio podcast that doesn't want the overhead of a site (there are many) might want to give an email address or phone number during the piece.

    In terms of rights, they differ on what piece your using - and we need to trust the content producer that they have the rights accordingly - I think it's enough to know that we have the rights accordingly.

    I think what we'll need / where we'll go are to have these Standards that everyone agrees upon and then have this site maintain some best practices and reference points on the specifics. Would that be helpful?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: