Great read,<p>However, first he says:<p>"These days, a lot of newspapers look to cut their overheads by reducing their actual journalist and editor head-count — after all, these folks aren't contributing much to the bottom line .... But in the long term, it's insane: it's the kind of move that cuts one or two percentage points off the bottom line, but pisses off the subscribers."<p>Which I totally agree with, my local newspaper is just empty calories in that sense.<p>He then goes on to say<p>"Given that the crappiest spam blog is as useful to Google as the greatest virtuoso symphony performance or the Nobel prize winning novel, if it generates the same number of advertising click-throughs, they'd do just as well to spend the money on automated spambots."<p>Which is where I go astray. I am getting annoyed with Google junk results. If I am searching for weird niche tech stuff I get fine results, but if I look for products, general health information, financial info, or any of the things an "average person" looks for I just get crap. Spambot blogs, and the inevitable list of pages that are from heavily SEOd, but useless sites.<p>That has got to be driving people crazy, and if Google does not figure out how to weed out the useless content they will lose their users to some sort of trusted social networking bookmarking model. Already I see this on Facebook where my friends ask each other for links and sources.