Plagiarism Today - Latest Comments in Google Knol: The Future of Spam

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

plagiarismtoday — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:16:55 -0000

I think you may have illustrated a great problem with Knol. I just visited the site and immediately found several spam articles. Apparently, the spammers have an easier time posting than those who are putting up their own material.

The counter-punch though is that google may have detected your Knols as being duplicate content and removed them for that. However, I would like to think that you'd get an explanation.

I'll be doing more on this very soon.

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

Jon Hopwood — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:58:19 -0000

I added over 60 knols based on articles I have written for the Internet Movie Database and other sites, which I have retained rights to. Google Knol "Flagged" my entire output, without explanation, without informing me, and without any recourse. Combined with the unbelievable buggy nature of Google Knol (it is like using a wordprecessor back in the mid-1980s -- it crashes constantly), all I can describe my experience with Google Knol as is NIGHTMARE.

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

plagiarismtoday — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:09:00 -0000

I think that fact was in the original draft but got omitted in editing. I knew that (and was quite disappointed since I have a bunch of links in there) but it was also a recent change. Also, no word on if it actually reduced spam or not.

Good point about its usefulness, I don't get it either. Since most Knols can't be edited by others, it isn't a wiki and, at that point, is just another place to post text and images. Very true and big whup.

So now we've established it is useless and a future spam haven.

What a great move by Google!

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

Voyagerfan5761 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:26:30 -0000

A minor point: Wikipedia also marks external links as rel="nofollow". Whether you didn't know that or just elected to leave it out, I thought I'd mention it.

As for Knol, I never really saw how it's useful. It's just another place to publish things, which can easily be done on Blogger, Google Page Creator (or its successor, Google Sites), etc. Is it the centralized repository idea that is a draw? Hmm...

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

plagiarismtoday — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:34:39 -0000

Though I am no physicist, it sounds to me as if the universe should have imploded upon submission of this article. Some kind of paradox should have probably gobbled up the entire universe by now.

Strange we're all still here.

In all seriousness though, it will be interesting to watch it and see what comes of it. Thanks for the heads up.

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

David Blomstrom — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:31:54 -0000

I just published my first knol, titled Wikipedia. It might be of interest because of its content, which includes discussions of Wikipedia criticism, along with competitors, including Knol. Also, it's the first duplicate knol I've seen - another article titled Wikipedia was published a few days ago (though it's pretty much a copy-and-paste job).

Wikipedia has an article about Knol, so it's only fitting that Knol return the favor. The URL is http://knol.google.com/k/david-blomstrom/wikipe...

David Blomstrom
Candidate for Public Office
& Knolist :)

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

plagiarismtoday — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:47:38 -0000

Thanks for the heads up about the name, that's what I get for relying on spell check! Glad you liked the article.

It seems the spammers already have gained the upper hand. That didn't take long...

Re: Google Knol: The Future of Spam

pittsburghseo — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:35:00 -0000

You're post seems right on point. As well I'm concerned to about the implications of knols and spam.

By the way, you misspelled Aaron Wall's last name in section "Other Knol Issues" point #1.