Many people believe that content farms, that perhaps deal in quantity over quality, leads to poor quality. Well, these sites give aspiring authors a podium for sharpening their skills and should trigger more accomplished writers to improve upon sub-par articles by writing new articles on similiar subjects...Either way, these sites, I believe, have a positive function.

Have you ever read a story or article that was punctuated perfectly and otherwise textually and technically perfect also...but was BORING as hell!  And then you read a story or aricle that might not be perfect in format or style but draws you into it's atmosphere and landscape so deeply because of it's subject matter and ambiance that you really don't care or notice the imperfections? You all know what I'm talking about.

Here is an interesting take on so-called "content farms" by
Chris Crum, writing for WebProNews:

So-called content farms draw a lot of criticism for a supposed lack of quality and some consider them a threat to quality on the web in general. We're talking about entities like Demand Media, Associated Content, the new AOL, etc. (the definition of the term content farm itself is also debated).

I would argue that content quality is not in jeopardy. Hear me out. For one, while these sites may or may not produce a large amount of sub-par content, that's not to say that they don't have quality content too. There's no question that quantity is the driving force behind these sites, but quantity in content producers (AKA: the writers, video producers) also means a wider range of minds contributing. There is good among the bad. It's a mix.

Read more