All Internet users have encountered them at some time, since their popularity has grown remarkably over the last few years and their presence has begun to be recurrent. In the beginning, content recommendation services were positioned at the end of the content. After the ‘real’ news, a few related content appeared that were actually advertising (and that were identified as such, including the one offered by and the name of the service in question). Their appearance, in the midst of the boom in native advertising and content marketing, was a bombshell and many media, of all kinds, incorporated them.For the media, they seemed like a way to make advertising money without much risk. However, the accusations soon began that these contents were nothing more than a nest of spam and that what they offered was not very relevant content. Seeing what they offered used to lead to miracle diets, clickbait headlines, and ways to earn so much money without leaving home.Once the links were clicked, the first critics pointed, what they found were often very questionable web addresses. An investigation, in fact, then pointed out that this type of services were used by dubious web pages to generate traffic and redirect it through loading loops to where they wanted it to go (and thus earn money with ads). Some reference media that included them at first, such as the highly regarded The New Yorker , ended up eliminating them from their websites.Despite these movements and despite the fact that some media managers indicated that their impact on quality was too high to compensate, content recommendation services have not died, far from it.They are still present and continue to be one of the forces of online advertising, including new media and new methods of offering advertising. Its latest innovation is to serve the content in feeds that expand as you scroll. This means that the ads in the recommendation system never seem to end and that, however presented, the advertising is more important in the layout of the page than the content that it offers.The contents that appear among the recommendations are still the same as they appeared a few years ago, when the criticism of what they offered was very high. Miracle diets, clickbait, dating sites, online games, news with political headlines possibly fake news? Going into what a page that uses this system offers reveals all this type of content.

Taking into account that the page in question corresponded to a news agency that seeks t0 Colombia WhatsApp Number List transmit an image of a reference and reliable source, is it really worth loading the media’s website with links to this type of content, mortgaging its image?Content services defend themselves Recommended content services have defended themselves from criticism of their content from the outset. They argue that content leads to content marketing (and solvent companies) and that for the media it is a way of earning income by offering something more to consumers, older content.In fact, they also defend their new formats, pointing out that they actually fit what consumers want. Taboola has just presented a study that, using in marketing, has analyzed the reaction of consumers to the presentation of content. According to the data obtained, the preferred experience to access content is the infinite news feed, which, they explain, is more entertaining and causes the brain to release more dopamine.

But is it really so attractive to access an infinite feed when it is full of junk content? Is it such a memorable experience?A drag on SEO and experience?The use of infinite feeds could cause other types of problems for the pages that use them. From the outset, infinite feeds – whatever they are – present problems when it comes to ease of navigation and SEO.If things are not done well, the infinite feed can cause the user’s browser to load too much but also that the search engines cannot access the content that is being served in an optimal way. They can make search robots unable to read well and not knowing where things start and end. On the other hand, the more elements are added to a page, the longer it will take to load, which is neither good for the final experience nor for SEO.

And taking into account that Google, as a key element in the search market, also values ​​usability and that the content is accessible in a quality way, it can also open another line of questioning to ask whether these infinite sponsored content feeds are weighing down SEO . Google also doesn’t appreciate content over monetization, which adds yet another element to the equation.Therefore, and taking into account that consumers do not exactly see them with good eyes , one must wonder if it is really worth taking all these risks and if the news websites are not selling their soul to the devil simply for a couple of euros.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *