Why Google Knol Has Failed
By Jonathan Bailey • Sep 23rd, 2008 • Category: Articles, Punditry
It may be too early to say with 100% certainty that Google Knol has utterly failed. The site has been out just shy of two months and has actually attracted a great deal of content.
However, as a recent article on The Slate has shown, Knol has not exactly emerged into the Wikipedia-killer it was hyped up to be. The article sites rampant plagiarism, poorly-written articles and poorly-sourced facts as some of Knol’s signs of inferiority.
So, even if it is not time yet to truly call Knol a failure, we’re clearly to a point where we can start talking about what has gone wrong and what Google can do to fix it.
Unfortunately, the problems with Knol seem to be fundamental ones with the service itself and are not things that Google can fix easily. In short, if Google Knol is to become competitive with Wikipedia, or even blogs in general, it can not be the Knol we all know and despise.
Knowledge Gone Astray
The Slate article points to two critical differences between Wikipedia and Knol that seems to hinder Knol’s success.
- Lack of Community Support: In order to edit an existing Knol, you have to get approval from the original author, this reduces community involvement and puts anonymous editors at the mercy of the “experts” that wrote the article.
- Repetition: Since articles cannot be easily edited, people tend to upload their own articles rather than try to build off ones that exist, this leads to topics with dozens of competing articles.
- Advertising Reward: Google allowed submitters to earn money from their content by means of advertising. This attracted people with bad intentions to the site.
Strangely, I have to agree with all of these problems. When I first wrote about the site, I noted that it was a service practically asking to be spammed and, according to my two-week follow-up, I was right.
However, none of these problems with the site really cut to the core. Google has made some tactical mistakes with Knol but it has made a much larger one in its concept that will sink it no matter what other changes they make.
The Problem is QUALITY
A three-word summary of Knol would likely read “Quantity over Quality”.
Google, as a search engine company, approached the problem of creating an encyclopedia much like you would expect. They set up the rules of Knol in such a way that it would encourage as much content as possible to be uploaded to the service.
Then, according to the theory, a combination of human ratings and search algorithms would pluck the best results, rewarding those who knew wrote the most authoritative articles.
Unfortunately, the theory is flawed beyond all recognition. Consider these problems:
- Search is Stupid: As Google’s traditional Internet search has shown, algorithms are mediocre, at best, at locating the authoritative sites. Google Knol, despite the controlled environment, does not seem to improve upon this.
- Humans Aren’t Much Better: Humans that use Knol are trying to find out information they don’t know. They are in almost no position to judge how authoritative an article is. Most humans will not check sources or verify what they read, meaning an authoritative-sounding pile of lies has a better chance of success than a more meek, factual article.
- Spammers Can Game the System: Not only can spammers easily upload articles to Google Knol, but they can game the system to vote for themselves and feign broad user support. They do this already with blogs using inbound links but the controlled environment of Knol actually makes it easier.
- Terms are More Important Than Being Number One: As with the Internet at large, you can gain more reward being number 10 for a popular keyword than being number one on a lesser-known one. Though this increases competition on popular keywords, it rewards mediocre content on popular phrases more than robust knowledge on all topics.
- The 95% Problem: The biggest problem, however, is that even if the theory worked perfectly, most of the content on Knol would be complete and utter garbage. Though the good stuff might be at the top, it doesn’t take much for users to sink into the cesspool that is below. This colors the experience, hurts the reputation of the good articles and makes people distrust Knol as a source of information.
The end result of this is not that Google has created its own Wikipedia, instead, Google has created its own miniature Internet where they set the rules.
The problem is that this new Web offers no compelling reasons for creators or visitors to access it. Creators can make more money and get more traffic running a traditional blog while visitors have the same access to quality information outside of Google’s walled garden.
The end result is that Knol has created a service that benefits no one but the spammers that abuse it. As such, Knol has virtually seals its own fate unless it can turn that around.
Fixing Knol
I would argue that, with its current mission statement, Knol can’t be fixed. The problems that plague Knol are ones that exist on the Web at large, but Knol’s close proximity to Google’s heart amplifies all of these issues and makes it easier for those that wish to abuse the service.
In order to fix Knol, Google needs to step away from this idea that Knol is meant to be the anti-Wikipedia. Though Wikipedia has its problems and certainly isn’t a reliable source, it is both more useful and more reliable than Knol.
For all that Wikipedia has done wrong, it has done a fair amount right including build a huge community, produce an incredibly large number of entries, work to enforce a quality standard and keep itself moving forward. Sure, it makes mistakes, has vandals and can be a cesspool in places, it isn’t spinning its wheels with endless repetition of the same information.
Google, to beat Wikipedia cannot throw out what it does well in a bid to oppose it. Beating something does not mean being its foil. It means doing what it does better.
Knol’s premise is simply not as good as Wikipedia’s. It is time for Google to go back to the drawing board and figure out not what it can do different, but what it needs to do the same and then what it can improve.
Conclusions
For those of us who don’t use Knol, the failure of the service is actually good news. After all, it was our content that was making up so many of the plagiarized pages on the service. Knol’s failure to gain any traction in the past two months is a positive sign indicating that, while it is certainly an ideal for spammers, it is unlikely that they will get much out of it.
This means that Google’s failure could, in the long run, work to our benefit. However, until Knol has been proved to be completely useless for the spammers, it is likely that they will continue to pound away on it.
After all, if there is even a drop of benefit to be gained, the spammers will continue to try. They don’t invest anything in their efforts, other than setting up their computers and letting them go.
 | Protect Your Work. Subscribe to Plagiarism Today via Email or RSS. |
Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey
Let's remember, Wikipedia wasn't an overnight success. It too had problems early on with reliability, and it continues to face these issues today for its more popular, current-events-type search terms. One of the big notable differences between Wikipedia and Knol is that the former had the chance to grow up on its own. Because Knol is owned and hyped by Google, it automatically draws more attention from everyone, especially the spammers.
I think the biggest thing that Knol has illuminated is the increasing fallibility of Google's search algorithm. First and foremost, although it identifies plagiarized content, it doesn't correctly assess it. According to Google, anything with more links wins the argument rather than the ORIGINAL SOURCE always getting the benefit. One could argue that Google ought not to allow anyone to save a Knol if it uses text from a source and doesn't cite it with a completely functional link. It's clear that Google can identify these things; it just chooses not to do so. It's unfair that people can plagiarize your content and you receive no benefit (or worse, your entire site gets tanked for a few instances of plagiarism over which you have no control).
Second, as you pointed out, Google's algorithm can't identify what authority a site has because it judges things on the basis of the amount of links that are pointing to it rather than the actual quality of the information that is provided. This may have worked in the early stages of the internet, when people wrote articles and pointed people to another site for more information. This still happens, of course, but with time, this has been exploited to the detriment of Google by spammers and people who just “aggregate” things unnecessarily. Just because Google posts stuff on its blog saying that duplicate content won't hurt a site does not make it true.
Google is more than aware of this fatal flaw, and this is exactly why Google has tried to reign everything in again by attacking directories, paid links, and everything else. It is fighting a fight that it can't win. As long as number of links trumps originality and accuracy, this system will continue to eat away at itself until Google is utterly useless. Given Google's unwillingness to address the underlying issues at hand, maybe this not such a bad thing. However, it will take awhile to shake out, which leaves the question: How many businesses will have lost a lot of revenue (or worse) in the process?
Though I agree Wikipedia wasn't an overnight success, I think that it is safe to say that it was moving forward from day one. My impression of Knol is that it is sinking in the mud, adding junk content faster than it has been expanding its useful knowledge. This is compounded by its in ability to build upon itself, meaning that there is no way to filter the garbage and expand upon the good.
However, I do agree that perhaps it is early to call it a total failure, but the hype and the attention was largely Google's own doing so I don't feel too bad if I am being a bit unfair.
I also agree about the fallibility of Google's algorithm. As you pointed out, Knol has illustrated this problem to a “T” and it serves as a great microcosm for how Google has treated the rest of the Web. This problem is amplified for Google in this case because, by keeping Knol so close to their vest, they now face challenges of bias on top of ignorance. Whether such allegations carry weight, I'm not convinced that they do, it cuts deeper.
It's interesting how search engines have evolved. Early engines counted keywords, that worked for a while until keyword stuffing became common. Then Google pioneered links as currency and that has worked for a while, but now we have comment spam, spam blogs and all kinds of other garbage linking. That is largely meaningless too. Any “gold standard” will fall once the spammers learn how to game it.
It is going to be interesting to see if an how Google adapts to this. You're right they are in a fight they can't win with the splog networks, directories and paid links, but what's next? How can Google, or anyone for that matter, make the Web searchable?
I don't have an answer to that question…
I think we agree on Wikipedia vs. Knol. The point I was trying to make is that because Google is so prominent and it hyped Knol so tremendously that it essentially was doomed from the start because of the type of people who would be attracted to it, just to see if it would give them a boost in the rankings for their webspam. It was bound to draw more of them, and draw them faster. If Wikipedia had drawn the same level of attention right from the start, it wouldn't have had time to develop a community that could help to mitigate the problems, and it probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. The problems can't ever be fully erased but with the community that has developed around Wikipedia, it's certainly helped to create a lot of useful content.
This dovetails back into your point about Google lacking any sort of community for Knol. Perhaps this is just some sort of weird case study to see how spam operators operate. Or maybe it's just another way to make money through AdSense. Honestly, I have no idea what else it could be for. It's useless right now, and I don't see it surviving. It might develop some useful content, but I'll bet as soon as it does, they will be plagiarized on another knol page or a blogspot blog.
I don't know how you make the web more searchable either, but I'm not in the search engine business. At the very least, Google needs to find a way of identifying original content accurately and providing it with proper credit. Even when a link back to the original source is included, Google has problems. Google is a mess, and it's getting worse, despite what they post on their blog.
I seriously wonder what's in their coffee cup when they make statements like that. They clearly are touchy about the issue, but if they spent time trying to solve the problem rather than defending the status quo, maybe we could all get some sleep and the spammers and scrapers would have to look for other ways to get by rather than stealing from innocent bystanders.
Google Knol may be experimenting with its model. I do not see any hype by google about knol. It just opened its platform to public and it is keeping silent about it. It is doing some improvement to its features. It has not done any correspondence with authors. I think it is evaluating how authors are coming out with initiatives to develop knols. It is not giving any information on page impressions, adsense earnings to authors. It is not doing anything on the content part or revenue part at the moment. It is basically studying the response of authors. It will have definitely some strategies to locate authors who can function as good writers, mobilisers of content and editors. It is going to commission them at some point in time to develop a core of knols which will be of high class. All other amateur authors will enlarge the content of knol. But a core of knols of high quality requires professional inputs in writing, editing and formatting.
While I think that would be an interesting idea, it doesn't seem wholly likely to me. Google is already capable of recruiting authors and editors to write and maintain posts, it doesn't need to recruit the Internet at large to post garbage and then filter out the bad stuff. If that were the case, a sandbox system would make more sense, a place where the garbage goes up and then gets moved over to the official site. Having a mix of junk and quality content at the same location just threatens to drown out the latter.
I suppose it is possible, but if that is the case Google has made some additional mistakes along the way.
Thank you for your thoughts! It's definitely something to think about.
I think you are on the money here! I believe that the Knol ‘beta’ project was not launched by Google primarily as a Wikipedia killer but rather as a controlled in-house research laboratory to find solutions to the spammers activities that are not just infecting this project but main stream search engine products as well. It is my contention that Google knows they are losing the fight they can't win with the current internet platform and so have developed the Knol project to help find a new solution to authenticity, originality and IP ownership for the internet. The ‘old world’ has overcome this problem with workable success, won more by accredited authorship of IP owners and financial punishment of plagiarizers. I have no insight into the technical aspects but I believe that in time once there is some critical mass of authors and articles, Google will morph Knol ‘beta’ into Knol ‘community’ by exclusively inviting only trusted authors (as proven by conduct and content in Knol ‘beta’) to the financial detriment of all others. I plan to position myself as a candidate for that move when it happens. Just a thought!
That is an interesting idea and I certainly hope that is how things pan out. However, I have to say that I am more than pessimistic about it. Google, to me at least, has not shown any real interest in fighting spammers since they've been able to turn them into a profit center. Though it would be nice to think that they're taking the long view and are using this as a clever ruse to find new tactics, Google's action in other areas, especially domain registrations, shows to me that they have little concern for dealing with the spam issue at this time.
I hope you're right but fear that you likely aren't…
Yeah you are right Jonathan … more hope than reality I guess.
I’m not sure who quoted it but I understand the quote that “The Internet is a solution looking for a problem.” To a large extent the internet has been dominated (in terms of successful monitorization at least) by industries, products and schemers at the lower end of the food chain. However, I believe that the internet’s future purpose is to deliver a complete and comprehensive education to every person on the planet – anytime, anywhere, on topics relevant to their situation and at a pace suitable to them. Now whilst I admire the completely altruistic Wikipedia’s attempt to do this I think it is missing the contribution of people like myself that want to express thoughts and share learnings in my own hand and without the vigorous editing of others whose opinions that I may or may not respect. Also, I think you may be writing off the Knol project a little early in the way that Mark Twain explained “The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”
As for your noble cause in the fight against plagiarism, I think that Leonardo da Vinci had a rather sanguine view on this unwelcomed disease “Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else”
Yeah you are right Jonathan … more hope than reality I guess.
I’m not sure who quoted it but I understand the quote that “The Internet is a solution looking for a problem.” To a large extent the internet has been dominated (in terms of successful monitorization at least) by industries, products and schemers at the lower end of the food chain. However, I believe that the internet’s future purpose is to deliver a complete and comprehensive education to every person on the planet – anytime, anywhere, on topics relevant to their situation and at a pace suitable to them. Now whilst I admire the completely altruistic Wikipedia’s attempt to do this I think it is missing the contribution of people like myself that want to express thoughts and share learnings in my own hand and without the vigorous editing of others whose opinions that I may or may not respect. Also, I think you may be writing off the Knol project a little early in the way that Mark Twain explained “The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”
As for your noble cause in the fight against plagiarism, I think that Leonardo da Vinci had a rather sanguine view on this unwelcomed disease “Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else”
Yeah you are right Jonathan … more hope than reality I guess.
I’m not sure who quoted it but I understand the quote that “The Internet is a solution looking for a problem.” To a large extent the internet has been dominated (in terms of successful monitorization at least) by industries, products and schemers at the lower end of the food chain. However, I believe that the internet’s future purpose is to deliver a complete and comprehensive education to every person on the planet – anytime, anywhere, on topics relevant to their situation and at a pace suitable to them. Now whilst I admire the completely altruistic Wikipedia’s attempt to do this I think it is missing the contribution of people like myself that want to express thoughts and share learnings in my own hand and without the vigorous editing of others whose opinions that I may or may not respect. Also, I think you may be writing off the Knol project a little early in the way that Mark Twain explained “The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”
As for your noble cause in the fight against plagiarism, I think that Leonardo da Vinci had a rather sanguine view on this unwelcomed disease “Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else”
Wikipedia is available is several languages and more are being added. Knol is available in the limited few. In India, the only esteemed language Knol is available is Hindi. It appears that a few departments within Google feature language politics as their primary intent; Google Translate and Knol are some of them. In a country like India, non availability in even largely Internet-used languages like Tamil (Tamil has more internet content than Hindi) makes Knol's scope very limited to esteemed few out of the whole.