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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

At that time, these predictions were mere speculation. Though a video would quickly come online showing that the spammers could already post automatically to Knol, there was little reason to suspect a spam attack beyond the nature of the service and Google’s history in this area.

This raises the question, now that the headlines have faded, has Google Knol become a haven for spam? Though it is hard to tell how serious things are given the short time span that has passed, it seems clear that at least some of the predictions were eerily correct.

Methodology

In order to get a rough picture for how much spam existed on Google Knol and how it was affecting the rankings within the service, I decided to perform a very small study.

I searched for six keywords, three that are spammy in nature, three that are not. I then looked at the first page of the results and tried to find the highest-ranked case of duplicate content I could find. I did this using only string matching, so article synonymizers might have escaped detection.

This was just a cursory check and was designed to only locate articles that were clearly duplicate content. Also, this check was ONLY designed to catch duplicate content, not necessarily spam and, as you can see in many cases, the duplicate content was uploaded by the author.

Finally, if a search term did not produce at least one full page of results, ten items or more, I did not use it because such searches likely favored spammers.

However, despite my attempts to give Knol the benefit of the doubt, I had little trouble finding junk content.

Note: All links to Google Knol have been nofollowed just in case.

Keyword: Poker

First Questionable Result

Rank: 6
Number of Stars: 1
Comments: 0
Revisions: 2
Original Article:: British Casino
Commentary: Appears to be a manual copy/paste job taking only a relevant portion of an article about different types of poker. The content also appears on many spam blogs. In short, this appears to be the result of a spam attack on Knol, at least at this time.

Keyword: Viagra

First Questionable Result

Rank: 2
Number of Stars: 5
Comments: 0
Revisions: 2
Original Article:: Viagra Web Site
Commentary: This is a tricky one as it appears to have been passed around the Web, especially via spam blogs, for a very long time. Most of the content is from the Viagra site with changes made to eliminate formatting. Once again, this appears to be the likely result of a spam attack, probably from an article database.

Keyword: Mortgage

First Questionable Result

Rank: 2
Number of Stars: 5
Comments: 0
Revisions: 2
Original Article:: Mortgage Site?
Commentary: This one is almost impossible to tell who has the original article. However, lengthier versions of this piece have been passed around the Web for a long time by all accounts. One of the most likely candidates is a mortgage site linked above. However, this Knol appears to be a likely spam attack as well.

Keyword: Apple

First Questionable Result

Rank: 1
Number of Stars: 5
Comments: 0
Revisions: 2
Original Article:: Freebase & Wikipedia
Commentary: The first non-spam keyword is the first case of clearly duplicate content being number one. Worst of all, this content was lifted from the Wikipedia entry on Apple, which has since been changed.

Keyword: Movie

First Questionable Result

Rank: 4
Number of Stars: 5
Comments: 0
Revisions: 3
Original Article:: Company Web Site
Commentary: This isn’t a case of copyright infringement or scraping, the company itself is repurposing it’s work for Google Knol in a bid to get links to its site up. The entire article has been put up on Knol, complete with a link back to the site’s home page. Not necessarily unethical, but still somewhat against the spirit of Knol.

Keyword: Dog

First Questionable Result

Rank: 1
Number of Stars: 5
Comments: 0
Revisions: 3
Original Article:: Blog
Commentary: Another case of an author reposting their own work. Though the original blog appears to be drowning in ads, it still seems to be legitimate. Since the content could not be found anywhere else and the names match, I am forced to assume that the original author uploaded it to both places.

Results

When it was all said and done, none of the searches went more than six results without duplicate content and four of the six had duplicate material in the first two items.

This paints a very grim picture of Knol but it appears that much of the problem is not spammers, but authors seeking extra exposure for older works.

While this is clearly not a copyright violation and also not against Google’s policy on Knol, it does little to help the site. If Knol is to succeed, it needs a large volume high-quality original content.

However, at this point, Google has done a very poor job keeping duplicate content out of Knol and/or reducing its ranking. Also interesting is that the spam content and other duplications almost always have high ratings, indicating the possibility that spammers have started to game the voting system as well.

Things don’t look good for Knol. Considering it has barely been two weeks and things already look this bad, it seems likely that they are only going to get worse.

Google Hits Back

One thing I noticed as I was performing this “study” was that Google has added an element to the sidebar of every Knol entry entitled “Similar Content on the Web”.

This section provides links to other copies of the work that Google has detected on the Web along with percentages to indicate how much of the content has been duplicated.

It is unclear at this time if this section updates to point out possible cases of plagiarism for authors posting original content to Knol or if it is simply designed to indicate where the content may have come from and is a one-time check.

It is also interesting that Google’s search engine often detected many other results not found in the sidebar, including, at least a few times, the original site.

I will have more on this later.

Conclusions

The bottom line right now is that Google Knol is already a haven for spam and duplicate content. Whether it is authors republishing their work in hopes of getting a little extra Adsense revenue or spammers pushing out junk content, the junk results are high in the search and only get uglier the lower down you go.

Though Wikipedia has had its issues with spam in the past, I can not recall it ever looking quite like this.

If Google Knol is to ever have a chance to become anything other than a spam haven, it needs to hit back now and do its part to keep duplicate content out. Google clearly has the tools already, but has been timid about using them, even to adjust ranking.

Knol needs original content to thrive but if it does not start encouraging and rewarding it now, it may create a situation where the few original authors are buried under a pile of duplicate content and searchers have no motivation to look to Knol for new information as almost all of it will be available elsewhere.

Hopefully, this can be the beginning of Google taking these issues seriously and using its tools to hit spammers hard.

Related Links

Mashable on Knol Spam
Problogger on Knol
Demerzel on Begging of Knol Spam
Nate Nead on Knol Dofollow/Nofollow
Usefularts on Knol Spam

For those who are interested in this topic, I will be writing and posting a follow up on Knol sometime in the coming week. I am still following the service. If you wish, you can subscribe to the RSS feed and be notified when the article goes live, as well as get updates on other copyright and plagiarism matter.

My thanks goes out to the Guardian for thinking of me and I want to again welcome all of the new readers.

Over the past few days, Google has been taking a huge pounding over its Google Knol service. One of the harshest criticisms came from Aaron Wall, who said that it was “Google’s Latest Attack on Copyright” and cited threats to search engine rankings by both well-intended Knol submitters and spammers alike.

Others have accused Google of favoring Knol in its search results, either directly or indirectly, noting that many of the early articles are already ranking very high in the search engines,

Though some havecome up to defend Knol, at least to an extent, the general consensus seems to be one of unease with Google Knol and what its implications for bloggers are.

Unfortunately, for the most part, I have to agree with this feeling and share the concern of my fellow bloggers. Google’s answer to Wikipedia does not inspire the same sense of community spirit that its predecessor does and seems to raise more questions than it does answers, especially at this time.

Knowledge Served with a Side of Spam

If Google Knol is Google’s answer to Wikipedia, it stands to reason that Knol will face the same challenges as its forefather, at least in the long run.

At the top of that list of challenges will, most likely, be spam. Unfortunately, Google has shown us that, on its hosted services at least, it is almost incapable of dealing with spam.

For example, though several offenses against spam on Blogspot have improved things there, Blogspot still remains one of the most popular services for hosting spam content and one still has little trouble finding spam blogs on the service. Likewise, Google Groups has become a popular spam target and it seems predictable that Knol will as well.

For Google, the problem is two-fold. Even if they are not artificially favoring Knol, there will be a perception that they are and the site will still, without assistance, likely rank well. Thus, it will be a major target for spammers for the exact same reasons Blogspot and other Google services have traditionally been targeted.

The second is that Google’s spam defenses have historically been extremely weak. Their CAPTCHA system has been broken, reporting spam to them works both slowly and irregularly and filing a copyright notice is a painful process that produces a slow response.

I can only imagine that many spammers already have their aim set on Google Knol or at least watching it to see when they should consider exploiting it.

Should the spammers come, Google will likely be caught off guard and that could both sink Knol as a project and trash the rankings of legitimate Webmasters who have had their content misused.

Google’s Precautions

However, Google almost certainly saw this problem coming and took several steps to counter it. After looking at the site, I see several features that were designed to make it more spam resistant than its wiki brother.

Login Required: With Wikipedia, anyone can edit almost every entry, regardless of whether or not they are logged in. Google Knol requires uses to log in with the Google Account before posting.

Nofollow Links: Google Knol automatically “nofollows” all links in its entries, meaning that they will not receive any PageRank from the Knol, thus limiting the site’s usefulness as a link farm.

Flag Inappropriate Content: Though Google’s “flag” feature on Blogspot is notoriously useless, the one on Knol seems to carry more weight and lets users not only specify the nature of the complaint, but leave comments and specific information.

Unfortunately, requiring a login is unlikely to have any significant effect on preventing spam. Spammers already have Google accounts and seem to be able to generate them almost at will. Also, this removes a safeguard found in WIkipedia where, if you found your content was infringed, you could reach in and remove it yourself without even signing up in many cases.

That is not possible with Knol. Instead, we have to rely on quick action from Google, something that is unlikely given Google’s history.

While the nofollow links will likely keep some spammers at bay, it’s also a source of ire for many Webmasters. Even if a Knol author attempts to give credit for work they copied (with permission) the link will be meaningless to the search engines, virtually ensuring that the duplicate will outrank the original given Knol’s likely standings.

The final element remains untested but it is worth noting that it provides a link to yet another DMCA policy, Google’s fourth, that has the same requirements of a handwritten signature sent via fax or email.

Fortunately, my workaround should still be applicable to Knol.

All in all, these are good precautions but they raise more issues than they solve likely will have almost no impact on any spam wave that does strike.

Other Knol Issues

Spam is not the only issue for Knol to worry about and certainly not the only reason bloggers should keep an eye on the service. There are other oddities and concerns that may strain Google Knol’s relationship with the rest of the Web.

1. Duplicate Content: As Wall pointed out in his post, if content appears in both Knol and another site, even a major one, Google’s duplicate content filter seems to favor Knol over the original. This opens the door to ranking sabotage and even one accidentally removing themselves from the search index by sharing content with Knol.
2. Default Licensing: Though it is exciting to see Google get behind Creative Commons, the default license for all content posted into Knol is CC-BY, meaning that it can be used for any purpose with attribution. This is even less restrictive than the license on Wikipedia and few will be likely to change it, even if they don’t intend to give away so many rights. This is illustrated by the fact that most existing Knols use that license though contributors can select “All Rights Reserved” when creating the post. The problem is that, if a spammer scrapes content and posts it to Knol. other sites may feel, incorrectly, that they have the right to use it and that could help spread duplicate content past Knol.
3. The Profit Motive: Google Knol allows anyone who creates a Knol to place ads next to it. This will not only likely attract even more spammers, the same way the Adsense policy on Blogspot has done so there, but also attract more human plagiarists. With click-through rates and payouts as they are, the only people that can expect to earn significant money from this are those that focus on quantity over quality. This is likely to reward those who bend and break the rules more than those who follow them.

The end result is that it is not a matter of if Knol will be spammed, but when it will happen and what form it will it take. Will it be SEO spammers using it to kick competitors out of the rankings? Will human plagiarists use the Adsense system to submit lifted content for the promise of high search results and ad revenue? Will it be something else altogether.

Google Knol is simply too tempting of a spam target to ignore and, if it achieves the rankings many predict it will, it will definitely have a bulls-eye on its back.

We can only hope that Google is ready for it.

What Webmasters Can Do

Since participating in Knol could easily cannibalize your own rankings, especially since you can’t effectively link to your own content, deciding what to do is tricky.

The best thing, right now is to keep on top of how your content is used. Use Google Alerts with static content and Digital Fingerprints to track any content in an RSS feed.

The good news is that, even if Knol achieves search engine dominance, there will likely be a period of time between when a new article hits the search engines and when it ranks well. If one acts quickly after an infringement, there is a good chance that any damage can be mitigated.

Fortunately, right now, the problem is just one sitting on the horizon. If we address the issue now, we can prepare, speak up and stop any negative effects before they happen.

Conclusions

Though many of the criticisms hurled at Knol also apply to Wikipedia (nofollow links, default licensing, etc.) Wikipedia has the benefit of being a true community effort. This provides safeguards against spammers and lets copyright holders protect themselves. With Google, there are very limited community safeguards and we have to rely on them to remove any infringing works.

Also, Google does not seem to trust Wikipedia’s authority to the exclusion of other sites, something it has already done in a couple of cases with Knol, and that, in turn, raises other questions.

However, it seems the biggest problem that many have with Knol is that Google, despite claims to the contrary, is becoming a publisher. However, it is important to note that Google has operated a blogging service, a Web site publishing tool, a forum service and and other hosted offering for many years, all of which are currently indexed in their search engine.

Though it is worrisome to see a search engine like Google become so involved in the creation of content, even going so far as to paying authors directly, other search engines, including Yahoo! and MSN, have much greater conflicts of interest.

The problem is not that Google is paying authors to write for their site and then ranking the content well, other search engines do that all of the time, the problem is that Google is exposing the jugular vein of Webmasters when it comes to SEO and leaving the door open for spammers, competitors and plagiarists to strike it.

Though only time will tell what becomes of Google Knol and what its impact is, there is a lot of good reason for Webmasters and authors to be very worried.

Update 07/30

The YouTube video below demonstrates clearly that the automated generation of Knol articles is already possible. The spam wave is already set to begin:

The video also clearly illustrates the mindset of a spammer in a way that I can not illustrate with thousands of words of text, so it is worth the watch alone simply to understand how and why spammers operate.