The web is full of crap content because web content doesn’t pay.
Now, before I get hung, drawn and sent to Iraq for suggesting such a thing, let me qualify that statement. 95% of anything is crap, so it isn’t like the alternatives get off lightly, either. Also, some web content, particularly that which converts to a transaction of some kind, can be very, very profitable indeed.
However, I was thinking about the problem involved in producing good “quality” content. It is almost always expensive to produce, which is why YouTube, et al, consists almost entirely of people making silly faces. Again, there are exceptions, but this is generally true. People spend time, and that time costs. The more time they spend, the more thought goes into the process, the more the content costs to produce. When will we see quality content on YouTube, Google Video, etc? When we pay for it, in one way or another.
What’s my definition of poor content? Exactly that – whatever I think is poor content. However, I was in a bookshop yesterday, and there was just so much interesting stuff – so much “quality” content. I find that I spend longer and longer on the web and don’t come across anywhere near as much quality content as I do in the average bookshop, and the reason is that it is seldom worthwhile producing quality content for the web. Granted we don’t pay a lot, if anything, for web content, which is part of the problem.
I guess the moral of the story is, obviously, we get what we pay for. I guess that fact just doesn’t change, no matter where technology takes us.
PS: Irony noted