it's to make content so good it seems as if a human wrote it. If that's actually the case there's no conflict in Google -- good content gets pushed to the top.
There's an easy way to achieve that: have an actual human write it. This solution does not necessarily win one good will with Google: for one obvious example, most of the content farms were farming manually rather than farming with Markov chains.
I also think "good content" only craters the approach to the bridge of describing both a) what actually ranks on Google and b) what, in an ideal world, Google thinks would rank on Google.
There's an easy way to achieve that: have an actual human write it. This solution does not necessarily win one good will with Google: for one obvious example, most of the content farms were farming manually rather than farming with Markov chains.
I also think "good content" only craters the approach to the bridge of describing both a) what actually ranks on Google and b) what, in an ideal world, Google thinks would rank on Google.