First, I think the way it ranks sites like eHow are part of Google's strength, not its weakness. eHow, About, Answers.com (where I work) etc. usually show up on long tail queries where they're often the best page to match that search term.
Second, Matt's response essentially said: I hear the critics of content farms, and we'll do better, but realize that the critics are wrong on three key issues: these sites aren't spam, running Google Ads doesn't help you get ranked, and Google is getting better, not worse. IMO Matt understands that Google's ability to satisfy its users on long tail searches largely depends on the success of the large-scale content sites that are creating content to meet these users' needs.
For the most part, I don't think people hate this content. Competing webmasters hate this content for various good reasons. But generally speaking, it serves Google's users well.
Respectfully Disagree
I respectfully disagree with you on two points.
First, I think the way it ranks sites like eHow are part of Google's strength, not its weakness. eHow, About, Answers.com (where I work) etc. usually show up on long tail queries where they're often the best page to match that search term.
Second, Matt's response essentially said: I hear the critics of content farms, and we'll do better, but realize that the critics are wrong on three key issues: these sites aren't spam, running Google Ads doesn't help you get ranked, and Google is getting better, not worse. IMO Matt understands that Google's ability to satisfy its users on long tail searches largely depends on the success of the large-scale content sites that are creating content to meet these users' needs.
For the most part, I don't think people hate this content. Competing webmasters hate this content for various good reasons. But generally speaking, it serves Google's users well.
My full take on this is here: Matt Cutts on search and spam