| 9:55 am on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Admittedly, I haven't researched this in detail, but...
I would be very very surprised if Google issued any penalties based on who provides content. It would take a lot of time, energy (and therefore money) to work it all out and would simply not be worth their while.
However, it has been said many times that Google does not like duplicate content. If your pages contain only espotting results, then your pages may be identical to other sites that use espotting results and you may find your listing downgraded as a result (or not, as the case may be. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on duplicate penalties.)
So to be on the safe side, I would give a few good sites a free listing just to bulk out the content a bit. I can recommend some if you like...
| 10:37 am on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google (and other search engines) are full of Espotting affiliate sites serving up flat HTML pages masquerading as having unique content but just being listings for particular search phrases via Espotting PPC results.
Some advertisers and users have complained/commented about this in the past and I would have thought that Google would try and filter them - it would be pretty easy - just scan for Espotting affiliate links. After all, why should you get the PPC money instead of them when what you are doing is circumnavigating the need for the use of AdWords (though Espotting affiliates use them too)!
In the past, this was being done by other PPC engines/affiliates and they seem all to have pretty much gone now.
| 1:23 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think that you would be penalize purely on the basis that you are displaying PPC result. Just look at the main PPC providers itself, Overture, Findwhat, etc.. All have high PR.
Having said that, if there's any penaly at all, it would be about duplicate content that is if you are just echoing the PPC results.
I guess the only thing you have to watch out is if Google decided to specifically filter a specific PPC provider and its affiliates but then that would open up a can of worms for Google.
| 1:44 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Just look at the main PPC providers itself, Overture, Findwhat, etc.. All have high PR.
The main PPC providers don't have their PPC results in Google SERPS appearing for search terms which make them money per click!
The question here is about affiliates having PPC results from their sites spidered by Google.
>filter a specific PPC provider and its affiliates but then that would open up a can of worms for Google.
It hasn't in the past and won't in the future. Filtering affiliates and banning PPC affiliate sites has been going on for years.
| 2:03 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't really see a PPC listings issue, more a lack of content issue.
Search engines want to return content for their searches. Only having search listings on your pages means lack of real content. Like empty doorway pages, I'd not be at all surprised to see them disappear.
| 2:27 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It hasn't in the past and won't in the future. Filtering affiliates and banning PPC affiliate sites has been going on for years. |
Are you sure about that? I've seen so many quality PPC partners sites that are performing well at Google.
Some of this affiliates ppc results that are not in Google serp is not because they have been filtered but in fact some PPC provider have in their affilates policy that the results should not be indexable by search engines not because of some sort of PPC affiliates penalty/filter by the SE.
I'm more inclined to agree with Ciml that lack of content or just a mirror of a PPC engine that it wouldn't perform well with Google.
| 2:54 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Are you sure about that?
Yes. 100% sure.
| 3:10 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see it as offering alternative relevant content, where google don't carry any.
IE, the user finds what they are looking for allbeit with an extra click and through the affiliate site, or their backfilled results through another search partner.
it is easy to identify sites carrying these affiliate.espotting.com etc link, unless the site is pre-caching the search and building it into a very complicated click routing system, which in itself is not allowed contractually.
I seemed to have caused a little dispute with all of this, It was by no means intended, I am just looking to settle my nerves.
| 4:33 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I see it as offering alternative relevant content, where google don't carry any. |
I don't. Relevant content will come to you 99.9% of the time by tuning your google search, not by clicking on an indexed dynamic results page from a cut-rate PPC engine--one that doesn't have the aforementioned policy of forbidding their affiliates from being indexed in Google. They are leeches in my book, and the sites you find in there are not going to be nearly as relevant as the ones already sitting to the right in Adwords. Plus their programs are used by the ususal spam suspects.
| 5:15 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> it is easy to identify sites carrying these affiliate [...]
But y0z, why should it matter?
There are good sites with affiliate links; there are good sites without affiliate links.
There are contentless sites with affiliate links; there are contentless sites without affiliate links.
I don't think that the presence or otherwise of affiliate links is much of an indicator.
| 7:07 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Ciml 100%
Just concentrate on your own content and just think of the PPC results as an add-on.
| 5:00 pm on Jun 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Obviously, one should develop ones own content, and most of the sites I work with do have this. However, as a back-up result where we don't have content, we have affiliate content through espotting, which seemingly isn't being penalised by google.
Just as a side comment, we were actively encourged by espotting to promote our search terms through google. :-)
thanks for your thaughts chaps.