| 7:56 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hunderdown, I do use the content approach for some sites. Not dissing the business model, just that it has an obvious threat that is controlled by other forces.
Cool that your marketing mix isn't 100% devoted to free SE traffic, but even losing 25% (or whatever) would put a big ol' dent on your bottom line. Or at least it would on mine.
I thought it went without saying that since is an SE-focused forum most non-sandboxed sites have a lot of "free" traffic...or want it.
| 8:20 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"blend27" You say that you have gotten "15" adsence accounts banned and thats just part of the game? snitching is never part of the game its player hating outright and you are hiding behind the "o I worked so hard on this content site and now here comes these big bad wolfs and they now dominate, becouse I don't know how or can't so I will just tell and hope the problem goes away"...newsflash to all you player hating, spam reporting, wishing you even "know" what kind of money the real seo's here make..Us blackhat's ain't ever going away and if you think that google pulling the adsence plug on me or anyone else here who is paying close to 40% in taxes you got to be crazy....
like one guy said, there are always other ways to go and I bet "whatever" cat. you are in that there are plenty of companies that would love some "direct" scraper traffic all day long. Also, yahoo/msn/overture is not google to closethe door on new business from us scrapers/cloakers and all the rest as we are of great value...
I must say though "blend27" you do have me pegged right on not being able to genarate my own content for if I could fastly or was able to buy it in bulk then I would surely do that as well (anyone have high dollor type content but, no seo skill please leave me a sticky and lets talk:).
| 8:32 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you took a nice long holiday and pulled your scrapers, I could start paying 40% tax. :-)
| 8:33 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
if you "could" pay 40% you "would";).
| 8:36 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|snitching is never part of the game its player hating outright and you are hiding behind the... |
If what you are doing is "just business" then how can you call on blend27 as being a bad boy? You can have it one way or the other.
Look I respect your abilities but that's just silly.
| 8:41 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
nobody likes a snitch
| 8:48 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Guess that makes me a 'nobody.'
"I don't feel I have to wipe everybody out, Tom... just my enemies, that's all." -- GF/II
| 8:50 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<if you "could" pay 40% you "would">>
I think I'll let falling into that pothole ride...
Getting back to the original topic "Why does Google AdSense sponsor scraper SPAM sites" I think that most non scraper site pilots around here agree that this SPAM is frustrating for searchers and probably unhealthy for Google longer term.
So the "why" is immediate Google revenue. The point is that Google, or any engine is willing to lower the quality of search results if that is necessary to stay in business. Google can get away with this as long as the search competition is less than equal in quality. So Teeceo has earning time left. But Google will, apparently, pull down aggressive SPAM.
Should an independent Webmaster jump into scrapers to pay for the kids' education? Or should we get more serious about reporting the SPAM? I have not done either - but I should probably get off of the fence!
| 9:06 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Somebody previous made a really good point that Google could let some of these blackhat techniques such as scrapper sites ride as they are then incenting spam. Google is better at cleaning it up than other SEs so then the other ones suffer more, so then google gains. Intersting theory -- I could easily see it.
An addition to that is that this way google is using this "trick" to make AdSense/AdWords revenue out of other SEs.
If true, a brilliant move on G's part.
| 9:09 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|newsflash to all you player hating, spam reporting, wishing you even "know" what kind of money the real seo's here make..Us blackhat's ain't ever going away and if you think that google pulling the adsence plug on me or anyone else here who is paying close to 40% in taxes you got to be crazy.... |
hey teeceo ...NEWSFLASH... I probably know more blackhats as you would like to call them and the tools and techniques then you can imagine.. I'm not whining a bit, I'm telling it like it is. Scrape as much as you want, I don't blame you as Google is rewarding this at this time. I'm simply stating that I have no respect for thieves. If someone steals content or downloads a site of mine I will file a DMCA if they don't remove it after being asked politely - simple as that. Oh, and I don't do spam reports etc. as it's not my job to look after SE's quality, my job is only with my sites and I'll protect them and the content however I can :)
And another thing teeceo.... anyone I know that makes/made more than 10K a month in US funds using any so black hat techniques is as quiet as a mouse... makes me wonder if you were one of those that lost their $100 for the month...
| 9:23 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google does not want scraper sites running Adsense or in its index. That's why teeceo was dropped from Adsense and others here have posted that as AdWords buyers they have been able to report and remove scraper sites.
Google doesn't immediately remove all scraper sites from membership in AdSense because they are not all knowing. Some folks forget that. I learned a long time ago, that when you think someone is trying to screw you, chances are that they are not even aware of the situation. It's just human nature to believe that the world centers on your own hopes and fears and that you are important enough for others to try to 'get you.'
So take heart content builders, Google and Adsense still value your efforts. They will enforce compliance with the TOS. Real content is relatively safe while the days of the scrapers are numbered like the hairs on their heads.
In summation: Google lets these sites remain because they don't know about them. When AdWords buyers report them, they get zapped. One thing that will never work though, is a general 'report the scraper/spammer' feature as too many people would spam the anti-spam tool to get a leg up on the competition.
| 9:44 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thoughtful insights - Google creating spam on other SEs. LOL
<<Google lets these sites remain because they don't know about them. When AdWords buyers report them, they get zapped.>>
So I should start reporting to Google? As someone said, it feels like I'm doing someone else's job (you know how much that's usually appreciated) but perhaps it's the only way.
Anyone have experience with the results of reporting scrapers (in addition to the couple mentioned above)?
| 9:52 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've never reported anybody to Google in my life. Probably because I have always felt that I am in some sort of competition not only with other publishers, but also with the engines themselves. I always felt that reporting someone to a SE was a good way to get the SE to look at you more closely -- which even if you do nothing wrong, is something that I, as an obsessive-compulsive, paranoid personalty, would like to avoid.
It does seem perfectly reasonable to me for AdWords buyers to report spammy sites to G. After all, it's their money and G has more cause to listen to their complaints.
My wishes coincide with what I believe to be G's goal in such situations: a systemized, algo-based solution to this growing problem.
| 9:58 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<obsessive-compulsive, paranoid personalty>>
That's what five years of SEO will get ya! grin
| 10:01 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would contact the offending sites first if possible. I do NOT promote filing spam reports with Google as they are the ones that define it in their engine.... they seem to be OK with it.
I think teeceo is just having a bad time and thats why he's getting ruffled... with the pharmacy affiliates and other lucrative programs falling by the wayside it's only natural that those people will gravitate towards Adsense.
| 10:16 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If G is aware of scrapers in the Adsense program but are 'OK with it,' then why did teeceo get kicked out? Why was blend27 able to report and oust 16 scraper/spammer sites via his AdWords contacts?
The available evidence shows that Google is not 'OK with it.'
There is still one 'lucrative' program that hasn't 'fallen by the wayside.' It's called content building.
| 10:38 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We know Google likes to do things with an algo over doing things by hand. That seems to be their stock answer for how they prefer to deal with organic search "spam", whatever that is.
Why would anyone think they'd prefer any other method for dealing with scraper sites?
They may take manual action on complaints about a site. But I'd guess they are more likely to be trying to improve things using an algo based system of some kind for detecting whatever they think is an undesireable site.
| 11:15 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That's why teeceo was dropped from Adsense and others here have posted that as AdWords buyers they have been able to report and remove scraper sites. |
Yes, but, we don't know why he was removed. He could have been doing more than just scraping which, on review due to a report, was caught (whereas it wouldn't have been caught as early if someone whose content he'd been scraping hadn't reported him).
| 11:26 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Building a content site does NOT always guarantee that it will turn out to be a long term money maker and requires a lot of hard work and persistence. I personally know a guy who has spent 5 good years on building his content-authority site and recently it has been hit by Allegra so his traffic is down 80% and so are his adsense earnings.
So in my opinion, diversify, go with different seo techniques, and most importantly, spend those adsense or affiliate earnings on new projects, invest in your business, hire people to do the work for you, only then you will realize the real potential.
| 11:42 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Exactly. We don't know the specific reasons why each and everyone of these 17 scraper publishers were kicked out.
What we do know is that they published scraper sites.
We know that they were kicked out.
We know that the specific reason why blend27 reported 16 of them is because they were scraper sites delivering garbage traffic to his sites via AW.
Based on what we do know, it would be logical to assume that G doesn't react kindly to the existence of scraper sites (at least those running AS) when G becomes aware of them.
The possiblility that the ousted publishers committed other infractions would be worth considering, if such evidence were made available. Perhaps blend27 could tell us if each and every site he reported as a scraper was zapped or if some survived or morphed into something more substantial or whatever.
Building quality sites is no guarantee of unending profits. But real content is the basis of my success, G's success and the temporary success of the scraper sites which are 'borrowing' my content. If it wasn't for actual content, who would use the internet?
| 12:44 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I posted about this issue last year and gave my thesis about G's competitive strategy. It seems that everyone else is starting to see this as an issue now.
While I agree that scraper sites do not make for good serps, as an advertiser, I think the click is as qualified as any other search traffic. And I'm pretty sure google has the data to back this up.
Even though a scraper site may look like crap, the visitor still typed a query in a search engine, clicked the listing, saw a relevant ad, and clicked the ad. Many times the landing pg of the ad is more targetted than pg listed on the SE.
For the most part, the quality of SE traffic is the same whether it goes through a content middleman or a scraper middleman to the advertiser.
| 1:01 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So which of the following would qualify as a scraper site?
1) A site that copies SERPS en masse and plops AdSense at the top.
2) Sites that use the ODP data (either live or an RDF dump) with no other content.
3) Sites that use the ODP data as a portion of their main site (for example, a "directory" section).
| 1:19 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
---JohnKelly - All of them.
---buddha--- visitor still typed a query in a search engine, clicked the listing, saw a relevant ad, and clicked the ad. -----
I don't consider those visitors as visitors, the reputation of the source-location where information is found, before the visitor comes to my store plays a significant role in the end result to an advertiser me, or a site owner where the link is pointed. if it is a SERP listing that goes straight to my site, its great, if it is a snippet posted on the scrapers site, most likely its been ripped of from another SE, Directory and while its being modified by the owner of the scrapers site to get to the top, I am not sure I want that visitor at all. In this case I am not explaining as an advertiser, but as an owner of the content -- this as to G$ vs.Y$ in your last year post. As an AdSence advertiser(in the past) I could tell you that 99.5% of visitors that come from such sites are useless waist of bandwidth. I am better of registering bunch of domain names(-hint-) after the names of the EBay user IDs that are used to sell similar products on that Giant, that along brings as much traffic as the Scrapper Sites.
The only good thing for me in other peoples Scraper Sites is I could see what works as far as keyword density (off topic, sorry).
In general – I’ve never build such site and never will, waist of time, but do look at them as work of Dirty ART that benefits only Big G, in any way you take it. Let them be gone, as they will, sites like that, scrapers.
| 1:19 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Technically, the three of them.
Though, the first one is the most annoying.
| 1:37 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
to hyperkik, msg#81: your premise is wrong
"a typical scraper operates in a very different manner than a search engine. That is, the scraper typically produces static pages which are served to users, whereas a search engine produces pages from a database in response to a specific user inquiry."
in the end the 2 make a slightest difference. In both cases, a company scrapes other sites and serves snippets of them in response to a query. The only difference here is that user usually goes directly to SE, but through a SE to scraper. The result is an HTML page that is served to the user, irrelevant to the server technology (in fact, a scraper site is likely to serve results from a database as well).
It is a rethorical debate as per which results are more relevant, search engine's or scraper's.
Think about this:
- you don't like a scraper site because they appear above you in serps, thus you can't get free traffic
- you pay for AdWords (well, that is if you have any sort of business model besides "me and my hobby site") i.e. for traffic from SE, which is no different than JoesScraperSite
- if JoesScraperSite would bring you considerable "free" traffic, you'd be happy (admit it)
- if JoesScraperSite becomes more popular then Google (can it...can it...? think MSN), would you pay for traffic from it? Probably yes, as it will become "new SE".
So the issue is what - size, and the fact that Google itself is not in SERP (duh, user goes there AUTOMATICALLY, so IT IS technically in SERPs).
Once Google went public, it is fair to say that they as well serve SERPs "for profit", thus violating "fair use" and their own AdWords TOS.
PS not a scraper here
| 1:50 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From a publisher's perspective, I'm happy when G lists my site. I make scads of cash. When scrapers list my site, suddenly my snippet appears on pages also featuring, among other things, pornography.
I'm not trying to make any point about what's legal or not legal. But if folks want to compare and contrast G and scraper sites, that's the big difference from a content publisher's point of view.
One pays me, the other attempts to use my content to syphon off traffic which might otherwise have come my way.
And aparrently, it's all part of some big game, where the folks who 'borrow' my content to outrank me deny the existence of any rules, except that no one's allow to rat them out to G.
That's the part that blows my mind -- these 'law of the jungle' types who are surprised when they find out that they aren't really at the top of the food chain. No real tiger would hang his head and cry about "snitches." He'd just eat them.
| 1:57 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|For the most part, the quality of SE traffic is the same whether it goes through a content middleman or a scraper middleman to the advertiser. |
Even if that were true, why should Google want to share revenue with scrapers who aren't adding value to the search experience? In effect, Google is subsidizing competitors who, in amny cases, are stealing Google's own search results.
| 2:37 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The title of the thread is
|Why does Google Asense sponsor Scraper spam sites? |
My answers are:
1. Monetization of traffic everywhere including competitors
2. Scraper sites have a good enough ROI for their advertisers (as long as there is no click fraud)
I personally have experience with high quality content sites AND auto-generated sites that are just a bit higher quality than scrapers. (They don't use serps for content)
I also send traffic to affiliate programs from both types of sites. The ROI is about the same and the CTR for adsense is actually 2% higher on the auto sites. From this quantitative evidence, a visitor from a scraper has a similar ROI than a content site. Thus, Google allows them to exist as long as they don't hurt the advertisers. Googles aim is to provide high ROI for their advertisers AND the greatest reach.
|I don't consider those visitors as visitors, the reputation of the source-location where information is found, before the visitor comes to my store plays a significant role in the end result to an advertiser me. |
If you care about brand name, then maybe this is a concern. But if you only care about ROI, then it shouldn't matter where they come from, just how they convert.
Blend27, just curious. How do you know that you actually got 17 scrapers banned? Does Google actually reply to you?
I think the liklihood of receiving click fraud is much higher from the content network than the ad network for obvious reasons. If you are tracking and seeing lower ROI, it's most likely from click fraud, NOT scraper sites, from what I've seen.
| 2:41 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If G is aware of scrapers in the Adsense program but are 'OK with it,' then why did teeceo get kicked out? Why was blend27 able to report and oust 16 scraper/spammer sites via his AdWords contacts? |
16 scraper sites, or networks? this number means nothing when we start thinking about the number of sites/networks out there. Just a thought.
| 2:48 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
OK, if these scrapers represent the brave new world of web sites -- which I don't believe for a second -- then why in the world would anyone ever again create even one more page of real web site content.
If the defenders of scrapers are correct in their assessment of this new medium's wonderful value for both surfers and advertisers alike, then as of this very minute, every web publisher on the planet should stop creating content and just scrape everybody else's content. After all, only a fool would invest time and effort into building content sites, when so many bright minds have shown us that scrapers are easier to build, more profitable and are far more valueable for the human race than that pesky content.
Then we can all recycle each other versions of the web that died on March 24, 2005.
| 3:06 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know why used cars dealers exists either.
Why, if you can deal directly with the individuals, can't you? (Of course, they add more value to the transaction, than scrappes sites to the search engine experience)
Intermediaries exists in ANY business outside the internet, guys, you need to see the outside world.