homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.126.126
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >     
Scraper sites are GOOD
Scraper sites do have a useful role to play online.
shafaki

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 11:23 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I often heard it hear repeat, the talk about scraper sites, how bad they are, and the frequent words of frustration from publishers against those making poor-content scrapper sites and getting money the easy way.

My astonishment when hearing such words had always been for the repeating phrase "there are MANY scraper sites out there". I was astonished from that phrase simply because I almost never in my online life got across one of them! (I'm online from over 12 years, and spend around 5 to 8 hours online daily. And use search engines (mainly Google) for finding my way online.)

It was not until yesterday when I got across a scraper sites. Okay, more than one actually. This happened after I went to Word Tracker .com (after reading about it here (I later discovered I've been there before, but just did not make good use of the tool then)). Playing with the trial for a while, I found "excellent" keywords. Searching Google for those keywords (which included a keyword with misspelling! it was an "excellent" keyword still because searchers often wrote the wrong spelling, while there were extremely few sites that had the misspelled word). Searching Google for such "excellent" keywords, the scraper sites started to appear.

It downed upon me then that those complaining out of frustration from scraper sites must be spending a lot of time in SEO using tools similar to word tracker to fish for "excellent" keywords. (I am using the word "excellent" to denote a keyword that is highly searched and at the same time few sites have it.) Except that those people complaining here are putting rich content in their sites.

After visiting that scrapper site (and which I discovered had grabbed many excellent keywords) I realized what the often talked about scrapper sites are and how they looked like. Yes they looked ugly, but ...

I reckoned, after taking a short 'subway' in my thinking process, that scraper sites DO in fact help and are Good, which is contrary to common belief.

Yes I agree that scraper sites have little content to offer, and their developers do little effort to develop them yet gain a lot of money for it but having no content does not mean they are not doing a service to searchers.

Actually, scraper sites are indeed useful to searchers. Let's say 100,000 searchers search for a phrase that is often not found in content rich sites. The content they need is found on the net on some content rich sites, but the phrase they use just does not get them to those sites. Enter scraper sites. The scraper sites act as a sort of mediator between the two, search engines and content-rich sites. When those 100,000 searchers use search engines to search with this phrase, they get a scraper site as the #1 result, going to that site, they do not find content, but they do find links and doorways to sites rich in the content they were in deed looking for.

If it was not for the scraper sites, who's developers spend their time on nothing but fishing for those "excellent" keywords, those 100,000 searchers would just not be able to find the content-rich sites, simply because they used search phrases that such sites do not optimize for.

I still understand the frustration of content-rich site developers, as they feel those scraper sites 'steal' their ads, and result in a lower CPC. Yet my point is that scraper sites do have a role to play. At least the topic can be debatable, and not seen in a black and white way as it had always been (except by perhaps some scraper site developers whom sometimes try to say they are doing little harm).

Note: The subject line of my post was intentionally scalped against the accepted norm to attract attention. No offence to rich content publishers (me being one of them), but just liked to present a thought that struck my mind.

 

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:20 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes I agree that scraper sites have little content to offer, and their developers do little effort to develop them yet gain a lot of money for it but having no content does not mean they are not doing a service to searchers.

Not everybody shares this line of thought. I find scrapers and scraper ads very frustrating. I know how to use a search engine to find information, and sites that have no content other than ads and links to other no-content sites filling up the top spaces on my search annoys me. That is not a good experience, nor is it a service to searchers, as I know the *only* reason they are there is to generate clicks for themselves on the back of stolen content.

If it was not for the scraper sites, who's developers spend their time on nothing but fishing for those "excellent" keywords, those 100,000 searchers would just not be able to find the content-rich sites, simply because they used search phrases that such sites do not optimize for.

They can't find the content pages in the top slots of the search BECAUSE OF the no-content scrapers, and not thanks to them. Nuke the lot of 'em and you'd find the content easier.

Webmasters that can't put in relevant keywords (it 'aint rocket science) aren't that serious about having their site visited.

Search engines have improved vastly over the last few years, and so has people's ability to use them effectively. Saying that scrapers fulfil a need is crap - sorry.

globay

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:26 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Saying that scrapers fulfil a need is crap - sorry.

I agree. I have yet to find a scraper site, that returned better results than Google or even Yahoo and MSN.

birdstuff

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:44 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I personally don't like scraper sites because the webmasters are making a living off of other people's work. I absolutely don't want my ads running on them on that principle alone.

That being said, a lot of the negative things being bandied about concerning scraper sites simply aren't true, such as:

- Clicks from scraper sites don't convert. Anyone who believes this or experiences it needs to seriously examine their sales pages and find out what the problem is. My own experience has proven that scraper sites send traffic that is way more targeted than regular content sites and the conversions are through the roof when compared to regular content sites.

- Having an ad on a scraper site will "harm" a brand. This is ludicrous. I see ads from household names running on "regular" content sites that look like a 3 year old built them. Compare those sites to some of the professional looking scraper sites (and there are tons of them) and you'll see what I mean.

There are some true negatives about scraper sites of course, including the aforementioned seedy method of "borrowing" the content from other hard-working webmasters. And they do indeed clog up the SERPS. But many of the complaints we read about scraper sites are simply absurd.

larryhatch

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:50 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full agreement here as well.

To me, scraping (not scrapping) is a 2nd, 3rd, 4rth.. generation copy of original content.
Like an nth generation xerox copy, information gets lost with each iteration.

Anti-scraping measures (if you can find any) should reward the real work of original authors and researchers.

My dad used to teach biology. He had a neat trick. He had 2 or 3 different versions of each test or exam, and distributed those by rows of desks.

Peeking right and left, the cheaters would copy the right answers to the WRONG questions while Dad smoked a cigarette in his office and watched the fun thru a hidden mirror.

He didn't have to nab the cheaters. They flunked themselves!

Scrapers undercut all that is good about the net. I don't think they should go to jail, just be held up to ridicule.

Rack up one more attempt to justify hyena behavior (yawn). - Larry

shafaki

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 1:19 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

David,

One of the reasons I posted my message and selected this specific subject line for it was to get STRONG responses and arguments against the view I presented. Such would certainly enrich the debate and make it super clear that content rich sites are the thing to aim for.

Unfortunately, I find your argument far from being so.

Search engines have improved vastly over the last few years, and so has people's ability to use them effectively.

Sure search engines have improved incredibly from their state in the past. I totally agree with this. But people's ability to use them effectively has actually decline over the years (this finding is backed by research). The reason behind this is that in the past, net citizens were composed largely of technically sophisticated people, but as the net expanded and more and more people came to use it, the less computer literate have entered the scene. This is an ongoing trend. (That's why the BIG guys are trying to make it easier and easier for things online, just think Blogger, think automatic installation instead of having to download and save a file first ... etc. The big guys got the message).

Your missing of this point made your whole argument build on an untrue thing, which makes it easily collapsible (your argument).

Webmasters that can't put in relevant keywords (it 'aint rocket science) aren't that serious about having their site visited.

Once again here, not all article writers have strong experience in SEO. Imagine an MD for instance writing articles in his field, which he is experienced in, but not having deep experience in SEO. Focusing more on his medical specialization and less on SEO will be normal for him. And I will still highly respect this person who has little SEO knowledge nonetheless.

They can't find the content pages in the top slots of the search BECAUSE OF the no-content scrapers, and not thanks to them. Nuke the lot of 'em and you'd find the content easier.

What if the content-rich sites do not show at all for such queries due to the search phrases being 'unexpected'?

Try searching G for "descriptions it job titles". This phrase is used a LOT by searchers, yet sites having IT Job Descriptions are not optimized for it. Take another example where searchers often misspell the word IT and write it "iit" instead. If your web site was about IT, would you optimize it for IIT? (Ponder on this question for a while). (If you were, then how will you go on optimizing it for IIT when it is actually about IT? If not, then you'll be loosing that traffic.)

I really do hope that someone out there give me a STRONG answer against the opinion proposed in this thread. I'm craving for a strong argument, a REAL one.

hyperkik

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 4:39 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I really do hope that someone out there give me a STRONG answer against the opinion proposed in this thread. I'm craving for a strong argument, a REAL one.

What are you doing? Trolling? Scrapers have been discussed to death in this forum, and I have yet to see any compelling argument for their existence, save to serve their owner's greed. Forgive me for not wasting my time batting at the wispy smokescreens put up by their defenders - I have better things to do.

oddsod

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 4:53 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Scraper sites are GOOD

Possibly. When are you going to give us a credible reason for that belief? :)

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 4:59 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since this thread isn't about scraper sites in the context of AdSense, wouldn't it be a better fit for the Directories forum?

[webmasterworld.com...]

The subject line of my post was intentionally scalped against the accepted norm to attract attention.

At last--someone who admits to being a troll. :-)

shafaki

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 5:11 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Again no one has dared give any logical answers, only emotional responses.

hyperkik

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 5:38 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

(Please don't feed the trolls.)

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 5:44 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I really do hope that someone out there give me a STRONG answer against the opinion proposed in this thread. I'm craving for a strong argument, a REAL one.

Why? Don't you have any strong arguments yourself? You started this thread, yet don't have any rational argument in their favour.

We know that they exist, and we know that it's possible that spammy Joe's blogspot (click the ads and support the sponsors) may convert better for advertisers etc. So what?

They simply don't help visitors find information they need better than Google/MSN/Yahoo etc., which seems to be the only argument you have for them.

I'm not anti scrapers totally - I just find them annoying, as unlike your portrayal of them, they mostly don't have relevant scraped links - just garbage and ads. How does that help visitors searching for specific information? It's true that some are better than others, but it's a rare site that is any good.

They are a reality, and we live with them. There is one scraper site I'm especially grateful to in my niche - I liked his format so I "borrowed it". Unlike his site, my page that apes his contains *actual information*. I suspect due to my position in the serps I'm doing rather better with his format - tee hee.

shafaki

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 6:12 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

... scrapers ... unlike your portrayal of them, they mostly don't have relevant scraped links - just garbage and ads. How does that help visitors searching for specific information?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

bird

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 7:25 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

scrapers ... unlike your portrayal of them, they mostly don't have relevant scraped links

And even if they actually have useful links, a searcher would have found those much faster in a search engine, had the scraper not clogged as many search results. If anything, then the scraper sites only "solve" the problems they caused by their own existence.

It's kind of like the mafia: They "protect" you from dangers that wouldn't exist without them...

fearlessrick

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 2:18 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's kind of like the mafia: They "protect" you from dangers that wouldn't exist without them...

or government.

stuartmcdonald

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 2:43 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

This thread is a joke right? A Sunday morning laugh right?

Anyone who can justify the existance of scrapers like www.mobile-phones-and-casinos-cause-mesothelioma.com and umpteen variations clogging up SERPS with nothing but stolen content or generic rubbish along with an unhealthy dose of adverts off to similar sites leaving users in an ever-deepening vortex of paid links to more dodgy sites, needs their head read IMO.

Strong opinions? do a search on scrapers and you'll find loads of strong opinions that scrapers suck big time -- a totally logical response imo.

arubicus

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 5:14 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

"And even if they actually have useful links, a searcher would have found those much faster in a search engine, had the scraper not clogged as many search results."

Just as big PR Rank companies ranking for terms that have not a darned thing to do with the search at hand.

Just like any ligit directory site that is found in the result.

Just like any shopping site that is thrown into the result for information type searches.

Just like any informational site that is thrown into results for searches that are primarily used to find products.

Just like any "green" content sites found in the results that have primarily crap but have good inbound links, link structure, and other on topic crap.

Just llke any "green" content sites with awesome content but heck if the proper page is shown in the results or even just wrong content period.

Just like review sites thrown into the mix.

Just like affiliate sites.

How about sites that use free content. Might as well throw those in there too that clog search engines. The same articles on different sites all showing up in the results.

How about searches for "free whatever" and you get all those companies selling crap but have that "free with purchase" mentioned on their site.

How about big brands that make you pass through a page of flash ads before entering their site. Then get hit by a pop up. Then got the ads imbeded in articles, link lists at the bottom, the right site is a bunch of other ad crap.

How about google's own directory thrown into the results.

If their search engine is so good what is the purpose behind this? Using free content that can be found elsewhere and mucking up search results with it? At that it is a useless directory for people.

ncw164x

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 11:29 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

So shafaki, like you said in your first post you have been online for over 12 years and it was only on the 6th May 2005 that you found a scraper site.

what you don't understand is we all know the ins and out of scraper sites and you being a newbi poster who joined 5 months ago with 19 posts to his name thinks he is the first to discover them...sigh...what ever will they post next

moving on
So what is your point you are trying to make?

Is it relating to this post below were you are openly admitting that your adsense earning are crap and you think by having your own scraper site they will rise
[webmasterworld.com...]
message 262

well...is that the point your trying to make here...? come on I am waiting is it relating to your earning because the comments you have posted so far are not justified, a scraper site is just regurgitated search engine results laid out in another way, hmm come to think of it thats a bit like your words in this thread.

Liane

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:36 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

(Please don't feed the trolls.)

Here, here.

Scraper sites are good? Please! Am I diagonally parked in a parallel universe or am I dreaming? Aunty Em ... is that you?

Its been lovely, but I have to go scream now!

oddsod

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 12:48 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

shafaki, if the info in your profile is correct then it's not going to take webmasters here more than a few seconds to find your job site for IT jobs in Egypt. And they could mess it up by linkfarming you.

If the information in the profile is incorrect you are exposing an innocent site to some unsavory attacks.

arran

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 1:12 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

shafaki, if the info in your profile is correct then it's not going to take webmasters here more than a few seconds to find your job site for IT jobs in Egypt. And they could mess it up by linkfarming you.

Even to suggest this is wrong.

ncw164x

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 1:15 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

The information in his profile linking to his site was changed as soon as that got posted

moneyraker

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 1:39 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yet after all of these had been said, owners of scraper sites continue to make money off Google using our content. No wonder people who can't lick 'em are now joining 'em. Justice! Justice!

burntan

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 2:58 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't agree scraper sites benefit searchers. There is one time I am looking for site on "homemade poker table" and use that as a keyword to search in G, almost half a page of search result is scraper sites. The title is "homemade poker table" but when you click on it, it come out online casino ads page and there are no further links connecting to any poker table related site.

This make my search difficult.

spaceylacie

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 3:29 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

This can make search difficult? This is Google's problem, not ours. Who do you think is more worried about relevant results? Google or you?

Scraper sites won't last. Just give it time, like everything else on the net.

shafaki

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 3:58 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

ncw164x

I like your post enormously! This the kind or style of response I adore, give me more (rhyme intended).

Hey, I'm serious here.

(I was going to end it here, but I'll answer your question so that you would know: No, my intention of the post was not wanting to create scraper sites because my earnings were low. I never ever ever thought of creating such sites and will probably never do. I prefer to slowly build a stable content site that would get stronger with time. Not to mention that a scraper site does not look nor sound nice. The purpose of the post, again, was two fold: 1- To present one alternative view from a different angle. 2- To stir a strong discussion about this alternative view in order to distill it, refactor it and enrich the overall vision of how we see and classify sites (scraper vs non-scraper). I admit, I liked your post enormously and liked none more. Perhaps 'couse it was full of facts and figures and was clean of any empty emotional responses.)

stuartmcdonald, I liked your opening words:

This thread is a joke right? A Sunday morning laugh right?

(arubicus, your post was too boring, sorry, I had to mention that here, and unintelligible.)

Liane, your words
Scraper sites are good? Please! Am I diagonally parked in a parallel universe or am I dreaming? Aunty Em ... is that you?
were the most hilarious and amusing. I lift my hat for you. Perhaps I'll cherish your words and keep a record of them. Seriously. I admire such thought stretchers.

oddsod, the info in my profile is correct. If the webmaster you are referring to uses blackhat methods, he'd like my post and will not harm me. If he is a white hat webmaster, he will not harm my site, by definition.

ncw164x,
The information in his profile linking to his site was changed as soon as that got posted
reading your words made me LOL. How some people jump into conclusions! But rereading it once more, and discovering you were the same person who posted the "fact and figures" post, made me rethink. Now one possibility that came to my mind is that you well know that the info in my profile has not changed, but just saying so for a not-so-good-intentioned reason. The other possibility of course is that you really think it was changed, which is even worse :D .

arubicus, the ending lines of your post (though not so clear) yet I agree. If search engines were better, scraper sites will just die. That's one solution (if it was possible) for ridding the net from scrapers.

burntan, your words
I don't agree scraper sites benefit searchers. There is one time I am looking for site on "homemade poker table" and use that as a keyword to search in G, almost half a page of search result is scraper sites. The title is "homemade poker table" but when you click on it, it come out online casino ads page and there are no further links connecting to any poker table related site.

This make my search difficult.

I liked 'couse they were not theoretical mumbo jumbo, but instead a simple "user-view" example. Your simple closing line made the point so easily, with no extra unnecessiry philosophizing or word complexity.

spaceylacie, I love your post. I read it while writing this, and it does second my opinion about the role of search engines.

This can make search difficult? This is Google's problem, not ours. Who do you think is more worried about relevant results? Google or you?

Scraper sites won't last. Just give it time, like everything else on the net.

Though I'm not sure I totally agree with you on the last line. It might take search engines quite a while to 'perfect' their craft and eliminate the scrappers. But I believe in the end it's doable.

I enjoyed writing this as much as I enjoyed reading the last posts. They are way better than the first couple of replies. This is the discussion I was looking for.

arubicus

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 9:02 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

(arubicus, your post was too boring, sorry, I had to mention that here, and unintelligible.)

Sorry it was boring to read and lame at that. When you get to know me you will find that most of my posts are generally in that fashion. I tend to beat around the bush. I throw in some lame oddball responses and I hardly ever give a straight response.

This whole thing is nothing more than a moral issue in which there is never going to be a straight answer - just subjective emotional responses based on beliefs from life experiences of those who respond.

So are scrapers useless or not? Depends on whom you ask.

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Everything that I listed in my previous post happens to be just some of the more frequent result complaints you will typically see from webmasters on virtually every forum I visit (even here). From legit information site vs. commerce sites in the same results to scrapers, spammers, useless info, affiliates, directories, big corporations, mom and pops... It just goes on and on. These same complaints have been going on for YEARS (Dare I say a DECADE!).

The thing is, besides the moral issue of scrapers, most seemingly logical complaints/arguments results in a chain reaction effect through virtually all types of sites. Now I am talking about the LOGICAL complaints/arguments not the subjective. Just think about it.

I believe the scraper problem is living breathing beast. A beast that is hard to tame and is ever changing and adapting.

Are the search engines to blame for cultivating an environment for the beast to thrive? Is it the advertisers/advertising networks who feed/nourish the beast? Are the creators/reproducers of the beast to blame? Or are we the makers of the content they scrape to blame for giving them the air in which to breathe?

Law of nature says if you cut off any one of these lifelines and the beast will die. Or would they?

The thing is you must COMPLETELY CUT off any one of these lifelines. Bad news is that you are still dealing with other (businesses/publishers/directories...) who in their own subjective thought processes and morals see no problem giving them an environment to in which it takes hardly anything for them to thrive again.

To me they are like the mighty cockroach. They need and very little in the way of environment to survive and they multiply quicker than you can kill them until every nook and cranny is overrun.

So how do you get rid of them? It would take more than getting rid of them in search results I believe. Logically it may sound like the answer but these scrapers can adapt and change to their environment. They will find a way. As search engines get smarter so will specialized scripts/programs that can generate mass content off the backs of others.

If you take down scrapers the collateral damage can also be great. Most on page and off page aspects of these scraper sites (scraper directories - content scrapers) can be found on most legit sites. There is huge possibility of a chain reaction effect that can happen. Something to think about.

arubicus

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 9:42 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Didn't get edited in time:

"The thing is, besides the moral issue of scrapers, most seemingly logical complaints/arguments results in a chain reaction effect through virtually all types of sites. Now I am talking about the LOGICAL complaints/arguments not the subjective. Just think about it."

Edit:

The thing is, besides the moral issue of scrapers, most seemingly logical complaints/arguments results in a chain reaction effect through virtually all types of sites. Keep in mind I am talking about the LOGICAL complaints/arguments not subjective qualitative analysis. Just think about it.

1milehgh80210

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 10:17 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

With no serious competition, google is in a great position. Searchers can either click on an adwords ad ($)- or an adsense ad on a scraper page($).
Reaching a quality site through the natural SERPS means less chance of ($).

BTW-I've always heard the secret to google was write a lot of original content & get lots of incoming links. Do scraper sites have either?

createErrorMsg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 6568 posted 11:04 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The scraper sites act as a sort of mediator between the two, search engines and content-rich sites. When those 100,000 searchers use search engines to search with this phrase, they get a scraper site as the #1 result, going to that site, they do not find content, but they do find links and doorways to sites rich in the content they were in deed looking for.

Sorry, but no. Scraper sites do not modify the information they scrape. To do so would run contrary to the point of the whole endeavor. The idea, of course, is to take other people's content and use it to rank. So if they take information from MY site and use it to rank for MY keywords, the only searches they are going to show up on are the same searches that MY site, where the content originated, would show up on.

As someone stated earlier, the only way that scraper sites serve the purpose you mention above is by first CREATING the problem to which they are a solution. As a webmaster and a searcher, I'd just as soon have neither the problem nor the solution, but just decent search results.

Furthermore, you imply that we content publishers should in some way be thankful to the scraper sites, as if they are sending traffic our way that we would not otherwise get, but this can only be true if we advertise our sites on the scraper page. The scraper isn't interested in sending us traffic, and they aren't interested in acting as "middle man" between searcher and content publisher. Their goal is to connect searchers with advertisers, which means they are sending traffic to commercial locations, not informative locations. While these can sometimes be one and the same, in most cases they are not.

The bottom line is that scrapers steal content from content-rich sites, and use it to funnel users through their OWN ads. The whole POINT is to cut the original publisher out of the loop.

You admitted naivety about scraper sites in your OP, so this isn't a criticism, but clearly you are confused about what is meant by "scraper site," if you believe that they send traffic back to the stolen content's point of origin.

I've always heard the secret to google was write a lot of original content & get lots of incoming links. Do scraper sites have either?

Yes. They have MY (and possibly YOUR) original content and IBLs from their own networks.

cEM

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved