homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.135.68
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 223 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 223 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >     
What is a scraper site?
sunzfan




msg:1378418
 4:11 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay - people keep referring to scraper sites and I'm not sure exactly what that is - could someone quickly give me a definition?

It's different than spam pages?

 

jim_w




msg:1378538
 7:15 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I couldn't, so I set a spam filter in OE ;-))

Atticus




msg:1378539
 7:25 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can't you just use the Control Panel to change your Forum Watch List?

birdstuff




msg:1378540
 7:37 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Who in their right mind would claim that search engines are scraper sites?

People who have the ability to:

a) think clearly without allowing their emotions to override their judgement.

b) understand that if all of the generally accepted criteria for defining a scraper site apply to search engines then search engines by definition are scrapers.

I really don't understand why you insist on disagreeing with my every post when we actually agree on much more than we disagree on. For example:

- The typical scraper site is scum and cannot be banished from Google soon enough.

- Most scraper sites add little if any value to the web.

-All scraper sites exist for the sole reason of making the owner(s) money.

If you go back and carefully read each and every one of my posts, you won't find even one instance where I "defend" scraper sites, their creators, or their right to exist. Well, with the notable exceptions of Google, Yahoo and MSN for admittedly selfish reasons.

When it comes right down to it, the only item on which we seem to disagree is whether or not search engines are scraper sites themselves. I believe a reasonable preponderance of the evidence clearly shows they are. You don't. Reasonable people can agree to disagree while keeping things civil. To that end I'll quit this thread with this post, especially since I have helped drag it out much longer than neccessary.

Atticus




msg:1378541
 7:54 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

bs,

The question that started this thread was:

"Okay - people keep referring to scraper sites and I'm not sure exactly what that is - could someone quickly give me a definition?

It's different than spam pages?"

This person has obviously seen the numerous mentions of "scraper sites" throughout WebmasterWorld. This person has heard, as you readily agree, that "scrapers are scum." So they want to know what a scraper is.

And you tell them, a scraper is Google. So now, when this person reads all the posts about scrapers they will be very confused as to why people are complaining about not being able to rank on Google because of problems with scrapers linking to them, if you convince them that Google itself is a scraper. Don't you see how that makes no sense whatsoever?

I don't think that you and you alone get to define a term that has evolved it's own definition in hundreds of WebmasterWorld posts by an entire community of webmasters and which has never ever included major search enines such as Google.

oddsod




msg:1378542
 8:48 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't think that you and you alone get to define a term

Atticus, you must really try to stop blocking your mind to the fact that there are a lot of other webmasters who've publicly acknowledged Google as a scraper. :) I, for one, have no problem subscribing to birdstuff's very reasonable "definitions".

And you tell them, a scraper is Google. So now, when this person reads all the posts about scrapers they will be very confused

The possibility of someone getting confused by the truth is not sufficient reason to prevent others from providing it.

ogletree




msg:1378543
 8:49 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

To say that Google is a scraper site is not saying that a scraper site is a search engine. Now there is a big difference between a true search website and a scraper site. It is that there is no way to access most of the sites pages without typing in a query. That is what makes a search site legit in my opinion.

My biggest problem with Google is that they accept some scraper sites and not others.

The arguments we are having are purely semantics. We pretty much all agree with each other. The original poster asked what we were refereeing to when we said scraper sites. There are 2 thing there are "scraper sites" that we talk about in a negitive way on WebmasterWorld and there is the term "scraper site" that is more general. Google is not included in the first def and is included in the 2nd. We are not referring to Google or Yahoo when we say scraper sites. I was just having some fun with words and trying to point out the absurdity of how things really work and how 2 sites can be exactly the same and one be banned by Google and the other be a partner.

In the past as a test I turned in 2 sites to GG that were pretty much the same one being some small time Adsense scraper site and the other some huge corperate site that used the exact same SEO tactics. Meaning their goal was to drive as much traffic from google to their site by creating hundreds of thousands of pages with names like credit_card_kw_kw_kw.html. They both had ads. The small time site was banned out of Google within hours of me sending him the email. He even confirmed to me that he did it. Of course the big site was not. (I got a lot of flack for that last Pub Con by the way. I don't care it was information I wanted to know.)

I don't understand why Google would want to index another sites search pages. I don't understand why Google puts dmoz results in it's search engine. I go to Google and type in a search I don't want to pull up a list of more searches. Are they telling me that they suck and that this other sites search results are better. They should filter out any page that is another search result page. Or they could make a separate search for directories. I miss the old g directory tab and links that were in the search results.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:1378544
 10:25 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't understand why Google would want to index another sites search pages.

Perhaps because some of these big scraper site generate a fortune in Adsense fees?

They should filter out any page that is another search result page. Or they could make a separate search for directories.

Exactly! I have been proposing this for more than a year now.

Juan_G




msg:1378545
 10:56 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

About definitions of scraper/worthless/garbage pages, well, we all know what Google has to say:

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

Google AdSense Program Policies


sailorjwd




msg:1378546
 11:01 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't you folks have something better to do with the few moments left in your lives then debate whether or not google is a scraper site?

Give us all a break

hyperkik




msg:1378547
 12:50 am on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

People who have the ability to:

a) think clearly without allowing their emotions to override their judgement.


I'm not emotional about scrapers. I actually find it amusing the way various operators of scraper sites deny running them, defend them with the most absurd of arguments, and pretent that search engines are scraper sites. As for why you get into such a tizzy whenever the subject comes up? What inference would you have us draw?

To assert that there is no difference between a search engine with a scraper site, in my opinion, you must either be dishonest, or have an IQ that lingers somewhere below standard room temperature. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. But I've yet to see any evidence that weighs against my position.

HughMungus




msg:1378548
 7:13 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

This part of the policies has been debated forever. I'd love to hear someone's definition of what "published specifically for the purpose of showing ads" means. By that definition, EFV's site would not be allowed to have Adsense.

spaceylacie




msg:1378549
 8:14 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Check out a program called articlebot and you'll know what they actually mean by "made for Adsense".

spaceylacie




msg:1378550
 8:44 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

P.S. You'll know you've found one(what Google considers a scraper, or spam, site) when you reach a page that reads something like this:

"If you are looking for free website consultant, you aren't the only one. Free website consultant is much sought after these days where free website consultant is so important. Follow the links on this page to find free website consultant."

Another page on the same site will read like this:

"If you are looking for imported German cars, you aren't the only one. Imported German cars are much sought after these days where imported German cars are so meaningful. Follow the links on this page to find imported German cars."

europeforvisitors




msg:1378551
 9:48 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

This part of the policies has been debated forever. I'd love to hear someone's definition of what "published specifically for the purpose of showing ads" means. By that definition, EFV's site would not be allowed to have Adsense.

Nope. My site has ads, but it doesn't exist for the ads.

If I inherited ten million bucks tomorrow and decided to maintain the site purely as a labor of love, I could pull the ads and the site would still have a reason to exist. That can't be said of scraper sites.

spaceylacie




msg:1378552
 10:12 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

My site looks better without the Adsense ads. I wish I didn't need money to survive, otherwise, I'd get rid of the Adsense... and continue maintaining/building the site.

Juan_G




msg:1378553
 10:25 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

HughMungus, you can see in the Internet Archive how the mentioned travel hub/webguide was operating for some years on the Internet without any AdSense on it. :-)

Really, it's not so difficult to see the difference between rubbish scraper sites -with thousands of pages scraped by page generator programs-, and search engines or directories like Dmoz, Yahoo Directory, or well-made, topic-specific hubs intended to help users find useful, carefully selected information.

spaceylacie




msg:1378554
 10:39 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Really, it's not so difficult

I don't even have a highschool diploma, I can see the difference.

Really, I quit school at 15.

SuperSeo




msg:1378555
 11:57 pm on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

If Yahoo, Google and MSN don't want sites to use their search results, they should not provide the RSS feeds of the search results for everyone to use.

Also, as an advertiser on adwords, I don't really care where the vistors are coming from as long as they are buying my stuff.

I have followed a few of my sales back to scrapper sites!

europeforvisitors




msg:1378556
 12:32 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Also, as an advertiser on adwords, I don't really care where the vistors are coming from as long as they are buying my stuff.

I have followed a few of my sales back to scrapper sites!

Note the critical phrase: "a few." :-)

Seriously, see Marcus007's post in the AdWords forum at:

[webmasterworld.com...]

in which he says, anmong other things:

I showed the adsense team some detailed stats showing that scrapper sites are converting at 5% of what content sites are converting at.

AffiliateDreamer




msg:1378557
 12:32 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

(again, i don't have any scrapers!)

EFV said "If I inherited ten million bucks tomorrow and decided to maintain the site purely as a labor of love, I could pull the ads and the site would still have a reason to exist. That can't be said of scraper sites. "

Scrapers have links to relavent topics, sure they owner would have no reason to have the site online since he/she makes no money as a result of it, but isn't that the same thing once again with ALL search engines? This point just doesn't seem to make sense to me, although I understand where your coming from BUT lets face it, search engines are doing it for money, not to make the internet a better place.

Atticus




msg:1378558
 1:04 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Scrapers have links to relavent topics"

No they don't.

rhuseinh




msg:1378559
 2:19 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

" "Scrapers have links to relevant topics"

No they don't. "

This contributes a lot to my understanding about what a scraper site is.

Are you saying that when a site have links to relevant topics, they can't be scraper no matter what?

europeforvisitors




msg:1378560
 2:33 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Scrapers have links to relavent topics, sure they owner would have no reason to have the site online since he/she makes no money as a result of it, but isn't that the same thing once again with ALL search engines? This point just doesn't seem to make sense to me, although I understand where your coming from BUT lets face it, search engines are doing it for money, not to make the internet a better place.

OK, try to think of it this way: If you were to take the ads off a site (whether it's a content site, directory, or search engine), what would be left? Would the site have a reason to exist? Would it have intrinsic value for the user? And if it didn't consist of original content, would it provide what GoogleGuy referred to as the "value add" in a discussion of affiliate sites?

Scraper sites don't create value or add value; they merely steal or borrow value from others.

Atticus




msg:1378561
 2:51 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Are you saying that when a site have links to relevant topics, they can't be scraper no matter what?"

If I said Abraham Lincoln doesn't have gills, does that mean that I am saying that everything without gills is Abraham Lincoln?

rhuseinh




msg:1378562
 5:00 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

" "Are you saying that when a site have links to relevant topics, they can't be scraper no matter what?"

If I said Abraham Lincoln doesn't have gills, does that mean that I am saying that everything without gills is Abraham Lincoln? "

Nope.
But if Atticus have gills then definitely Atticus is not Abraham Lincoln.

Okay, maybe there's something wrong with my logic.

Scrapers site don't have links to relevant topics.
Atticus' site have links to relevant topics.
Atticus' site is not a scrapers site.

deano6410




msg:1378563
 7:53 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

jeez guys n gals, how many times do i have to tell you that whinging about scraper sites will only make them appeal to more and more people.
This is generally the most read thread on here at the moment, and thanks to you lot there are probably thousands more people researching how to make such sites. So please stop whinging and get on with your own lifes and sites.

for the record scraper sites provide highly relevent content, i personally hate them, but thats only because they make life harder for people like me.

They scrape the top 10-20 results for a chosen term, so lets say we are looking for "Blue widgets in new york" it would go to lets say Google and take the top 10 for that term. So anyone who thinks scraper sites are not highly relevent is talking out of their pocket.
If you think the top 10 is not relevent for an exact phrase then i challenge you to find something better than top 10.

Do i hate them? yes

but lets please stick to the facts.

spaceylacie




msg:1378564
 10:39 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

for the record scraper sites provide highly relevent content

Are we living on the same planet?

birdstuff




msg:1378565
 10:54 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

for the record scraper sites provide highly relevent content

This is true. The problem is it's someone else's content that has been snatched and used without permission and quite often without credit or even a link back to the source. Most scraper sites do nothing to make the Internet more useful for anyone except the webmasters.

Edited to add:

I can't believe this thread is still going. I thought we had all agreed to disagree and move on - or maybe that was just me...

hyperkik




msg:1378566
 11:52 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

for the record scraper sites provide highly relevent content

Are we living on the same planet?

Yep. It's the planet where purveyors of scraper sites will say just about anything in order to justify or rationalize their actions, often while simultaneously protesting that they don't run scrapers.

You can keep talking until you're blue in the face, and you won't make any impression upon these people - they either already know you are telling the truth (but have no interest in such niceties as "truth"), or they are so invested in their self-delusion that their sites "aren't really scrapers" or "are no different than Google" that you simply can't reach them with facts or logic.

oddsod




msg:1378567
 11:56 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK, try to think of it this way: If you were to take the ads off a site (whether it's a content site, directory, or search engine), what would be left? Would the site have a reason to exist? Would it have intrinsic value for the user?

If they took all the ads off the scrapers sites would look exactly like pre-Bourbon SERPS which SERPS EFV at least would prefer over post-Bourbon. :)

I won't try to make a logical argument that this proves scrapers to be better than Google - cause they're not - but, for argument's sake, if you're removing bits from the scrapers why not remove the formatting and their logos, put their content in the format of Google SERPS, and keep the ads all lined up on the right? What do you have? Google as it was two months ago? A copied version of Google, of course, but exactly the SERPs results you'd have been happy with a few weeks ago.

>>If you were to take the ads off a site...

Scraper and SEs share their raison d'etre. Ads don't distinguish a scraper from an SE. Ads don't distinguish a scraper from an SE. Ads don't distinguish a scraper from an SE.

deano6410




msg:1378568
 11:58 am on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

hyperkik,

you clearly dont know what you are talking about, they scrape the top 10 sites links from google/yahoo etc.... so by saying they are not relevent is like saying the top 10 for any keyword phrase on the planet is NOT relevent.

You are 100% wrong.

However, scraper sites are immoral, cheap, ugly and a pain... but they are relevent.

This 223 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 223 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >
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