| 6:43 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Please define the difference between a MFA and a Scraper.
| 7:09 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What is a Scraper?
| 9:51 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the QS is only for adwords landing pages of the advertisers. :)
Of course they will be driven to the content network as we are still under the old rules.
| 3:59 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Of course they will be driven to the content network as we are still under the old rules. |
Yes - absolutely what seems to be happening. I think that some of the MFA's have basically been priced out, so have dropped out completely - game over. However, the scrapers still show, hence me wondering about how hard the new "Drive decent advertisers to YPN" algo is hitting scrapers and MFA's respectively. Maybe the scrapers have just enough text on the page to remain profitable, but the pure MFA doesn't. I guess we will see some furious content grabbing by the MFA's now in order to try and remain profitable.
Deffinition of MFA:- Both MFA and scrapers are MFA's in the sense that they aim to pay peanuts for advertising and get a profitable return from sending clicks via their landing page. The difference as far as I am concerned between scraper and MFA is that the pure MFA has just ad blocks and a couple of sentences of text / huddle of keywords to get targetted ads. The scraper has at least got some content, even if it only an RSS feed, or content grabbed from other sites and presented as a search results page, or a directory page.
| 4:04 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I guess we will see some furious content grabbing by the MFA's now in order to try and remain profitable. |
Sure, until the content network's window of opportunity closes with a slam.
| 4:43 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Europe, you seem certain, in reading many of your comments, that Goo will go after MFAs and spammers hitting the contents network. May I ask what makes you so sure such a thing will happen?
I'm not nearly as positive as you on this and if I were Goo, I'd find that the contents network would be a wonderful dumping site for all the MFAs. Why would I change that? Why would I have two competing networks that have quality advertisers, when I can have one with high paying advertisers, directly within my search result, and another one for the rest on the contents network.
I mean, what's to stop Goo from removing the good old Ad by Google from Adsense to protect it's public image, while continuing to function in that market?
I think the current status quo for Adsense is the one we have to get used to for a while. I don't believe Googgle will clean up Adsense. Makes too much sense to have two networks for two types of advertisers. Segmentation is a good thing.
| 6:24 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'd find that the contents network would be a wonderful dumping site for all the MFAs. Why would I change that? |
For the same reason that Google is trying to rid the search network of MFAs: to prevent the "ad fatigue" or outright "ad resistance" that occurs when users have clicked on one MFA ad too many and no longer trust Google-branded ads.
I don't think Google can afford to let AdSense become nothing but an "ad network of last resort." As of 1Q 2006, 41% of Google's revenues were coming from AdSense, so Google would be risking a lot if it surrendered the content network to the bottom feeders.
| 6:37 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wish I had one fifth of your faith! Don't get me wrong, I really want what you describe to happen, but I just don't believe it will happen anymore.
| 7:06 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't have faith; I'm just using common sense. AdSense provides more than 40% of Google's revenues. I can't see Google letting the value of that asset deterioriate, especially with Yahoo and MSN entering the contextual ad market.
| 7:13 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The ones that survive on the content network they will just outright ban, it is there right and they will do it.
This action is just to get some to quit by themselves and get them off search. When the remaining suspects move over they only have the content network to start the final police action and their quality publishers will help them.
Don't worry the other shoe will drop, it always does.
Just think when they offer advertisters a clean shot at quality publishers that convert with no pariahs. Their income will soar and so will the publishers.
Patience my brothers and sisters, the mark Devil of the will soon be gone.
[edited by: Khensu at 7:18 pm (utc) on July 18, 2006]
| 7:16 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|AdSense provides more than 40% of Google's revenues |
Yes, but they *spend* 75% (forgot the exact figure) of the revenue as "traffic acquisition cost". This leaves just a gross margin of 25% which is not too good when compared to the healthy 100% gross margin of Google Search.
| 8:21 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, but they *spend* 75% (forgot the exact figure) of the revenue as "traffic acquisition cost". This leaves just a gross margin of 25% which is not too good when compared to the healthy 100% gross margin of Google Search. |
Yes, but 20+% of healthy AdSense revenues delivers a lot more profit than 20+% of declining AdSense revenues.
Plus, Google Search can't deliver enough inventory to satisfy advertiser demand. (If it could, there wouldn't be any need or reason for the content network.)
| 8:24 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The story is oft told about how a fickle public abandoned AltaVista in favor of a better search engine, Google. The moral of the story is: It could happen again.
Knowing the risk of that, Google would not discount its content network Adsense arm. If the Google search engine were to lose favor with the public, thereby killing Google's Adwords for search business, Google would still have the Adsense for content side of the business to carry on.
I'm with EFV: I predict that Google will wage war against content network MFA sites sooner or later for the reasons stated.
| 11:11 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If they went this far what makes you think they wouldn't bear down and go full circle with it.
You'll be seeing scores of "I've been banned" posts soon.
Come on, this is all just a logical progression.
| 5:25 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Over some weeks now I have noticed a re emergence of scraper sites.
Not necessarily, as some scrapers seem to have scraped content minus the link that points to the poor old scrapee. This would have the effect of causing many visitors to click on nearby sponsored links to make their exit.
|I've long since felt that the more content you have on a page, the less likely you are to get clicks. As scrapers actually do have some, were they less profitable? |
[edited by: Scurramunga at 5:26 am (utc) on July 19, 2006]