homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.94.228
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [1] 2 > >     
Why Won't Google Let Us Filter Dot Info Domains?
Please Google, Let us Filter TLDs!
mzanzig




msg:3220789
 9:30 am on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Dear ASA, please forward this to your product managers. :-)

I just used the preview tool to look at some of the sites advertising on my sites through Google Adsense. And while I was happy to see many quality sites (so the landing page quality filter seems to work somehow), I saw a number of domains I would like to block immediately.

Okay, we know that we probably won't get a bigger filter list. We also know that we probably won't get a filter that let's us filter by advertiser ID (now that would be great!) any time soon.

But it should be definitely possible to extend the filter functionality that we can filter TLDs?! With that feature I would immediately block out ALL .info domains. So far, I have seen very very very few legitimate advertisers using .info domains. It seems to me that all those MFAs/parked domains/hitfarm-style sites use the .info domain to spill out more useless stuff onto the web every single day. One of these companies have 76,500+ domains registered, with 23,200+ domains using a .info TLD, that's about 30%, and it's definitely too much.

So, please, Google, let us filter TLDs!

 

Marcia




msg:3220833
 10:41 am on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have to agree 100% about TLDs. Even though I'm sure there are some quality sites out there, most of the absolute SPAM sites that are nothing more than replicated auto-generated PPC or MFA garbage based on keywords and arbitrage, have been .info domains.

I've actually had to give up trying to keep up on some sites/pages and pull Adsense off altogether, for the sake of my visitors and my own inabiliy to keep up, several times daily, with excluding them. Exclude one and two more show up - 100% identical in design and format. Who has the time and the energy to keep fighting off useless eyesores?

Marcia




msg:3220843
 10:59 am on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is a 100% unfair and heavy burden that's being placed on publishers who are trying their (our) best to work together, in concert with Google, to bring a quality experience to users.

foxtunes




msg:3220868
 11:45 am on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm with you on this. Be great if we could filter out advertiser's publisher ids not just specific urls.

Genuine1




msg:3220889
 12:21 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Because there are thousands of genuine .info domains. and because only about a third of my 200 filtered URLs are .info anyway. Even some of my own genuine sites that dont even use advertising are .info

Marcia




msg:3220897
 12:36 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Because there are thousands of genuine .info domains. and because only about a third of my 200 filtered URLs are .info anyway. Even some of my own genuine sites that dont even use advertising are .info

That may pertain to your filtering needs, but nevertheless, in my case I'd guess that 95% of my filtered domains during a particular, given period of time could be .info - and having to remove Adsense from pages altogether to avoid spending a huge amount of time on filtering isn't a viable option for anyone concerned.

So how about suggesting an alternative option, for those of us who simply don't have the time for putting .info domains on the filter multiple times daily.

mzanzig




msg:3220926
 1:11 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Genuine1,

I trust that you are using your .info domains to improve the user experience with unique and fresh and useful content. My post was not meant as an offense for all those who run .info domains.

And if you read my original post carefully, then you will see that I actually did not say that ALL .info domains are spam, just the =majority=. Guess what? That's fine with me. I don't mind. May they go ahead and litter the web with their useless pages!

The question is - do I want my visitors expose to such sites? Do I want to support such arbitrage business? Do I want their ads on my sites? No, thanks! Because allowing .info domains means to me that I have to weed out 95% of crap (MFA, parked domain, hitfarm style pages). They take up valuable spots in the filter list, and it takes a lot of time to hunt them down.

Genuine1




msg:3220941
 1:32 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

So you need to be able to filter by account or advertiser.

I have one particular blue page that appears mainly with .info on hundreds of domains. And keep finding new ones daily. But they also hav com, co.uk, etc as well...

mzanzig




msg:3220944
 1:36 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

So you need to be able to filter by account or advertiser

...which has been requested many many times here on WW. But as we apparently do not get such a feature from Google, I would at least like to block certain TLDs, like .info - it should be doable without much effort and would help us tremendously.

netmeg




msg:3220994
 2:29 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I doubt they'd do it, because it would keep anyone with a .info from ever signing up or continuing with AdWords.

We've actually wished we could just block all of .info for our email customers as well; of course we don't, but it's been tempting. As well as a few other so-called "top" level domains.

mzanzig




msg:3221022
 3:02 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

it would keep anyone with a .info from ever signing up or continuing with AdWords.

Well, don't you think such a drastic measure (like blocking a TLD) would be used by just very few publishers? I believe that the majority of publishers do not use their filter at all. And of those who use their filter, many might still refrain from blocking a TLD.

This feature would not create a big problem (financially or technically) for Google, but it certainly would help some publishers who care about the user experience.

gregbo




msg:3221444
 9:20 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, don't you think such a drastic measure (like blocking a TLD) would be used by just very few publishers? I believe that the majority of publishers do not use their filter at all. And of those who use their filter, many might still refrain from blocking a TLD.

Possibly, a (perceived) lack of interest for this feature is what keeps G from implementing it.

Genuine1




msg:3221694
 12:59 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>> like .info - it should be doable without much effort and would help us tremendously.

For all of half a day until they just register something else.

europeforvisitors




msg:3221707
 1:16 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I doubt if Google would consider blanket discrimination to fit its corporate mantra of "Do no evil"--especially when .info is a legal TLD that's used by any number of legitimate, worthwhile organizations.

jomaxx




msg:3221736
 2:02 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I had to filter 3 .info domains yesterday, obviously owned by the same company, so I have some sympathy with your position. But obviously Google aren't going to waste their time developing a filter for entire TLD's for such a trivial reason.

Let's stick to asking for more important enhancements, such as a whitelist, better enforcement of the rules bent by MFA's, filtering by advertiser rather than domain, etc.

Marcia




msg:3221769
 2:38 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>filtering by advertiser rather than domain, etc.

If they know all those identical domains are owned by the same party or company, and know who they are, why do they continue to let them keep cranking out and running sites for every keyword combination under the sun?

mzanzig




msg:3221854
 5:52 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google aren't going to waste their time developing a filter for entire TLD's for such a trivial reason

Well, they can certainly filter stuff.widgets.info and widgets.info today. It should not take a room full of PhD's to extend this to .info, right?

What I am saying is that, yes, we would like to see an improved filter. But while they are working on it (hopefully), couldn't they just give us new means of filtering that do not take ages to implement? (A bigger filter list also comes to my mind here. The limit of '200' seems to be not a technical limit.)

btas2




msg:3221865
 6:10 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I presume that just using *.info won't work?

I haven't tried it and I don't know if wildcard characters are recognized in Ad filter lists, but it would obviously be trivial to do if Google wanted to do it.

Nikke




msg:3222028
 10:51 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm actually surprised to see that you all have so strong objections towards .info domains. Here in Sweden the bad guys use .biz domains.

However. Since I've been away for a while, I might be quite up to date here. What kind of ads (and how low cpc) are we talking about here? As you sound as if you to _protect_ your clients from these ads, I guess they must be pretty awful.

Jafo




msg:3222195
 1:57 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Banning by advertiser ID is really the best option. Honestly, banning an entire TLD is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

By allowing users to ban advertisers, Google can only win. This would ensure quality amongst their advertisers.

My guess is that they fear that publishers will try and ban low paying advertisers, which in the end is really not an issue since (supposedly) the higher paying ads always appear first.

The real fact is, I would rather have an ad that pays 1/5 that of a useless site if it is well targeted to my audience. The chances are, my users will click a relevant ad rather than one that is poorly trying to look relevant.

mzanzig




msg:3222299
 3:23 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

JaFo,

I hear you. Yes, banning by advertiser is certainly the best option. However, I suspect that this will consume real resources at Google. As outlined many times before, even at Google they do not have unlimited resources (even if it sometimes appears to be like that). They have to check the importance for each implementation request, and if we do not get bigger filter lists, then I do not think that we will see the 'blocking by advertiser' feature anytime soon.

Blocking by TLD is indeed a drastic measure, but looking at the (lack of) quality of most of these .info URLs, I still would like to block 'em all. As I said before, I am well aware of the fact that I might catch the odd legitimate advertiser, but I =still= want to do it.

From a resource point-of-view, this can be implemented quickly. That's the beauty of it.

Paris




msg:3222309
 3:27 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Nikke, the reason why the dot-info domains are getting such a bad rap around here is that many of the discount registrars will often sell you a .info annual registration for about a buck.

So you do get a lot of MFA apostles loading up on the cheap names to build out their link farms. Is it fair? Are there some legit quality .info sites out there? The questions are rhetorical and that's the point of this thread, as folks want the ability to answer that themselves and then block the whole .info TLD (just as you may want to avoid .biz ads on yours).

gehrlekrona




msg:3222757
 9:05 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I did ban a lo of sites but stopped since I heard that the ones that DO show up, even if they are bad, should be the ones that pay the best, right?
I didn't see any increase in earnings when I denied some sites at all and I don't think Google is really interested in us stopping .info doamins since they must be getting a lot of money from these spammers.
Google can also raise the prise for the ads (quality? Competition?) so it's a win-win situation for Google.

netmeg




msg:3222962
 11:53 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here in Sweden the bad guys use .biz domains.

I don't like those either. As someone who runs several email servers from clients, the spam to legitimate email ratios on .biz and .info are WAY higher than .com, .net or .org.

So I'm prejudiced. I can live with that.

gehrlekrona




msg:3223016
 12:53 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Netmeg,

Hej pa dig! Hur ar det i gamla Svedala?

Lagamorph




msg:3223050
 1:48 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

I did ban a lot of sites but stopped since I heard that the ones that DO show up, even if they are bad, should be the ones that pay the best, right?
Depends on how paranoid you are ;)

I'm surprised ST ads get such a bad rap, sometimes I see people who don't understand you get paid without a click, other times people assume that ST ads have forced there way in and have attacked and killed the high paying ads we're rightly entitled to.

With all the work we do to "trick" people into clicking ads wouldn't it be great if Google offered us a way to get paid even when people don't click? But I guess they never will since they hate us. (yes, sarcasm has made an appearance)

I for one welcome our site targeted friends.

Lagamorph




msg:3223053
 1:52 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

... as to the .info thing. If they let us block that domain .biz would also go. Then you have to get rid of .net because that's all the low class people who didn't get a .com, and .org has to go because they're all non profits and don't have any money. Then we can ban .de because we hate Germans etc...

I think I know why we don't get this tool and Google makes these decisions for us :)

iridiax




msg:3223073
 2:34 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that all those MFAs/parked domains/hitfarm-style sites use the .info domain to spill out more useless stuff onto the web every single day. One of these companies have 76,500+ domains registered, with 23,200+ domains using a .info TLD, that's about 30%, and it's definitely too much.

It sounds like the one that's helped fill up my competitive ad filter and continues to plague my sites. Not only are their identical-looking fake directories nothing but ad links, the landing pages aren't really even about the topic that they claim to be. Since these fake directories are all on the same IP address, I tried filtering by this IP, but it didn't work. The competitive ad filter accepts the IP address without complaint, but ads for their fake directory .info sites just keep appearing.

maxgoldie




msg:3223158
 5:00 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

Since these fake directories are all on the same IP address, I tried filtering by this IP, but it didn't work. The competitive ad filter accepts the IP address without complaint, but ads for their fake directory .info sites just keep appearing.

The cause of this whole problem is the Google doesnt go far enough in enforcing its own rules from the TOS (for whatever reasons), for eg., especially very explicit ones like:

"No Google ad may be placed on any non-content-based pages."

I would think thats its self-evident that these faux directories are "non-content-based pages".

martinibuster




msg:3223172
 5:27 am on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that all those MFAs/parked domains/

Parked domains are not MFAs nor in the same class.

Parked domains belong to a segment of search called Direct Navigation. Direct Navigation is when someone wants a widget and searches for widgets by typing widgetstore.com into their browser (instead of a search box) to find it.

Parked domains reportedly convert at a higher rate than a regular informational adsense site. For an advertiser selling widgets, there are few better opportunities than owning widgets.com or widgetstore.com. The next best thing is to advertise on such sites.

[en.wikipedia.org...]

WebSideStory has recently published a report illustrating that direct navigation traffic, converts into sales for advertisers at a rate twice that of search engines...

Direct Navigation is perhaps the best opportunity around for advertisers.

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [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