| 12:54 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I see most of those pesky psychics have quit showing up and filling my filter. |
Did they foresee and predict their demise? You're right, they are scams. Lots of scams and schemes headed for the toilet swirl. The dreams of frustrated publishers are finally coming true.
| 1:07 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Assuming these arbitrage sites are removed from AdSense, and they then move to another company's PPC campaign, will they still show up in Google search results,or are they being removed completely?
I ask this because if they still show in search results, then searchers will still end up on those spam pages, but instead of Google getting the income, someone else will, and AdSense users will lose out aswell, albeit for the right reasons. However, AdSense users should also gain from better quality ads on their sites.
| 2:27 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm happy to hear this news. It will reduce the noise and the competition for legitimate sites. I also look forward to NOT getting link request from people that don't care where their links sit, regardless of the subject.
| 2:46 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|My issue is in the handling of the crackdown. |
i will tell you an example from my work, which i think fits pretty well.
i do have a kind of widget guide where widget owners can suggest their widgets to show up on my website.
since my mebsite is designed to be a guide i have to do a selection for my users in order to show only the widgets which i think are best for my users.
so sometimes i get a feedback from a widget owner, why i have not chosen his suggested widget to appear on my guide.
in the past i've made the mistake to answer him out of friendlyness and a false service conception. the procedure is nearly always the same:
i would have to tell him, that i am a guide and do only show selected widgets to my users. after that it is sure that he asks why his widget wouldn't fit, because he naturally thinks that his widget is a good widget that fits.
then i would have to tell him why i have chosen not to show his widget. i would have to tell him, why his widgets are not "good enough" thereby divulging my secret criteria to him, which in effect is my business model from that i live off.
maybe he would ask what he could change with his widgets to fit, but who am i to tell him what to do. i won't do that, it's arrogant, it's not my job and it's time consuming. by looking at the widgets in my guide, he has to know how to do his widgets or simply accept the fact that i've not chosen him.
by now the widget owner mostly gets angry. the result is a lenghtly discussion which leads nowhere. in the end, both parties are extremely annoyed and estranged. they would have been better off if there wouldn't have been any feedback at all apart from that the widget owner looks on my website and recognizes, that i have not chosen him.
do you understand? in any case this is a rubbish situation, but it simply can't be solved to everyone's pleasure. google does it right. it's their business. no discussions.
| 2:51 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|guess they would do better if they would give publishers the right tools to filter/approve advertisers. For whatever (wrong) reason they are just giving tools to advertisers but no tools for publishers. |
To use one of Google's favorite terms, that solution isn't "scalable." It's unlikely that most AdSense publishers spend as much time tweaking their domain filters as some of this forum's members do. (Heck, some of us in this forum don't spend time tweaking our domain filters.)
Providing an unlimited domain filter for publishers might help to discourage junk sites, and it may be offered one of these days (as it is on the advertiser side), but it wouldn't be a substitute for vigilance at Google's end--or for detailed statistics on where clicks are coming from, which advertisers will receive in the not too distant future.
| 3:02 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|some of us in this forum don't spend time tweaking our domain filters |
Some of y'all in this forum might not be getting ads running for breast pumps and sonograms on your pages about Men's Hockey Tournaments in Elbonia.
| 3:19 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree with efv to the extent that G should be policing their product, not publishers (note that the filter is called "competitive ad filter" and was designed to filter competitors, not spam artists, arbs and MFAs).
Contrary to what has been advised, that we be kind to those being booted because we may learn from them, I believe that's nonsense. We already know roughly what they've done and how they did it. Simply put, they put up a bunch of sites or pages optimized for nothing other than to display ads and promoted those sites and pages with low-cost AdWords ads or other CPC traffic drivers.
The practical effect was to take food out of the mouths of honest publishers. Their actions are no different than a newspaper or magazine publisher who lies about their circulation figures - they harm the entire community.
These MFA/arbs put low-cost ads on YOUR sites and made money with higher-paying clicks on their sites. There's nothing to be learned from these types who are neither businesspeople nor reliably honest. They fall somewhere in between snake-oli salesmen and crooks, nothing worthwhile can be learned from them and we should all be happy that G has finally found it prudent to part ways with them.
I hope they smack their sites down to the bowels of the SERPs as well and eventually disable their Adwords accounts, their IPs and anything else that can keep these parasites off the internet.
Maybe I sound a little harsh, but judging by the words of the three most vocal of these on this thread, they aren't about to change or offer any tidbits of useful wisdom. They are, as a group, shrewd, snide, rude and resentful of not just Google, but most other publishers, whom they regard as fools.
For their sake, I hope they spent all of their ill-gotten gains or have gone largely into debt now with no way to pay it back. I wish them nothing but continued misery, as that's excactly what they've caused others and are now so richly deserving.
No personal attacks intended, but if the mods see fit to delete this post, so be it. I needed to vent after watching these sites and their owners wreak havoc on the internet and hard-working honest people.
| 3:23 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think every time something like this is announced there are huge shifts in $$$ that flows to G, and most of the time it is some sort of publicity stunt. I just checked page 4,5,6 of SERP, and there is more that a bunch of the Ads that are exactly what this is all about. I watch my niche very closely, and Junk comes and goes, but usually it is the same bunch of folk that participates in these mind Games, and not as much as now.
It is all in you head, well sometimes in your inbox as well.
| 3:55 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Competitive ad filter. Now there is an understatement for you.
If you have a site about blue widgets and you block all your advertising competitors then who is left to advertise on your sites? No one.
Think about it...searcher people arn't going to advertise for what they want to buy so you are left with no ads at all.
I for one am glad this shake out has happened and it is long overdue.
| 4:10 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't think arbitrage is the problem.
As recently as January Brian Axe, Google AdSense Product Manager said that Google was not against arbitrage and in fact they respect it as a business model. Brian clarified more by saying Google's main concern is the user's experience.
It's probably the landing pages more than the arbitrage that Google has targeted.
I totally agree with this. I have a big list of arbitrage site, not only in my filter list. But some of these arbitrage sites are quality site with good information.
I'll check them all after June 1st and let you know if they're all still there.
| 4:11 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Given the huge sums of money some of these guys were making, I wonder where they'll go next. Seems to me there isn't any place that'll even come to close to what they had with Google.
| 5:16 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|How can one filter per account with 200 domains limit can work for larger publishers? (or any publisher) I have 7 larger websites and this filter does not even hold all the MFA for one site. |
Just give advertisers the tools to pick and choose and give the same tools to publishers and you will have natural and healthy network.
Advertisers will pick high quality websites and publishers would approve high quality ads. Very Simple.
I would like to be able to filter a lot more arbitrage MFA sites. Maybe Google will do this. This would help cut down on the arbitrage/MFA sites in the future.
|Also banned. Common denominator is that he too was using PPC traffic. |
|If this is a fact, then maybe they want only sites with organic traffic to display adSense and should clearly say so in the TOS. |
However, my gut feel is that they are banning sites with poor user experience because the adWords Quality Score mechanism has failed to weed such sites out. They are now going at it from the adSense side.
Either way, it's good if they are banning such sites. Helps the rest of us with quality sites out.
| 6:47 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What will be done with the Arbitrage sites that are performing well for the Google's Advertisers.
Can anyone explain me what's wrong with the arbitrage sites that are providing good user experience and are performing well for the Google's Advertisers too and still pushed towards the list of the sites that are going to be banned by June 01.
I don't see any reason in banning them, which are performing well.
I think criteria should be performance and user experience not the Arbitrage sites as stated by the "Adsense Director, that they are not against the arbitrage and respect it as a business model".
If this flow of banning the sites continue then may be next targeted is banning sites that are getting organic traffic but not performing well for Advertisers, next sites, which don't have the organic traffic, next sites, which don't covert well and so on........
In short, criteria should be performance of the sites.
If Arbitrage is so bad then why it was promoted in the beginning?
| 7:24 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with arbitrage. Google itself has said so. They have also said what they DO have a problem with is poor user experience with arbitrage. If Google judges arbitrage sites are offering a good user experience, then there won't be a problem. You just need to hope that Google's opinion about what makes a "good user experience" is the same is yours. :)
| 7:33 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think a good example of arbitrage is a case study being displayed by Adsense.
This may give some an idea what "good user experience" may involve.
| 7:46 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have an informational event site with adsense on it. The site is strictly information except for the adsense - I'm not selling anything. This year, for the first time, I have an adwords account driving traffic towards it. The adwords so far accounts for about 5% to 7% of my traffic; the rest of it comes from organics (about 80% google). Is this considered arbitrage? I dunno. Most of my traffic comes from organic search, by far, but the adwords campaign is new (and it probably won't take off bigtime until next month) Is it MFA? Well no, the site has been up since 1999, considerably before adsense. The site definitely provides something that the user isn't going to get anywhere else (at least, not all in one place) and there's a link to it on michigan.gov, the official state site.
I have not gotten any notifications from Google, and I am trusting I won't.
It's possible that in evaluating these sites, there are a number of different things that are being weighed - percentage of unique or useful content, percentage of traffic from adwords as opposed to organics or referral traffic, number and quality of backlinks - it's probably not just one thing that's flipping the switch.
| 7:50 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think criteria should be performance and user experience not the Arbitrage sites |
Performance as decided by whom? The publisher's idea of performance could be very different from the advertiser's idea of performance, and both of those could well be different from the user's idea. I don't see how Google could judge on "performance" - it's too nebulous.
| 8:29 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Somehow offtopic but since Monday morning my overall traffic is up with 25-30%. I do not use AdWords at all. Can this be related to the closing of arbitrage accounts? Anyone noticed a similar trend?
| 8:36 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just a theory, and I am not talking about anyone specific, just keep it at the back of your minds.
There could a vested interest for MFA owners to spread FUD hoping the AdWords would experience a major pull out by legitimate advertisers worried that their non MFA business model would get them banned. Then Google would panic and extend or cancel the June 1st deadline.
We all know what an MFA looks like, right?
| 8:43 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Somehow offtopic but since Monday morning my overall traffic is up with 25-30%. I do not use AdWords at all. Can this be related to the closing of arbitrage accounts? Anyone noticed a similar trend? |
Same here, and I've never used adwords either. Today has been even better than yesterday. Something weird is happening.
[edited by: Elsmarc at 8:45 pm (utc) on May 22, 2007]
| 8:45 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
--- We all know what an MFA looks like, right?
Hobbs, there are MFAs that look better than any of the sites in our niche. 2 large articles surrounded by VIVID images of simmilar to subject widgets and 3 large block of text ads by G. I almost got scared thinking one of my competitors is pooling a skiny on us. I showed it to my friend who is a Graphic designer(and has no clue about MFA) and he was very very impressed with layout.
I just send you sticky, you tell me.
| 9:01 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The point about stopping campaigns that are performing well on arbritage sites is good.
Why should the advertisers that are happy to advertise on my sites loose the option to do so? Good question. Have not had any complaints from any them, none.
The clicks I buy usually cost between 1-5 cents.
My income from clicks on my sites are mostly low paying in the 1-10 cent range, smartpriced.
CTR is around 20-60%. So the margins are good but not that good, the math is tight.
Yet, some publishers are obviously happy to be getting thousands of clicks per day from my sites at a very low cost. They will now be forced to buy these clicks elsewhere presumably at a higher cost. They will not be happy about that.
Something for the AdWords forum this is really.
| 9:08 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|There could a vested interest for MFA owners to spread FUD hoping the AdWords would experience a major pull out by legitimate advertisers worried that their non MFA business model would get them banned. Then Google would panic and extend or cancel the June 1st deadline. |
Unlikely. Remember the hue and cry on the AdWords forum when Google introduced landing-page quality scores? Google ignored the screams and threats from unhappy advertisers, the victims of Google's new quality scores finally shut up (mostly) or went somewhere else, and AdWords/AdSense revenues continued to grow despite the loss of advertisers who were deemed incompatible with the AdWords user experience.
| 11:44 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>> The adwords so far accounts for about 5% to 7% of my traffic; the rest of it comes from organics (about 80% google). Is this considered arbitrage?
It probably is if it makes a profit.
Ie if your EXTRA traffic earns more than it costs you.
| 12:49 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Why should the advertisers that are happy to advertise on my sites loose the option to do so? |
If the advertiser wants to advertise on your site via Google and it's OK with you and Google, then there's no reason the three of you shouldn't be able to do that.
And I doubt many publishers would have a problem with that.
Where the complaints come from is when you advertise on another publisher's site and the publisher thinks the ad diminishes the experience for his visitors, frustrates his visitors, etc.
To ask your question in a different way, why should I have to allow you to advertise on my site if I don't choose to? Sure I have a filter, but it has limitations and even without limitations, finding the ads I don't want to appear is a daunting and random task.
This is why so many publishers complained to Google. And who knows, maybe even a few advertisers also complained.
In a sense, your loss of the ability to have advertisers appear on your site if they want to is the gain of publishers who won't have to experience your ads on their sites. Evidently, if there is any substance to this thread, Google has decided it's better to please lots of other publishers than to keep some publishers like you happy.
Besides, if there are lots of advertisers who knew they were advertising on your site via Google and were happy with the experience, they'll probably beat a path to your door to strike a direct advertising deal after June 1.
|Have not had any complaints from any them, none. |
How would advertisers know their ads are appearing on your site? How do you know advertisers haven't complained to Google? How do you know advertisers haven't complained by turning off the content network?
| 1:05 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|They are, as a group, shrewd, snide, rude and resentful of not just Google, but most other publishers, whom they regard as fools. |
I am not refering specifically to posters here, more so to people I have met in real life that are running scam type arbitrage websites via Google Adsense/Adwords and other PPC programs, they made me feel like an idiot for publishing about a subject I enjoy. Like I was wasting my time on my "cute" little hobbyist site. I have met in person many so called publishers that feel the same way. By talking with them I got the impression that they feel their "business model" is the only way to truly profit from Google Adsense. Not true, you don't need to scam visitors to make good money from Adsense.
Netmeg, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about, Google isn't after people like you, they are after the ones who think the only way to make money from Adsense is by tricking the system.
| 1:28 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|To ask your question in a different way, why should I have to allow you to advertise on my site if I don't choose to? Sure I have a filter, but it has limitations and even without limitations, finding the ads I don't want to appear is a daunting and random task |
As with publishers who have worked hard to build up organic traffic or the trust of return visitors; why would they want low paying or misleading arb ads diverting their valuable traffic to sites like ten-more-best-ads.info
[edited by: Scurramunga at 1:30 am (utc) on May 23, 2007]
| 1:55 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
it is starting to look like "the war of the worlds"
my 2c (for that click) :-)
| 1:58 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Here's a thread and article somewhat related to an aspect of this disucssion. [webmasterworld.com...]
Quote from the referenced article:
|The Web, he says, is becoming cluttered with parked pages. The model is amazingly efficient -- lots of money for little work --but Ham argues that Internet users will soon grow weary of it all. |
| 2:45 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Have all these junk ads been removed yet? Has that annoying schemer who reg'd hundreds of domains to beat the 200-max filter finally been crushed?!
Maybe it wasn't one of the "top" ideas after all, lol!
| 3:09 am on May 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Are people still getting the "disabled" email from google?