| 2:46 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Removal of content network?....no Google doesn't want to eliminate this, but shifting search term sites to their site results in direct profits. This has been the shift that Google has been showing in previous quarters with a higher percentage of revenue being allocated to direct search terms. This move has the potential to elimminate some of these competitors to Googles business model.
We have staed previously that many of these type of sites are a direct copy of Googles business model and I see this as a move by google to reduce competition from te market. They created it by mistake and now are eliminating it.<not trolling....just thinking outside the box a bit>
| 3:09 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Removal of content network?....no Google doesn't want to eliminate this, but shifting search term sites to their site results in direct profits. This has been the shift that Google has been showing in previous quarters with a higher percentage of revenue being allocated to direct search terms. |
A rising tide lifts all boats, and Google obviously wants the content network to continue growing (as it has continued to do quarter after quarter after quarter).
I think the real reason for discouraging arbitrage is to keep AdSense ads from being devalued and ultimately ignored by users. This latest change is like the "Quality Score" change on the AdWords side: It's a necessary tactic to ensure the long-term viability of the network.
| 3:17 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Finally a good news for all hardworking webmasters :D die all MFA sites die...
| 3:29 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Looks more like the ban is for sites that promiss in the add one thing and deliver another thing.
Large selection of blue widges. ¦
Buy blue vidgets online. ¦
Blue widgets in stock. ¦
And the landing page:
Blue ringtones here ¦
Widgets there ¦
I have nothing... ¦
Go search again blue ¦
Again... nothing.. ¦
Thats my 2c.
| 3:40 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> I think the real reason for discouraging arbitrage is to keep AdSense ads from being devalued and ultimately ignored by users.
Yes, that's what I sense as well. While Google no doubt made money from the MFA crowd, the problem of co-existence with them and the non-MFA publishers was incompatible (with the non-MFA publishers getting the fuzzy end of the lolly pop!). Somebody had to go or the AdSense brand would lose credibility - glad to hear Google made the right choice.
| 3:42 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Also there seems to be a total loss of any of these bods posting in here since the first couple of pages. |
It is the weekend. If they've been making as much money as some claimed, they can afford not to work weekends. Maybe they'll check in again Monday. ;)
| 3:48 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
---Somebody is having a good laugh right now :)
Since I first saw it on the front page!
Actually it does look like they are trying to unload some the junk on new Advertising system by MS. If the new Brand is overloaded within, polluted with nonsense, itís kind of hard to grow by concentrating on Abuse with Lack of experience.
But at the same time: Run FOREST, Run
| 4:01 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I'm also curious as to the number of people talking about increased profits at the moment - when this isn't/shouldn't really show any difference until the 1st of June. |
A lot of MFA and arbitrage site owners are probably frantically cleaning up their acts in anticipation of begging Google for reconsideration.
Most are probably attempting a "house-cleaning" over the next few days/weeks.
| 4:06 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yep - could be right there. So June 1st could be very interesting indeed.
| 4:07 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Most are probably attempting a "house-cleaning" over the next few days/week |
I wonder how somebody would go about transforming a website about 'nothing' containing nothing but a few ad blocks, a link block and a search box to a meaningfull content rich website in a few days.
| 4:10 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Burn FOREST, Burn
| 4:59 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> Most are probably attempting a "house-cleaning" over the next few days/weeks.
My hunch is that Google already made their list of which heads would roll weeks ago. Doubt there's much those on the list can do about it at this point except enjoy the sunset.
| 5:43 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What's interesting is this "arbitrage" practice has been going on with TV for decades - networks are always pushing their own shows on their own stations hoping to get you to watch even more ads with the new show.
Well, that was the case before Tivo :)
| 5:59 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I expect that the reason we are only hearing from a few of them, is that it is a limited experiment. Take out a few of the obvious big players and let the word get out, and see what happens to the bottom line and the ad inventory.
It would be foolish on google's part to risk overreaching right away. It's much better to do this gradually, yet let the panic cause some self policing. It would not surprise me to see them sending out a batch of emails each month till they reach the balance point they desire.
| 6:26 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|What's interesting is this "arbitrage" practice has been going on with TV for decades - networks are always pushing their own shows on their own stations hoping to get you to watch even more ads with the new show. |
That's something altogether different. The kind of click arbitrage that we're talking about here is the pure flipping of traffic.
To use a better analogy:
Pure click arbitrage = buying a house cheap and putting it on the market for more than you paid.
Acceptable click arbitrage (using the term "click arbitrage" in its loosest possible meaning) = buying a house cheap, adding value by renovating it, and putting it on the market for more than you paid.
It's the first kind of click arbitrage that annoys users, has a potentially negative effect on AdSense network clickthrough rates, and therefore isn't likely to sit well with Google.
| 6:44 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>>and therefore isn't likely to sit well with Google.
To be fair and balanced, it sat well for many years, let's not gloss that over or forget. The more accurate statement should be,
|It is no longer likely to sit well with Google. |
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:53 pm (utc) on May 20, 2007]
| 6:45 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Can I clean my filter yet of all this flotsam? |
I wonder if Google has accepted the advice that many of us have no doubt sent them, to look at the contents of all of our filters and to send a human to inspect the sites that were filtered by a large number of publishers?
| 7:50 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I cleaned out my entire filter last month, and seen no change in my income since then. Thats the good news, it didn't hurt the declining to stagnant bottom line. The bad news is that it didn't help either.
As to MFA's there is a perverse glee, which many here seem to share, that those who created appalling sites and raked in the money, as opposed to those who created useful content full sites and starved, are finally getting what they deserve.
I have to applaud the poster who quit his MFA when he saw the end ahead for MFA's, that takes guts to turn down 'free' money.
| 8:30 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I just ran a check on 20 or 30 urls in my filter and was only able to delete two of them as the sites no longer existed.
The rest were not only MFAs using Yahoo & others for their content less pages but also schemers, down loaders, e-mail harvesters and just general flotsam of the Internet that I don't want on my site.
While this change will alleviate one type of problem it won't address the rest of the garbage that's out there.
My filter will probably stay full :-(
| 8:45 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Quote from an Article that amazingly similar to the thought in you mind just about now:
Quote: 'Comrades, first of all a little apology. The report on the organization of the parties, the methods and content of their work, was assigned to me only in the course of the last week; consequently there was a certain delay in dealing with it, and it was also not possible to finish revising the Theses in an entirely regular way. You must also pardon me if-since this assignment was given only last week-I could not carry it out comprehensively or thoroughly. The report I have to give is, by virtue of its subject, very extensive. I am to discuss not just the organizational tasks, but also the methods and content of work, and likewise the organizational structure of the Ö.. and its relationship to the different parties-'
so it is 1921, same thought, CAP........, Just a though, WHAT MADE you think your are any special?
| 8:52 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
T I, above was not a repy to your post.
| 10:09 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I for one intent to work with you guys here in an effort to resolve this.
The reason I have not posted since the start is that I do not know much more now than then. There have come up quite a few good suggestions here though, keep them coming.
As I mentioned I will contact AdSense Monday. Today Sunday I have mostly done deep Zen meditation, "come what may meditation".
I also likely will disclose more on my stuff here as this process proceeds.
One thing though, the email from AdSense (canned non specific and non personal, opens "Hello,") says "our specialists found
that your business model is not a good fit for the AdSense program".
So this "could" potentially be all about something else than the arbritage game. Yet, from what I see from the others here arbritage seems most likely reason.
From a different channel I know of one other webmaster who has gotten this email.
| 10:31 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Last January Google sent out an e-mail inviting "selections of individually-reviewed sites" into its "custom placement packs program". I'm wondering if any of the banned accounts got this e-mail?
| 10:47 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is the reply I received after questioning their (Adsense) original email to me.
They were concerned with my means of driving traffic and that my business model did not comply to their landing page quality guidelines. Also that AdWords were used but the pages they targetted did not provide adequate information.
All sites multi-page, original content, no PLR, 1 adblock per page. Sites PR range from 0-3. Income $20k/mth. 99% Adwords traffic.
[edited by: jatar_k at 1:39 am (utc) on May 21, 2007]
[edit reason] no email quotes, please paraphrase [/edit]
| 10:51 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> Income $20k/mth. 99% Adwords traffic.
Wow! That's amazing to hear. So are you saying your profit was $20K per month? All from AdWords?
| 11:14 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Avo19 mentions "99% AdWords traffic," and the Google e-mail refers to "landing page quality," so Avo19 obviously an AdWords advertiser.
Did any click arbitrageurs who've been getting their traffic from the content network (as opposed to Google Search ads) also get the "Your account is being disabled on June 1" e-mail? Or is it possible that this flap is about AdWords landing-page quality and not about MFAs at all?
| 11:18 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
From what I see, I don't believe it's (just) an LPQ issue, though that could be part of it.
I think it is mainly an anti-arb thang...
| 11:31 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Is this just a rumor that has gotten out of control?
| 11:51 pm on May 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It's not a rumour to those whose AS a/cs are being disabled 1st June.
[edited by: DamonHD at 11:52 pm (utc) on May 20, 2007]
| 12:53 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is beginning to attract some main streem news:
See here: [news.google.com...]
| 1:09 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What blows my mind is that people are making 5 digits a month, 6 digits a year off this technique I was only vaguely aware of. Even if there are barely 1000 people doing it at those levels, that's MILLIONS per year going through Google. Stunning.
Perhaps this will also lighten up Google's content server load.
But on another note, are visitors that click happy? Click a vague ad on one site only to click another ad on the destination? Are there that many people who don't read content anymore?