homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.153.141
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 260 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 260 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >     
AdSense Disabling Arbitrage Accounts by June 1st - Part 2
econman




msg:3350066
 7:23 pm on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thread continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]


There seem to be several very solid, important topics that need exploring. Perhaps one of the moderators would like to establish a new thread for the purpose, but it can also be explored as a continuation this one.

Either way, it's starting to look like this isn't a mirage -- something real and important has happened, and thus it would be worthwhile to understand what's going on.

Here are some thoughts on the potential focus of a new thread, or future discussions in this thread.

Topic 1. What is the true scope of this change?

At the narrow end of the spectrum, perhaps Google is targeting a very narrowly defined business plan or a very specific type of arbitrage site -- with little or no real content, using Adwords to obtain traffic and using Adsense to generate revenue.

At wide end of the specturm, this might be an early sign that Google is going to stamp out any business plan that adversely affects public perceptions of its Adwords and Adsense brands.

To enhance and protect its Adsense brand, Google could stop running Adsense on scraper sites, little-to-no-content sites, sites with mostly nonsense text, etc.

To enhance and protect its Adwords brand, Google block these types of sites from running Adwords campaigns, even if they generate their revenues using affiliate programs, display ads, YPN, etc.

Topic 2: What will be the indirect effect of this change on other publishers and advertisers -- those who are not being kicked out of Adsense?

Topic 3: How should webmasters adjust their strategies and business plans, in response to the change and in anticipation of the indirect effects of the change?

There's been some discussion and speculation about all 3 of these topics already, but a more in-depth, thoughtful analysis could be developed if we pool our collective knowledge and insights.

Of course, these 3 topics are related, since future effects and future strategies will depend on what's really going on -- the true scope of this change.

 

potentialgeek




msg:3353726
 6:00 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yesterday I came across a new site ("beta") that had scraped zillions of photographs from a huge photo community.

Easy to catch with an MFA hunting algo that measures growth rate. But the Google PhDs aren't all there yet. Matt is on vacation.

p/g

Play_Bach




msg:3353871
 8:24 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

> Webmasters with "thin content" sites aren't just going to pack it in.

But where are they going to go once they're booted from AdSense? Who else is going to pay them $70K a month to do what they do - Yahoo!? MSN? At this point, I really don't see a "plan B" for them that's anywhere near as lucrative. It seems to me their whole 'business' plan was built around AdSense - without it they're sunk.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 8:40 pm (utc) on May 30, 2007]

justageek




msg:3353887
 8:38 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Now that Apple is streaming Youtube videos on the Apple TV they may be getting their video cameras out to create MFAV :-)

JAG

DamonHD




msg:3353921
 9:46 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, I hate TV and don't watch it except occasionally for the news, and I won't be (knowingly) paying for TV ads, so right now, I don't care.

Rgds

Damon

tabish




msg:3354168
 4:02 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am stil seeing MFA on my site. should i complain google about it?

Regards

marcel




msg:3354201
 5:00 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am stil seeing MFA on my site. should i complain google about it?

It's not the 1st of June yet...

DamonHD




msg:3354261
 7:01 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

No harm in making the report if you don't like it.

Rgds

Damon

Freddy81




msg:3354443
 11:21 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Calm down, the "Day X" is coming, and most of us will finally stop annoying you ;-)


At this point, I really don't see a "plan B" for them that's anywhere near as lucrative. It seems to me their whole 'business' plan was built around AdSense - without it they're sunk.

If you don't see a plan B (C, D, ...) it doesn't mean they don't exist.

[edited by: Freddy81 at 11:24 am (utc) on May 31, 2007]

DamonHD




msg:3354454
 11:27 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Don't be so sure: I know a bunch of people kicked out by G who've already illicitly set up new AS a/cs.

The bona fide Web masters that I know that have been booted have no intention of trying to 'evade' G's rules this way, and it's the ethically challenged ones that we need to worry about putting up deceptive ads.

(I'm at the Google Developer Day conf right now, and I'm going to see if I can get staffers' views on the whole MFA issue...)

Rgds

Damon

Mentat




msg:3354494
 12:17 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've externalized all my ads to Google Adwords in the past 3 months, so I was not contacted directly by advertirers..
It was so quiet and nice.. until 2 days ago.

I now get a lot of request for advertising prices, but NOT Google Adwords :)

Also.. I have a lot of request (big $$$) for "strategic placed links" :)

No 10x!

farmboy




msg:3354631
 2:49 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am stil seeing MFA on my site. should i complain google about it?

Hmmm. If this non-announcement announcement has created the expectations that a lot of undesirable ads will disappear from publishers' sites after June 1 and that expectation isn't met, I expect the resulting thread here on WW will make the prior anti-MFA threads look lame in comparison.

Would Google sit idly by and watch these expectations develop beyond what is realistic? If Yes, the result could be ugly.

Personally, I'm still cautiously optimistic and leaning a bit to the skeptical side.

I'm trying to decide when is a good date certain to check the URL's in my filter as my own test of whatever housecleaning has taken place.

Update: By the way, if things haven't changed much in a week or two from now, I have a plan I'll propose to other publishers and see who wants to join me.

FarmBoy

Chapman




msg:3354660
 3:27 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm trying to decide when is a good date certain to check the URL's in my filter as my own test of whatever housecleaning has taken place.

To the contrary, this week I've actually had to add a number of new very blatant URL's to what is normally a rather static filter.

Possibly just new MFA sites coming "out of the woodwork" as cleaning begins or maybe old ones changing subjects trying to avoid detection.

Chapman

moTi




msg:3354966
 7:35 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

i also expect that the next threat - provided that the thin content arbi/mfa issue is really taken care of - will be more and more scraped and mixed up content.
and i already see more scraped and cheaply translated rubbish popping up high in the serps.

maybe a fully applied high ctr/low conversion filter will stand the new rush and smartprice those bad quality content websites.
but maybe there's a wider range of issues in it and the problem is that we've not arrived in the semantic web where google algos can actually evaluate the context and sense of word combinations. apart from dealing with copyright theft, which is left to the affected publishers as google can't supervise the web.

i don't see a solution here besides the reliance on googles' formal checkup of ad response data. it's easy to automatically detect the absence of text and more difficult to detect the uniqueness and originality of text. but how to judge the quality of text?

[edited by: moTi at 7:53 pm (utc) on May 31, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3355039
 8:07 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

i also expect that the next threat - provided that the thin content arbi/mfa issue is really taken care of - will be more and more scraped and mixed up content.

This forum's members were having conniptions about scrapers long before click arbitrageurs became the villains du jour. I vaguely recall IncrediBILL reporting that a number of scrapers he'd been monitoring disappeared (or took a deep dive) in Google's SERPs. Google has had time to think about the potential side effects of an MFA purge, so I don't think Matt Cutts & Co. will be caught by surprise.

potentialgeek




msg:3355059
 8:21 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think Matt Cutts & Co. will be caught by surprise.

One can only hope. I just don't recall a time when Google was proactive. This Arbit Purge took over three years to implement. Maybe it needs a mole in the Black Hat Community?

p/g

Genuine1




msg:3355080
 8:38 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>> but how to judge the quality of text?

By the number of one way quality links pointing at it. Thats supposed to be how it works anyway!

DamonHD




msg:3355116
 9:45 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've had a number of discussions with G staffers today, some fairly senior.

Not all were even aware of the issues that we have been ranting on about here for hundreds of posts, though, BTW, all the G people I've talked to today do genuinely seem to believe that improving the Web and user experience in general will improve G's prospects, so you'd better believe that they believe what they're saying and DON'T have an ulterior motive or short-term money grabbing or whatever.

And also remember that G staffers are in some cases keenly aware that they are still a small company compared to M$ or big/rich finance houses, etc.

And my London taxi driver today described his man-in-the-street view of Google as "sexy" but Microsoft as "bad"; one view but a candid non-Webmaster one.

So let's keep some perspective... If possible. B^>

Rgds

Damon

moTi




msg:3355149
 10:21 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

By the number of one way quality links pointing at it. Thats supposed to be how it works anyway!

yeah, in terms of the serps. but what about ads with scraped and mixed up content on landing pages which deliver low user experience? assuming that the logical next step of lazy mfa'ers in response to an assumed "low content arbi" filter will just be to fill out the blank spaces between their three ad blocks, thereby simulating to the algos that they have relevant content. from the diverse discussions on "crappy pages result in higher ctr, so why build something useful" you can derive, that this is an issue.

Genuine1




msg:3355209
 11:49 pm on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)

Me >>> By the number of one way quality links pointing at it. Thats supposed to be how it works anyway!

moTi > yeah, in terms of the serps. but what about ads with scraped and mixed up content on landing pages which deliver low user experience?

They Get bugger all traffic?

> assuming that the logical next step of lazy mfa'ers in response to an assumed "low content arbi" filter will just be to fill out the blank spaces between their three ad blocks, thereby simulating to the algos that they have relevant content.

But what stops the "algos" from looking at the PR and other stuff too?

> from the diverse discussions on "crappy pages result in higher ctr, so why build something useful" you can derive, that this is an issue.

No because unless they are buying traffic (quality score looking at the above - complete with another update PR etc) they wont have any traffic apart from a few "link directories" and other minor (thats all of them) search engines!

[edited by: Genuine1 at 11:50 pm (utc) on May 31, 2007]

aeiouy




msg:3355271
 1:22 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

At the end of the day it will be interesting to see if anything changes.

Unless they are prepared to go back out and kick out new sites and will be checking them, it may be nothing but a lot of talk.

As others mentioned, probably anyone who was seriously making money and got a letter, they already have a new Adsense account or three, and will be going into affect when this is over. Since this last batch seems like a sweep and wait, who knows how they will handle it going forward.

cmendla




msg:3355280
 1:41 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Unless they are prepared to go back out and kick out new sites and will be checking them, it may be nothing but a lot of talk.

I think they might have to go a step further and file some civil lawsuits against those who get thrown out and then try to weasel back in. I'm not a lawyer (thank G-d) but I would think that they could find some means of bringing a civil suit for deception, theft of services or something like that.

They don't have to get them all. All they have to do is stick a few heads on pikes outside the city gates and word will get around. Sort of the way the IRS goes after a couple of evaders and draws and quarters them prior to april 15th each year.

cg

moTi




msg:3355322
 3:02 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

They Get bugger all traffic?

once again: i was talking about advertiser landing pages = pages that appear when someone clicks on an ad.
that is bought traffic NOT natural search traffic.

But what stops the "algos" from looking at the PR and other stuff too?

pagerank is not relevant for an advertiser landing page. these pages are not even in the serps, if they are designed to only receive clicks from paid traffic. my concern was, that obviously quality score alone was not able to smartprice the shady ones out of the business, so let's see how the "upgraded" mfas, that are soon to enter the market can be handled.

sonny




msg:3355348
 3:51 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

9 minutes till the ball drops!

Hobbs




msg:3355353
 4:02 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why are we still discussing how they would catch the new wave when the answer has been repeated here in every MFA thread?

a) Manually review only the most blocked domains and every site in their adwords account
b) Allow publishers to block by advertiser account.

I have been thinking a lot about why Google won't allow us to block by account, and the only possible reason I can come up with is that they are afraid that we can block a whole account which can include good sites that match our content when all we needed was just block one domain from that account.

And I have a solution for that, make the blocking by default on domain basis, but allow a tick box next to each item in our filter where we can manually opt to block the whole advertiser account, easy.

It all boils down to Google wanting the clean up which we are all relieved to finally see, also to Google trusting us publishers with a little bit more control like larger filter or a block by account tick box, then we can take on whatever MFA'ers can throw at us.

netchicken1




msg:3355354
 4:07 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

This would call for a new thread ...

Maybe "Life after MFA's"

9 minutes till the ball drops!

icedowl




msg:3355355
 4:10 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

9 minutes till the ball drops!

Right now it's 9:09 pm Pacific Daylight Saving Time. Just under 3 hours to go. And I can't wait!

callivert




msg:3355399
 5:46 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

will they move on to new systems?
The fact is, arbitrage was being marketed all over the internet as the get-rich-quick scheme that works. Most players will drop out, some have even said so here.
Others will search for new business plans that involve cheating the system. Some of these will succeed, some not.
the most widely discussed model: scraping, translating, autogenerated,... all still comes back to a new adsense/adwords hookup, using a different account. you could call this system "masked MFA". the fact that it involves going right back into the lion's den means that there is a real risk of Google smashing them all over again.
other models such as replacing adsense with affiliates, I can't see working, because affiliate marking is about more than just getting clicks.
so it's just a question if they can find new ways of beating google.
Probably there will be a smaller and smaller group of smarter and more devious players as time goes on.

Scurramunga




msg:3355419
 6:45 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

so it's just a question if they can find new ways of beating google.

Maybe will we see Much of the same scum advertising on our sites, only that the landing pages will something other than adsense.

heyday




msg:3355483
 8:09 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

So here it is 1:04am PST June 1st...... I know at least 4 urls that the owners had their accounts banned and I'm still seeing ads......

For some reason I thought someone would be pushing the magic button at midnight.....

This will be interesting because now you can't track clicked ads on your site.....I was expecting to see a lot less MFAs in my reports tomorrow....

Interesting how that feature suddenly appeared the day before the mass banning.....

heyday

RonS




msg:3355490
 8:17 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Interesting how that feature suddenly appeared the day before the mass banning..... "



eeeeeeeexcellent point

Scurramunga




msg:3355495
 8:30 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Some MFA's are down whilst others have survived. I guess Google is applying a very narrow definition here.

This 260 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 260 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >
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