ken_b - 3:06 pm on Aug 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

So after 7 days and 200+ posts, what have we sorted out? That some of us disagree? :)

I suppose (who really knows?) that the folks who build the real questionable sites are never going to want to see greater quality control. That doesn't mean they don't think it would be good for "the program", just that it's easy money for them now and they don't want it to stop.

My guess is the folks that build the highest quality sites are always going to want better controls because they think it will result in more money for them.

Another guess is that most of the folks in the middle haven't even noticed, or haven't an idea of what to do about the situation.

I wonder though if the folks at the most immediate risk aren't those with any kind pages producing a low return for Google and the advertizers.

Those could be some trashy auto-generated pages or some very high quality custom content stuff. If ROI is the criteria, quality of content becomes a lot less important.

Could that mean that folks getting really low CTR, or EPC are at risk? How about those with low CTR and low EPC, are they at risk? Maybe, but I'm just speculating.

Again, auto-generated pages don't need to be junk pages. And well thought out custom pages might well be poor performers.

But the fact that Google is giving rebates to advertizers to get them to use content sites is a bad sign for publishers.

That strikes me as a stop gap measure they are trying so they can avoid tightening up the publisher criteria. If it doesn't work, it seems likely that some adjustments are probable for publishers.