The affiliate pages Google regards as "offensive"

Now you know if you're on the hit list...

[ronin]

Okay, so Google employs human raters to fine tune its results and spot spam where the spiders miss it.

We knew this.

But we didn't know exactly what the human raters are told to look out for and which kinds of affiliate pages Google considers spam and which it considers acceptable.

Now we do:

Spam Recognition Guide for Raters
[searchbistro.com ]

Well done to EFV for getting a Google thumbs up in the document.

[wormdrive]

I'm curious as to whether or not that is an internal document from Google? It reads like one, but I don't think that it is officially sanctioned.

[kwngian]

Generally agree with their guideline except this;

At first cut it may look like yet another thin affiliate doorway to Amazon or B&N, but #*$!xx.com is providing a value-added service to visitors by offering a comparison of prices between different online merchants. Ultimately you will be taken to Ecampus.com, Half.com, Amazon or another affiliate online bookseller, but the fact that they have their own price comparison infrastructure is the differentiator. To appreciate the difference, ask yourself this question: would any user want to go to www.#*$!xx.com rather than directly to Barnes & Noble?

The answer to the former question is Yes, because at Barnes & Noble, the user would not be able to see any direct price comparison between the B&N’s price and competitors’ prices for any given item; the answer to the latter question is No or Indifferent between the two.

Surely, most naïve users may not even be aware when they are redirected, thrown from one site to another, etc. But if they were advised of what is going on, would then make an informed choice to go to a totally thin, no-unique-content affiliate doorway?

In order not to be considered a 'thin affiliate', you should become a FAT affiliate, a jedi, mother of all affiliates. Here, you're 'excused' for no-original-content.

Like saying, its not what you do but who you are that matters.

Not hitting at anyone with similiar themed sites but obviously with the above statement, Google is trying to protect their price comparison search partners.

[One_on_One]

The whole "thin" affiliate thing is absurd. There are many people out there, like me, who don't need a comparison shopping engine or other non-sense. If I want to buy something online, I do the research on various sites and then look up the product. Who cares if I buy it from a site that offers no "value-added" content? They offer me the ability to buy the product, which is all I want.

[David Bowley]

One cannot both be an affiliate of others and offer affiliation opportunities. So the presence of the link to become an affiliate is your hint that the site has its own booking functionality and can complete transactions for its visitors.

Does this make sense? Have they never heard of 2 tier programs, whereby the affiliate could say "affiliate with us" and redirect them to the merchant with their tracking id.

[ronin]

Who cares if I buy it from a site that offers no "value-added" content?

One_on_One: Well, search engines would obviously. If somebody types in "bike shop" and Google lists the website of a top high street cycling specialist and four affiliates of the same merchant, none of whom offer any value-added content, that makes Google a pretty rubbish search engine, doesn't it?

You understand that Google isn't saying that "thin-affiliates" shouldn't exist, just that they don't have any place near the top of the SERPs.

[One_on_One]

I disagree that thin affiliates shouldn't belong at the top of the search. Of course it's bad for a search engine if you have the top 5 results going to the same place, but I don't see a problem with a thin affiliate outranking the merchant. We work for the merchant, after all, as their sales people. If we are better at online marketing, we deserve those rankings. If a salesperson knocks on your door to sell you something and you want it, the salesperson gets the commission, you don't slam the door on him and then call the company.

Well, that's just my belief, but regardless Google makes the rules and we have to play by them or cheat them.

[TrustNo1]

"but I don't see a problem with a thin affiliate outranking the merchant."

So when someone does a product search, why should someone linking to a merchant be higher up than the merchant actually selling the product? In the past for any given product search there was a lot of affiliate sites in the top ten. Relevant, but SE's want relevant and variety. You saw that in what Google did with Adwords in January and you can see that in the SERPS from what you see now compared to last year. What i see now for any given product search are merchants who actually sell the product, usually a review/opinion site, usually one of the shopping comparison sites and then a couple of affiliate sites, give or take. All relevant plus a nice variety. And with merchants being more relevant, the SE's having their own product search (Froogle, Yahoo Product Search, MSN) the big shopping comparison sites/review sites and every other affiliate out there pushing the same stuff, you're going to have to do a little something extra to get on that page 1.

[danimal]

>>>So when someone does a product search, why should someone linking to a merchant be higher up than the merchant actually selling the product?<<<

obviously, it should be because of better seo.

doing it any other way is akin to saying that advertising doesn't matter.

and what if there are multiple merchants selling the same product? better yet, what is the foolproof way for google to tell whether or not a website really has that product for sale?

yes, what we see now are so-called "review sites" that just happen to coincidentally sell the product... they have whored out the search listings so badly that real-world review sites can't get listed.

[TrustNo1]

"obviously, it should be because of better seo."

Nope, most relevant should come first. That's basic.

[kwngian]

So in essence, Google is cleaning hundreds of pages but leaving their search partners which is generally thousands of pages of duplicate contents. That is preferential treatment.

Suggest the 'thin' affiliates here start creating 'price comparison sites' and see how they are going to wiggle out of these guidelines. 'value add' indeed.

[ronin]

I don't see a problem with a thin affiliate outranking the merchant.

You don't?!

You don't think it's just an annoying waste of time or an obstruction for the searcher then?

The searcher is looking for a merchant. Google is looking to provide a signpost to the merchant. Apart from clogging up the results, necessitating an extra click and taking up extra seconds of downloading time, what contribution does the "thin" affiliate add?

The quickest self-defensive answer is to say: "The thin affiliate helps the searcher find the merchant more quickly."

But Google's intention is to point directly to useful websites, not to point to useful websites by way of third party click-through websites.

[kwngian]

You don't think it's just an annoying waste of time or an obstruction for the searcher then?

The searcher is looking for a merchant. Google is looking to provide a signpost to the merchant. Apart from clogging up the results, necessitating an extra click and taking up extra seconds of downloading time, what contribution does the "thin" affiliate add?

Oh, not to worry that will be a thing of the past soon. But you'll still be taking extra clicks except the advertisers will be paying for it through Google's partners.

Same question, what does these sites contribute to the search results? Price comparison? Doesn't that makes Froogle redundant?

[danimal]

>>>Nope, most relevant should come first. That's basic.<<<

>>>And with merchants being more relevant<<<

yup, there it is... "relevant" is defined by the merchants who game the engines with seo... but affiliates can't play that corrupt little game as well? do you have a problem with price comparison websites that don't sell anything directly?

the searcher is looking for two things:
1) information(aka reviews)
2) pricing

the engines have it all tangled together, to the detriment of the searcher.

[One_on_One]

You're right Google's job is to bring the merchant up at #1 since they are most relevant. But, "relevant" is a non-existent concept to a search algorithm. The only thing it knows is who has the most backlinks, on-page SEO, blah blah, etc. It is just analzying numbers, not relevancy. There is no way it can possibly analyze relevancy. So, my point is that if the affiliate marketer can beat the merchant at the SEO game, then they deserve the #1 ranking. Google can tweak and tweak to get the merchants to the top, but there will always be affiliates that can beat the merchant and get their #1 rankings. It's just an online marketing game.

[TrustNo1]

"the engines have it all tangled together, to the detriment of the searcher."

So let's see which is better for a searcher if they do a product search, example A or B

Example A - they find a page with a shoe product link to a merchant actually selling the shoe

Example B - they find the merchant actually selling the shoe

It should be obvious which is better for the searcher.

"There is no way it can possibly analyze relevancy. So, my point is that if the affiliate marketer can beat the merchant at the SEO game, then they deserve the #1 ranking. Google can tweak and tweak to get the merchants to the top, but there will always be affiliates that can beat the merchant and get their #1 rankings. It's just an online marketing game. "

Of course they can. Watch, lets take books. You're telling me you can't think of merchants that sell books? Of course you can. Google knows who sells books online, it's no secret. They can see who links to who. They can tell the difference between an affiliate site and a merchant site. I gave an example on another board where i picked one product at random a year ago and 8/10 top listings were affiliate feed pages. For that same exact product search today it now has 3 merchants who actually sold the product, a review/opinion site, a shopping comparison site and a couple of affiliate sites. All relevant but with a nice variety. That's the direction it's going.

[One_on_One]

You're missing the point. It's about marketing, just like in the brick-and-mortar world.

[TrustNo1]

I'm not missing the point, i know where Google is and i know how to search. You're missing the point. SE's are about the most relevant result for any given search. They could care less about your "marketing" And with wanting the most relevant result they also want a little variety.

As far as variety you can see that both in the SERPS and Adwords. You can see that in the SERPS by just comparing this year to last year like the example i gave. You can see that with Adwords with the changes they made in January. Let's use ebay as an example. Last year i could have searched for my name and someone was selling on ebay. ebay was probably the worst. They didn't want to see the same ad over and over again in Adwords. And they don't want to see the same thing over and over again in the SERPS. Do they always get it right? No, but they're trying and that's where they want to go. You'll still have affiliate sites in the mix, but those that actually put a little effort into it, those that do a little something different than what most churn out.

"It's about marketing, just like in the brick-and-mortar world. "

As far as that most brick and mortar pay for that. Advertising. Some people like them so much they even tell their friends about it. Word of mouth. What's that got to do with your affiliate site wanting free SE traffic?

[badone]

What about the situation where an AM site lists products of a particular category (say widgets) from multiple merchants. Here the AM is value adding by giving the buyer a greater range to chose from all neatly located in the one place.

Is this still classed as a "thin" AM site?

[Nefig]

That's a good point, of course pure datafeed sites are less relevant than a merchant's website, but come on, who said people want to find a "merchant"? Sometimes they do, sometimes - and that's what Google visitors do versus MSN searchers - they REsearch. For example, I never go, search and buy. I browse, read, compare and then make a decision. So providing comparison, reviews, articles, etc. makes AM site much more relevant and useful than a straight sales pitch on a single merchant site. If a merchant cannot afford well optimized site and doesn't care much about searh marketing, I don't see why an AM site which has more information and multiple product feeds has to be number two or even twenty two. At the end of the day, AMers promote well-converting=good products, thus it's almost a natural selection, isn't it?

[TrustNo1]

"So providing comparison, reviews, articles, etc. makes AM site much more relevant and useful than a straight sales pitch on a single merchant site."

"You'll still have affiliate sites in the mix, but those that actually put a little effort into it, those that do a little something different than what most churn out."

I agree with you on that. I think most affiliates who use feeds make 1 product per page, product in the title etc. And that's about it. And last year and years before, like in the example i gave for a specific product search, i would see around 8/10 of the top results with those types of pages. This year you can notice a difference. Better mix. Usually a few merchants, maybe a review or shopping comparison site and a couple of affiliate sites give or take depending on the search. In the document linked to in the first post they gave examples of good affiliate sites, sites that did a little more. So you'll still see affiliate sites in the mix, but I think less and less of those 5 minute type sites.

I think for any given product search SE's would rather see example B than example A. Let's say a search for [brand model widgets]:

Example A
1. widgets.com feed site
2. widgets.com feed site
3. widgets.com feed site
4. widgets.com feed site
5. widgets.com feed site
6. widgets.com feed site
7. widgets.com feed site
8. widgets.com feed site
9. widgets.com feed site
10. widgets.com feed site

or Example B
1. widgetsbuy.com
2. widgets.com
3. wodgets.com
4. an affiliate with affiliate links and reviews on the widgets
5. widgethappy.com
6. widgetworld.com
7. price comparison site
8. onlinewidgets.com
9. brand.com
10. brandworld.com affiliate site with all things Brand

It's more B than A nowadays.

[edited by: jcoronella at 6:58 pm (utc) on June 27, 2005]
[edit reason] widget-ized. Please keep examples generic. [/edit]

[bumpaw]

It looks like a Rater having a bad hair day could sure cause a site some big problems.