Forum Moderators: open
Seems like they cranked the trip on comparison percentage down 10-20%?
This way you would avoid the whole dup content issue, and get the benefit of transferred pagerank for all of the affiliate links. (Though I am not sure if this would trigger the google "page hijacking" problem that has come up in other threads?) Is this kind of thing viable?
Yes, i am thinking of building affiliate only pages. I may just create some Landing pages on the same site, or i could create a whole new site.
mr_roberto...
The cookie thing might work for WebFusion, but i'm not sure i can do that with a Yahoo Store.
Thanks for your input.
Personally I think you're better off building a whole new site.
It relieves you of all the issues you're dealing with, and you needn't worry about the site's ups and downs in the SERP's, since the function of your aff site is not to rank well, but to convert traffic already generated elsewhere.
Also, it may help you WRT business building and idea generation to think of the aff's as a totally distinct and unique marketing channel.
</END MORE OT>
--------
Anyway, back on topic, all I can say is it's interesting to me that there may have just been this looseing of one aspect of their dup filters, since my own opinion is that much of the pain people are experiencing with not getting sites ranked in the past six months has to do with three things:
- the quality, relevance and number of inbound links,
- the size and content of the site,
- dup filters (link dup, anchor text dup, page similarity dup, etc.)
Would there be a problem with having your page:
[oursite.com...]
simply drop a cookie to the user (with the affiliate ID in it), and immediately do a 301 redirect to the actual prod321.html page?
This way you would avoid the whole dup content issue, and get the benefit of transferred pagerank for all of the affiliate links. (Though I am not sure if this would trigger the google "page hijacking" problem that has come up in other threads?) Is this kind of thing viable?
We had considered that, but decided against it for just the reason you mentioned (i.e. the page hi-jacking problem, or whatever it is).
Eveidence does suggest that google was interpreting these pages as duplicate content, as soon after the pages started dropping from the idnex, the "real" pages began returning, and slowly moving up in the serps.
However, put yourself in my shoes. I receive a TON of traffic from these listings in Google. I am not ranking any better with their listings as i was with my own. So basically, i'm losing 16% of every sale now. I don't want this to happen, so i will have to change things. I don't begrudge my affiliates. It just doesn't work for ME. It has made my affiliate program no longer useful. The amount I am now losing exceeds what I am gaining. It's just plain economics.
Thanks for the input though. I wasn't really thinking of the anchor text. Good point. But, now i need to get my own URL back.
Just checked... My listings are all back to normal with a Sep. 30th cache date.
I guess i just had to wait for Google's algo to work.
whew!
luckily, it fixed itself.
Jake, or others, any chance that this was a loosening on internal link dup filters, rather content or template fliters, etc. Or was that including in your thinking Jake?
caveman
