Forum Moderators: open
Some of these websites are nothing more than a doorway to a bigger player, providing customers/visitors intent on spending, whilst containing little if any valuable or unique content.
Other sites are very much unique in content but contain an aff link here or there where appropriate.
In view of googles expressed viewpoints on unique content etc, should they actively downgrade sites with heavy aff links?
After all, dont these actually dilute the serps, filling them with samey old stuff going to the samey old destination?
If there is a balance between sites that contain nothing but aff links and sites that contain a reasonable mix, in your opinions at what point does the mix become too aff heavy?
But it would make more sense for Google to simply use affiliate links and other e-commerce links as flags that identify pages for closer scrutiny. For example, if Google saw a link to a hotel reservations network, it might compare the page's body text with that of other pages that contain hotel-booking links. If it then detected duplicate content (e.g., boilerplate hotel descriptions), it could assign a negative weighting factor so that virtually identical affiliate and travel-agency hotel pages wouldn't clutter up Google's top search results.
Ideally, Web sites with plenty of unique, high quality content would be upgraded.
Downgrading pages with affiliate URLs might be easier, but I don't see that it would help search quality much. Also, spammers will quickly find a way round such a filter, leaving the quality sites that just happen to have relevant affiliate links penalised.
C
But on closer scrutiny of the e-commerce industry you would be AMAZED at how many big players are actually affiliates of some sort.
The other thing to bear in mind is that a Good affiliate will always have unique content, and in many cases the affiliates site will actually be far better for the end user than the main merchants.
I have met many SuperAffiliates from this forum, and trust me these guys would put to shame the actual merchants who pay them revenue for sales generated.
Shak
jaytierney 5:30 pm on Nov. 6, 2002 (utc 0)
I have a number of affiliate sites, BUT, they also offer other helpful content... do you propose my sites should be downgraded as well? or just the ones that are pretty much affiliate links and nothing else?
Just the ones that are pretty much affiliate sites , although as I stated in the opening post, at what point does a site cross the line?
Look, think of it like this, imagine an affiliate site that sells laptops. The site could contain bundles of info, write ups, product reviews, a forum for feedback, product ratings, comparisons etc etc and right at the end of the article could contain a 'buy' this item link. Nothing wrong here in my book, the site is offering useful info with the added bonus of being able to buy the product too, the site has to pay for itself one way or the other after all.
Some websites arent like this at all, they have a few shell pages containing a little bit of text here and there and thats it, everything else is just links to buy this or that at some other place. These are the ones that get up my bugle.
Shakil, yes I hear what you are saying, and agree completely.I really dont have a problem with anyone who has quality content earning money from aff links.
It just seems to me that some people have this idea that they should be able to set up a website, and gain high rankings in the serps when the sole purpose of their venture is to gain traffic and earn a commission, simply by virtue of the fact that its primary purpose is to push the visitor elsewhere. Many of these sites have no reason for being other than to promote the product of someone else.
Its very much a grey area, hence my post, Im just interested to hear opinions and viewpoints.
In view of googles expressed viewpoints on unique content etc, should they actively downgrade sites with heavy aff links?
No, they shouldn't. To promote unique content, they should downgrade sites with duplicate content. The presence of affiliate links alone isn't a reliable indicator that a site doesn't have unique content; the only reliable indicator is the absence of unique content.
Anne
I have an affiliate site organized in a directory format. My site is financial and people can come to locate products and services. I get about 2,000 visitors a day with nearly a 10% conversion. That tells me that USERS feel my site is relevant and useful. What is considered "useful" to one might not be useful to another. All I can say is that if Google banned my site, the 200 or so customers who find what they are looking for on my site everyday might not be so happy. I just think Google should be careful about how it determines what is unique and useful. As suggested earlier it would be better to rid the Google database of duplicate content, not affiliates. I have some competetors who are copying my content so they can achieve similar rankings. That should definitely be stopped.
I just think Google should be careful about how it determines what is unique and useful. As suggested earlier it would be better to rid the Google database of duplicate content, not affiliates. I have some competetors who are copying my content so they can achieve similar rankings. That should definitely be stopped.
Yep, agree with you there too.
When you think about it its funny how some sites can outdo other sites in the serps only to send people back to these very sites that they have outdone, via an affiliate link!
I know, dont tell me, ..seo!
And how are "normal" ads on large sites different from affiliate ads on smaller sites? It's a lot easier and cheaper for the smaller sites to place affiliate ads than actively seek someone to advertise on their pages. Why should they be penalized for this?
I don't think Google is penalizing (or will penalize) sites for having affiliate links. I've had affiliate links on my site for the last year, and my pages keep moving up in Google because the affiliate links are like ads--they're secondary to the page content.
I do think Google will penalize "affiliate sites" that use boilerplate content and/or sneaky SEO tricks.
And it wouldn't be unreasonable for Google not to treat affiliate links as "content," in the same way that it doesn't consider ad code to be content. In other words, if you had a page that consisted of a dozen product links to a LinkShare merchant, Google could ignore those links in the same way that it would ignore JavaScript ad code.
IMHO, the best way to continue making money with an affiliate site is to find a niche (or multiple niches) and develop informative, useful content that complements the affiliate links. I was searching on "(xxxxxxxxx) routers" the other day, and I found a site that had all kinds of great info on DSL and cable-modem routers, with affiliate links to product pages where appropriate. Because the site owner had taken the time to develop content that was actually useful to people who were thinking of buying routers, his site was near the top of Google's listings for an important search phrase--and because he was providing "decision support" in the form of helpful advice, he was making it easier for users to buy products via his affiliate links.
If Google were to start droping sites that used affiliate codes in the site some BIG useful sites would vanish from the index. For example, when you go to a certain car review site to find the "True Market Value" R of a car, the company probably makes the bulk of its money on affiliate programs for car financing. They worked with an SEO firm to generate something like 7 million referrals last year.
It's all about content. Affiliate links or no affiliate links should not make a difference.
I guess you meant clickthro rate?
If Google were to start droping sites that used affiliate codes in the site some BIG useful sites would vanish from the index.
No kidding! Concierge.com, the online version of Condé Nast Traveler Magazine, has affiliate links. So do other large magazine and newspaper sites.
That's why I don't think Google will ever drop or penalize sites that use affiliate links--but it may use a certain number of affiliate links, or a certain ratio of body text to affiliate links, as a trigger for other quality checks.
Are we scared yet?
We've only had one report of a "sighting" -until we get something definite, we don't know that they've picked up any merchants for themselves.
>scared
I do "travel" --if I've been able to book rooms over the past 2 years while Expedia was plastered all over the place, I guess there's hope.
> We've only had one report of a "sighting"
We know they have signed up as an affiliate with one company. Seems obsurd that a company of their size would bother unless it was to be on a large scale IMO :)
I have only been in the affiliate market since August and have found it very lucrative (surprisingly)! I am also in retail and considering dropping that avenue (or selling the sales!) when I've built on the affiliate side of business. I REALLY hope things don't change!
My question is: Is potential penalisation of affiliate sites an opinion, or based on experience? Is it new or has google been doing this already (other than penalising "clone" pages)?
Yes, 10% of my visitors find what they are looking for on my site (not click thru rate). Thats why I get worried when some suggest affiliate sites are not worthy of being in the Google index (or any search engine). Daily, about 200 of my 2000 or so visitors find what they need (which ultimately converts to commissions for me) and that means that my site has some value to the users in general.
Daily, about 200 of my 2000 or so visitors find what they need (which ultimately converts to commissions for me) and that means that my site has some value to the users in general.
The problem, IMHO, is when shopping sites clutter up categories where users are looking for general information. If a user searches on "Elbonia travel" and finds eight hotel affiliate sites in the top 10 listings, Google's search quality isn't up to snuff.
If, on the other hand, the user is searching on "Elbonia hotel directories" (or maybe even "Elbonia hotels"), the accommodation sites may be welcome--as long as they aren't all offering the same boilerplate text and photos, as too many hotel affiliate sites do.
If, on the other hand, the user is searching on "Elbonia hotel directories" (or maybe even "Elbonia hotels"), the accommodation sites may be welcome--as long as they aren't all offering the same boilerplate text and photos, as too many hotel affiliate sites do.
This is the big problem is it not?
A site I run whilst containing lots of unique content, also links through to a booking engine provided by a big uk player.
The concern for detractors must be that if a 1000 other sites are doing the same, then the relative unique value of this begins to become a little questionable. In theory my sites serp positions should diminish as a result,as many of the booking engines descriptions and photos are integrated within our site, they are no doubt also to be found elsewhere, thus the overall uniqueness of the site has potentially been diminished.
Ive looked at ways of addressing this by changing the text of certain words prior to db insertion, resizing photos etc thus making it that little bit more unique than it would otherwise be.
Prior to using their content, I just wasnt making any money worth thinking about, the training costs and admin costs of setting up our own alternative were simply not a viable option. Hoteliers are in my view spoilt rotten.So many websites offer free inclusion for silly money that unles you have massive volume it is simply not worth the bother.
The site I run has local info, weather, travel information etc so i guess that Im covered on the added value front, or at least have made the effort!
So, in view of this particular scenario, there are those who'd perhaps argue that the primary website to who I send traffic has a relevancy problem and needs to be optimised.
After all it has all the relevant content, Its perfectly positioned to provide what searchers need , yet the SE is either incapable, powerless or unwilling to really do anything about it. (Dont you just love seo :) )
Whilst google prides itself on relevancy, its somewhat of a paradox to consider that many websites, driving content to the bigger players are more relevant than those who provide the goods.
