Forum Moderators: open
My problem is, in the top 25 or so search results are four sites that are just affiliate doorways to another site. The doorways get a piece of any customers they drive to the main site. Now if all these doorways were the same, it would be clear abuse. On the other hand, if they were all independent operators trying to make affiliate bucks, then I guess I'd have to live with their non-similar, no-content competition.
The thing is, they all appear to be registered to the same company (though it isn't obvious), and that company also appears to be the affiliate parent itself (though again it isn't plainly obvious).
It makes my head hurt. The content of the sites is unique, although completely interchangeable. They are simply differently worded doorways to the parent.
So I'm looking for some guidance on what is allowed and not allowed when it comes to affiliate doorway sites. Any info or links would be appreciated.
If they've got content, it's not obnoxious like a one page site that says nothing more than "enter" that comes up under a specific product and leads to one of hundreds of those identical "directory" pages for the same stuff over and over.
4 out of 25 isn't much, they're really not much of a competitive threat compared to others that have 3 or more out of the top ten. Even then, they're not really breaking the rules unless they're using techniques that Google frowns on.
<p><a href="www.affiliatemaster.com/prod=WidgetsGreatestHits/aff=me">Buy The Widget's Greatest Hits from AffiliateMaster.com</a></p>
<p><a href="www.mysite.com">Visit My Home Page</a></p>
I don't think it'd be considered spam were it to show in search engines. As promised, you can buy the product described and, you can get to my homepage. Nothing evil, nor sinister there. It's just a drag that a dude driving a Gremlin is beating your Mustang in the quarter mile.
G.
Keep in mind that most wholesale spammers consider the "google boot" just a part of doing business.
Just make sure to carefully study what brought them to the front page in the first place.
I take my work as an affiliate very seriously. I strive to provide informative, useful, insightful information as would any good sales person. Often the merchant's information is so diluted that I'm able to elaborate and provide the searcher a better experience in my opinion.
I hope there isn't an assumption on Google's part that all pages with affiliate links "clog up the search". I suggest there's a stereotype about affiliates that frequently will not stand up to analysis.
If my affiliate information (with no gimmicks) happens to gain a #1 rank for a keyword combo on a search engine, and the merchant has no presense among the higher rankings, I would think the merchant would be grateful for the traffic and the searcher grateful to have found what they sought.
Affiliates can and do add value. Please be careful.
The users decide where they feel comfortable spending their money.
I must also commend Google because thus far it seems they have been pretty fair in the spam police game. In other words they do remove stupid stuff but let the users decide on the majority of it. In reality, it's all spam.
There is one other thing I believe to be true. The people who whine about "spam" are the ones who dont make any money. They really dont give a hoot about Google or spam, they just need somebody to blame because their sites don't produce.
It makes more sense to me to use the toolbar (which effectively levels the playing field and removes the "advantage") and backtrack some of the people who consistently rank higher than you than to get the spotlight turned on the whole serp. Who knows...maybe Google thinks your site is "spam".
The people who whine about "spam" are the ones who dont make any money. They really dont give a hoot about Google or spam, they just need somebody to blame because their sites don't produce.
I couldn't agree more. I run an affiliate site that many people here might call spam, but I also provide good content on the topic and people who find my site seem to be satisfied (I give them exactly what they come looking for). I really dislike the whole attitude of, if a site makes money then it's just spam. My "spam" site has far better content than many non-profit sites in the same field.
I also think the word "spam" is unfair in general... it's not like I'm forcing unsolicited content upon people like with mass e-mails or something.
Maybe, I could help myself and all you guys out there who are finding so much abuse and are so eager to report it.
I think I could pretty easily put together a little robot that could submit an abuse report for everybody above my listing for each keyword search I am interested in. I can offer it to anybody on this forum who finds all this abuse reporting tedious.
Anybody interested? :)
I'm sure the professional spammers are already using that tool.
In the situation I mentioned there are four sites with essentially the same content pointing at the same parent. The four sites are all (98% likely) owned by the same person, and that person is (95% likely) the parent. Why should one actual site appear in five spots in the top 25 search results? If that is okay why shouldn't I go and make four copies of my site and now get all those in the top 25 too?
One reason Google is so great is because it throws most of this worthless garbage out that the public doesn't want. The public only needs one listing for one site. Search results would be meaningless if every site was duplicated 100 times (with different layouts and colors). The #1 listing would now be #1 through #99. Not good.
Google is about showing good content. People who have no content hate that and try to sleaze their way around it. The public has spoken though. They love Google because it does a much better job than anybody else in eliminating worthless, duplicate (and triplicate and...) listings.
I just checked out the top 50 search results for the keyword in question, and eleven are obviously from the same source (same registrar, same date registered, same ISP). In a topic with 3.4 million responses, to have 11 of the top 50 be doorways to the same site is not good.
I don't report others. It is a zero sum game. It is an ugly practice and everybody in the SEO industry is harmed by it.
"Reporting abuse" is just another sleazy competitive tool. Good point, john316 when you say: "the professional spammers are already using that tool." You may think you gain short term competitive advantage by joining in the fun of reporting your competitors. But, when they report back on you, and they will, we all lose. It may not be the case now (I don't know), but it will be so soon - the most frequent aggressive reporters will be the worst spammers just using it as a competitive tool.
Google is doing a good job of developing algorithms that penalize blatant spam. That is their job and they are doing it well. They can find it as easily as you - they don't need your help. Its not like it is difficult to find... You are not helping reduce spam by reporting it. At least be honest about your motivations: You are self-servingly trying to eliminate your competition. It is hypocritical to try to wrap that behavior in some kind of altruistic cloth. You are contributing to an ugly and unhealthy environment in the industry.
Steveb, please don't make the generalization that affiliate pages are spam. They are an important segment of many companies online marketing and they serve to connect interested surfers with those companies. The merchants design their web sites to make the sale. The affiliate partners design their web pages to attract relevant visitors.
Professional affiliates do everything they can not to be spammers. They know spam generates a spasm in a potential buyer's index finger over the back button in a hurry. They know it irks the lower rankers who will report them to the search engines hoping to to get their pages booted. A professional affiliate will rise above the spammers by offering just the right content to pre-sale a visitor while getting good, but not top, serp listings. A professional affiliate will let the spammers and spam vigilantes fight and cut each other's throats for the "coveted" number one position. A professional affiliate will measure their success not in traffic numbers but in sales conversion ratios.
Uh, well please don't say I did. LOL. I never said any such thing.
The reason I discovered all these sites owned by the same owner is (they rank below me in results)that I'm looking for good link partners, like a good googleboy. None of these eleven sites have any links out except to the parent (and each other). They are poisoning the well.
Yes, Google are doing a good job, but to suggest that helping them out or aiming them at some new twist is solely self-serving is just wrong. Yes, I have a site to promote, and yes, it's galling when other sites are ahead of it through blanket-bombing of look-alike mini-domains, but if Google ask for help in improving Serps, why on earth shouldn't we help them - and web users in general - by doing just that?
How on earth is sending a heads-up to some new cr*p, quote "contributing to an ugly and unhealthy environment in the industry."? As my kids would say, you started it.
Time and time again Google have told us that such reports are for algo-tweaking and long-term improvement of the Serps, not for knee-jerk banishment of sites. I am baffled as to why a lucid, well meaning and polite request for clarification has elicited a response that amounts to shut up and put up. We can't say 'leave it all to Google' and then express concern that Google are becoming too omnipotent in the same breath.
["Reporting abuse" is just another sleazy competitive tool], say you. Nonsense, say I.
Regards, Mat
What mayor says. Spam is just bad business
I agree whole heartedly to this sentiment. But in this case if the owner is providing good content what is wrong with that. Just because he has the resources to "advertise" a little more does not make him a bad man, that is just the way of the world.
Do smaller companies have the right to complain during a huge ad campaign by a large multinational. I would say not. If the smaller Co could get afford the same coverage I am sure they would without a shadow of a doubt.
