Forum Moderators: martinibuster
These people are hurting honest publishers in:
- Taking away visitors for pennies
- Paying pennies where you could make more
- Reducing our CTR and income
- Affecting visitors' trust in your sites
- Wasting everyone's time (visitors and publishers)
You can argue that Google provided the means to block those, but its like G opening the window and arming you with a tiny fly swatter, given the sheer number of pages you can have on your site and multiply that with the number of countries available for Geo Targeting, the task is almost impossible.
You can argue that they do generate some income, but 3 to 10 cents a click is about the maximum they can give, and if you think your content and time is not worth more than that, think again.
These people will target your site, and use every trick in the TOS to lower their pay, while honest retailers whose ads are 100 times more relevant to your content are being shouldered out!
The point for this long post is to ask:
- Why in the world is Google not finding them fast
- Why is Google allowing them in the first place
Their pattern is very easy to identify, the media partners bot does scan their pages right?
- What happens when you click the "Ads by Goooogle" link and report them?
- How come they are making money in the first place, if they are "exploiting a market inefficiency" as some here put it, why isn't big G analyzing those inefficiencies and sending more money our way and theirs?
- What is stopping Google from giving us an opt out option for ads that lead into pages containing AdSense?
- Does Google really stand to make more money if they seriously combat MFA?
Want to hear your views on this.
that would be
NMFA - Not made for adsense.
That certain people have learned how to work the system with probably small margins but are turning a profit what is the issue? Am I niave enough to believe others in this forum are not using adwords to draw visitors to their sites in hope of generating revenue? So I suppose all of those are MFA's also?
I do not believe it is our right as webmasters to be "morally" critical of others. Each has their own approach for making a living.
I too detest the number of these sites that are popping up in the search. That is google's issue not mine though. I hate the fact that someone was smarter than me in seeing the potential in the system to make money. That's my fault and goals that drive me as a webmaster. Would I generate this type of site....nope. That said I probably wouldn't do many types of sites....but others will. Until google decides that they are not within their business plans then they survive. Like I said originally though pretty hard for google to defend that position:)
Guess what I am learning is that google is nothing more than a scraper site with ads on it. Have heard it referred to as this before...but now we will call it the original MFA site:)
Nope, Google isn't a scraper site, even if the self-justifying scrapers like to claim otherwise.
Google isn't a Made for AdSense (or even a Made for AdWords) site, either, because it existed before AdWords or AdSense came along.
However google is a directory site with ads....many MFA's that are referred to here are directory sites with ads....please...explain the difference? Point is same business model...just difference of scale?
However google is a directory site with ads....many MFA's that are referred to here are directory sites with ads....please...explain the difference? Point is same business model...just difference of scale?
The most obvious difference is that Google adds value for both the user and the site owner. If you don't believe that, visit the Google Search News forum. You'll find plenty of complaints by Webmasters who hate it when Google ignores their pages, but you're unlikely to find any complaints from Webmasters who are being ignored by made-for-AdSense scraper sites. (On the contrary--most site owners wish that the #*$!ing scrapers would leave them alone.)
It is a matter of scale not approach. Have to think what is good for the goose is good for the gander here? Have to admit google's business model has been successful...they haven't managed to patent directories yet have they?
Like I said...personaly don't like all these in the serps..just means I find google currently a crap directory site with ads. Now where have I heard that before....does this describe the sites that have been so heavily critisized here? Just a different perspective is all:)
The point here is that scrappers sites add as much value to the web as google does....they both list snippets and serve ads. The information may be more current....may be percieved of higher value...but both the same business model. Give back links to other sites...with matching money making ads. Not critisizing google here...just trying to open up some discussion on what we are really critical of. Its an approach...apparently very profitable approach to web prescence. So it works...just following how big brother approached it. Smaller scale...no doubt...but basically same approach without all the overhead of maintaining a spider. Business model gets better and better.
Scrapers are making it much less efficient for web users. I want my info in one click, not 2 or 3 or 4.
Create your own spider and do it yourself if you want to compete with Google.
I hope to see Google destroy all profit motivation surrounding scrapers and directories that add no additional value over search engines.
If you have a directory that contains your personal opinions regarding a website and you have expertise in that area, I'd give that a thumbs up.
It's not right to copy Google's SERPS to move visitors to your website from the rightful website.
Google will either ban all MFA ads one day or will smartprice them into oblivion. I think people will prefer first to happen, but if you remove money stimulus by not making it worthwhile to play MFA game, that would be the end of it.
exactly. look at the serps, googles algo identifies pages as less valuable. instead of sweeping them out of the index, they push them to the very end of the search results. many of these sites could conventionally be called "scrapers".
which reasons could induce google not to kill them completely out of the index?
- for one banned scraper today, 20 new scrapers popping up tomorrow. apparently it's a lost battle, absolutely useless to combat. unlike as stated in this thread, there may and will be not only 100 but hundreds of thousands of people around the world involved in building scrapers.
- there is no 100% adaptable clean definition of scraper. the world is grey (sometimes). so instead of worrying what site could be exactly called a scraper and which not, google simply pushes those as per current algo considered to be least valuable to the bottom.
same pattern applies to mfas:
instead of fighting a losing battle banning mfa sites, smart pricing reduces the monetary incentive and takes the biggest piece of the click revenue.
once again: as matters stand, smart pricing is absolutely necessary to fight mfas and retain the reputation of adsense. serious publishers should be thankful.
not that i want to back it up, but i see a coherence in their "don't ban them, freeze them out" policy.
as for our ad spots: mfas should normally kick themselves out after a certain time, because of poor profit margin. to my mind, this process could go ahead a lot faster. at last, these are ad spots and not serps.
When will they do away with smart pricing, it is hurting publishers.
geez, no comment
The point here is that scrappers sites add as much value to the web as google does....
geez, no comment
Google could take care of it in two seconds. They aren't and I believe it's on purpose.
I'd like to see manual ejection of sites we report, but that doesn't seem to be happening either!
Jagger seems to have helped shuffle the serps up a bit, but that doesn't resolve the problem that a lot of the good scammers don't rely on search engine placement, but game adwords to get good placement on search pages! EG the MFA's I've blocked appear on the search pages.
I guess in reality that there isn't a lot we can do about that. As the sites I refer to are no content sites, and only have adlinks on them I'd suggest that they are gaming adwords as well as adsense. Google has some major problems on it's hands.
I think Google could reslove these problems by having algorthms that detect MFA's. These could be used by publishers to block MFA's, advertisers to make sure their ads don't appear on them and could be an option for people using search pages too so that MFA's wouldn't appear alongside search results. That would be a REAL use for an algorythm. Also, if it were to be an option, then nobody (apart from scammers) could complain.
However, as pointed out in many threads (including this one) Google are not even trying to remove MFA's.
I think Google could reslove these problems by having algorthms that detect MFA's. These could be used by publishers to block MFA's, advertisers to make sure their ads don't appear on them and could be an option for people using search pages too so that MFA's wouldn't appear alongside search results. That would be a REAL use for an algorythm.
You lost me on that one.
Simply that there must be patterns of MFA's that are detectable. IE over-use of ad blocks and no content, sites that use specific software for scraping text, sites that have unique features of auto-generator programs and so on.
Detect the patterns, and offer the advertisers / publishers the option to exclude sites that their algorythm has detected as being mfa / of little or no content.
Any clearer?
Logic applies here...proliferation of these types of sites suggest it is profitable.
Can't be bottom of the barrsl ad prices or doesn't pay to create them and buy traffic.
Machine-generated scraper sites, "user review" sites, etc. cost very little to create, so they can be profitable even with low earnings per click.
It's like running a supermarket: Just because margins are low doesn't mean you can't earn a profit.
