Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The problem that I see is that these people are running adsense on these pages. I know that some of these sites are very possibly being built by other members here, but I just want to throw in my $0.02 and say that this is being a freeloader, and Google should discourage this practice.
For crying out loud, one page only had one link {mine} and about 70 words extracted from my article.
To make matters worse wathever script they are running creates the subdirectories to fully SEO their pages as in:
Disposable-domain.com/keyword/keyword/crappy-page-with-“borrowed”-content.html
This might make me some enemies, but really…. Isn’t this just a little evil?
I appreciate the links, I probably got a couple of dozen already, but I am willing to live without the couple of hundred referrals.
Besides the robots.txt file for the engines, there should almost be a no scraping tag to let Google and the others know that you don't want your content stolen:
<noscraping>
No need for that. Stealing copyrighted content is illegal by default.
However it would be worth reporting any sites doing this on a large scale to Google as a search quality issue, and also to AdSense because AFAIK they do not allow AdSense ads to be displayed on external search results (internal, yes with permission; external, no).
Stealing descriptive text from sites and putting those site's names into the links when they're not going to those sites at all. The links are going through affiliate PPC links so that those sites are PAYING per click that's generated by someone else stealing their text that is supposed to be protected under copyright law.
Not only that, but some of those sites have a ton of additional pages with links (some called "site maps") - and if someone happens to click on the wrong link they'll pick up a driveby download of scumware without even knowing it. Then, hijacked pages on their computer are run through pages with the affiliate codes on them.
Double bonus some are getting for stealing content. Nice, huh?
Affiliate members have always used ths type of content to boost their sites. Who can really remember the last time that they did a search and didn't fin the first page flooded with them? I honestly cannot.
As was said earlier, the Ads on the sites in AdSense--at this point--are often helpful. It just seems like the necessary evil these days to find what you are looking for.
Also, I have to say that the argument that these types of sites are "worse" than engines because they are a "middle-man" between you and a user is totally bogus. If that were true, wouldn't any commercial site that displays AdSense fall in this category?
This program is the best thing to happen to publishers in a long time and the thought that it could be threatened by such moronic tactics should scare everyone.
BTW, just curious, but for the AdWords people, have you tried banning the URLs that you are seeing from displaying your ads?
but you probably can't do anything against them as long as they only copy parts from your website and give them as examples
But it's difficult to (ban them) with an algorithm, and that's probably why they are still in the index
Bluepixel, I beg to differ with all your "defences" for these scum. What they copy is beyond "fair use". That they proceed to monetise that content is something a good IP lawyer will have a field day with. So, I'm sorry, I don't share your shrug of resignation. Also, it's not difficult to ban them with an algo. My spam software is so clever - it keeps learning as it goes along. Now it's become so good it's better at spotting spam than I am. And this is freeware software! I don't believe that all those PhDs in the plex are collectively unable to come up with a sewer filter that picks out sites specialising in thousands of keyword1-keyword2-keyword3.htm pages which have zero content except for "snippets" that the Search Engine knows already exist on other sites.
No need for that. Stealing copyrighted content is illegal by default.
Seriously, wouldn't it be helpful if there was some way to detect it automatically without penalizing sites that have a legitimate reason to use duplicate content?
But IMO the use is not so great that copyright protection would come into play.
Maybe not if it came down to a court case, but my main client's been able to get copied text removed by sending a letter from a lawyer.
I've seen several cases of our sites being copied onto the type of sites loanuniverse describes in recent months. It's just one more reason to hate AdSense, and one more reason I will continue to work against AdSense.
1)Do you think that what these people are doing is wrong?And
2) Would you report them if you were in my situation?
1) Personally, I live in a glass house, so...
2) That depends on the ROI. If possible, I would see if the traffic is converting. If it's helping you, leave it alone. If it's hurting you, report 'em.
MQ
Also, as I said earlier, AdSense does not allow its ads to be shown on external search results pages to the best of my knowledge. So bring the specific site(s) to AdSense's attention and let us know what they say.
loanuniverse, if your content is being copied and you think they are violating copyright law, why not invoke the DMCA and send a few emails to the host?
Interesting how affiliates' use of duplicate content makes it hard to filter out duplicate content. You can't have it both ways, I guess.
loanuniverse, if your content is being copied and you think they are violating copyright law, why not invoke the DMCA and send a few emails to the host?
That's not practical in this case. You'd have to spend a long time on his site accumulating all the little snippets of titles, tags and descriptions he's stolen. Even then the hosts may not see it as a copyright vioation in which case you have to be prepared to back up your email with a court summons. And you'd have to do it for every site using these sewer tactics. And if they are based in Outer Mongolia then good luck with your court case.
The easier route is to complain to Google about the pages in SERPS and complain to the Adsense team about the type of sites they've got in the program. Google doesn't hand edit sites but they could tweak the algo and Adsense can chuck this lot out if they get enough complaints from advertisers.
The easier route is to complain to Google about the pages in SERPS and complain to the Adsense team about the type of sites they've got in the program. Google doesn't hand edit sites but they could tweak the algo and Adsense can chuck this lot out if they get enough complaints from advertisers.
What he said..
Also take into consideration that I am approaching this from an Adsense angle, not so much from a SERPS/Copyright angle. I believe that Adsense {if it decides that those are not the sites it wants in its network} will manually edit them out.
As of right now, I have not decided if I am going to complain formally, but this might change by the end of June.
Now that sounds exactly like the problem many have noted about fair use and it's interpretation, and the risks associated with hand-editing SERPs.
It sounds as if this is not a clear case of copying, but may be a case of a "look and feel" kind of mimicry, and may be a grey area for fair use or copyright.
IMHO it should not be "easier" to get Google to intervene than to pursue it lawfully.
Oh, by the way,doesn't Google use your content to make money from Adsense?
Bluepixel, I beg to differ with all your "defences" for these scum. What they copy is beyond "fair use". That they proceed to monetise that content is something a good IP lawyer will have a field day with.
Sure, that's why they are "lining up" to take these cases. LOL
It's funny, really. Many of you have stated that a. you don't like these sites, so b.they are not useful. Interesting conclusion. Therefore, a.I don't like cats, so b.sites about cats are not useful. What's that Google address, I need to get busy?
Lesson of the day: One man's trash is another man's treasure, or, for you "simple folk", not everyone thinks like you do or likes the same things you do.
The core of the discussion is not whether or not some of us like the sites or if we find them useful. The point brought up is that many people do not like the idea of having a direct competitor use your content to go after the same advertising dollar. I think is a matter of principles.
Sheesh, it never ceases to amaze me how clueless some people are. If the TE gods are listening, please, PLEASE make every TE created page use my content to link to me. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!I am sure than when you create good content you will find people doing that very same thing, so it is just a matter of time, and of course having something worth linking to.
It reminds me of that old saying “a conservative is someone who has something to conserve”
p.s.: this post is so uncharacteristic of me… it kind of surprises me.
I'm glad you find it funny. I'm also glad you earn $100 a month off off these sites. Some of us who earn tens of thousands of dollars from quality content on our sites would rather one of our pages occupied the place in the SERPS that these scum pages occupy. That's enlighted. And it helps visitors get to the final destination via a quicker route/less clicks.
>> Spending hours on end begging for recipricol links is much better
I suggest you stop begging. Develop quality content and the links will come automatically. And I mean "proper" links. If having quality content and getting large volumes of traffic directly from SEs is being "clueless" then I'm guilty. As is loanuniverse. And, I believe, that we are in good company here on Webmasterworld.
I may have missed something in the news lately. When did content about cats become as illegal as copyright violations? Please make sense - it does help.
this post is so uncharacteristic of me… it kind of surprises me.
It's as irritating as hell to the webmaster that put all the time and effort into creating something in the first place. Thankfully, eventually, due to WW's size, the people usually end up here and realise it's the best place to get WW content.
For a smaller site it can be a real killer.
It's happened to me plenty of times with foreign sites stealing my stuff and translating word for word. That's even harder to follow up on.
TJ
Thanks in advance,
donstar
[google.com...]
The DCMA reporting procedure is cumbersome, but it does require Google to take action.
TJ
