Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Many of those directories/linksites with adsense are also sites that hurt many other real sites with redirectings and hijacking - I dont get it, I thought Google hat to aprove every publisher or dont they care anymore.
Many of you may also have seen all those linksites
I realy getting sick off all those directories or link sites on Google and Yahoo, which get there profits from adwords - the sites just includ links and nothing else all over the site.
Isn't Google a "collection of links" and "ads"?
What about people who don't want to see any type of "ad" on any type of site? Why do some webmasters' think Google is obligated to include their site in their seach results when they "think" their site is somehow superior in "content" than others?
I'm glad you used the word "content". My site has some.
No it isn't. It's a massive collection of data, frequently updated on a gigantic scale, which uses a constantly tweaked algorithm to attempt to serve people with the most relevant results for their searches. It will stop listing me if I so desire, it obeys robots.txt, and it does all kinds of other polite things.
Comparing Google to scraper scum is hilarious.
user is made to think that the ads are actually listings in the directory. How does this benefit the advertiser? Not at all. Of course, if it doesn't benefit the advertiser, eventually it hurts publishers.
If the ads are relevant to the listings, meaning that if the searcher is searching for blue widget books, and the listings in the "directory" category are for blue widget books, and the adsense ads right above the listings are for blue widget books, it benefits the advertiser greatly. They get targeted leads, which is exactly what adwords is for.
I'm not talking about scraper sites, but actual content/niche directories (where the webmaster has to manually add their site to be included).
If the ads are relevant to the listings, meaning that if the searcher is searching for blue widget books, and the listings in the "directory" category are for blue widget books, and the adsense ads right above the listings are for blue widget books, it benefits the advertiser greatly. They get targeted leads, which is exactly what adwords is for.
That's true only if the searcher wants to buy blue widget books. If the searcher is looking for reviews or information about blue widget books, ads that are disguised as directory listings (as they're all too likely to be on "made for AdSense" sites) are just a worthless and fraudulent drain on the advertisers' accounts.
Comparing Google to scraper scum is hilarious
I realy getting sick off all those directories or link sites on Google and Yahoo
That's true only if the searcher wants to buy blue widget books. If the searcher is looking for reviews or information about blue widget books, ads that are disguised as directory listings (as they're all too likely to be on "made for AdSense" sites) are just a worthless and fraudulent drain on the advertisers' accounts.
Yes, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of a commercial directory for widget sellers.
At the same time though, if the searcher is looking for reviews and they see adsense ads above the listings, it says "Ads By Google" which classifies it as an ad. Also, the wording of the actual adwords advertiser seems like it would lead the searcher to understand that that link contained information on buying widgets rather than a widget review.
Wouldn't the searcher only click the link that was relevant to what they are looking for (whether it be paid or a regular listing).
I also think the line is being blurred between a regular directory (where webmasters manually submit their sites, like Yahoo or Dmoz on a smaller scale) and a made-for-adsense scraper site where webmasters have no control over what is shown on the site.
When you get right down to it, that is all it really is, albeit with a powerful algorithm, brilliant employees, and other products.
ownerrim said:
"directories that blend adsense panels with listed sites to the extent that the user is made to think that the ads are actually listings in the directory."
Bottom line this is against the TOS. If a directory isn't doing this how can we fault them?
Macro said:
"No it isn't. It's a massive collection of data, frequently updated on a gigantic scale, which uses a constantly tweaked algorithm to attempt to serve people with the most relevant results for their searches. It will stop listing me if I so desire, it obeys robots.txt, and it does all kinds of other polite things.
Comparing Google to scraper scum is hilarious."
Great definition. I think both Akogo and you are correct. Upfront it is a "collection of links" and "ads". Behind the scenes it is what you said. I re-read his post several times and can't find that he compared Google to scraper scum. If you would kindly pull out the sentence that refers to this, that would be great.
In any event, to all, I'm still confused about what constitutes a site that is pi**ing off so many people. Google's dmoz clone is in the results. Yahoo's directory is in the results. Dmoz is in the results. And yes there are a few dmoz clones in the results. To be honest, quite a few of the dmoz clones have done the original one better, i.e. faster loads, easier on the eyes, etc. So are some of these sites the culprits? If so why? If not, how about a reference link where we can see some of these sites?
In any event, I personally like seeing directories in the results. I would love to see more expert bookmarks in the results, i.e. John Hopkins Public Health doctor lists his Public Health bookmarks, etc.
Perhaps a "no directories" button, much like an "adult content off" button would make people happy?
Perhaps a "no directories" button, much like an "adult content off" button would make people happy?
A "no commercial results" button would be even better, but that's a topic for the Google News forum. :-)
Can't hope having only valid site/value
add sites on the Internet.
Need also, some lower value sites, as your
point of view.
Some small directory are well maintain and
worth every minutes we spend on it.
Adsense can be a good reward for that kind
of directory.
If you remove all directory sites from the
Internet, you will cut the size of the
Internet by 50% or more.
Nobody's talking about removing directory sites from the Internet; the issue being discussed here is whether "made for AdSense" directory sites--and especially "scraper" sites--are having a negative impact on AdSense, advertisers, and users. I don't think there's any question that they are, and I also think that Google needs to be careful about letting machine-generated directory pages and DMOZ clone pages clutter up its index.
Most people who are searching for information don't want to be sent from a SERP to a directory page and possibly onto another directory page from there. That's like going to the library to ask for a book and being sent to another library. It doesn't make for a good user experience.
Also, why should Google split AdSense earnings with directory and scraper sites that offer little or no original information but merely drain users and revenues from Google's SERPs? It makes no sense at all for Google to hand traffic over to buddy-scumbags-scraper-directory.com when Buddy is competing with Google.
What does "no commercial results" mean? Other than a blog or pure hobby site I can't think of anything non-commercial. If you make a dime off your site it's commercial.
Here at Webmaster World, "commercial" is normally a synonym for "e-commerce or affiliate." To understand why, see your dictionary's primary definition of "commerce" or "commercial."
Bestbuy.com would be viewed as a commercial site; NYTimes.com wouldn't be. If you prefer to define "commercial" in another way, then feel free to mentally edit my earlier post, substituting "e-commerce or affiliate results" for "commercial results."
If the ads are relevant to the listings, meaning that if the searcher is searching for blue widget books, and the listings in the "directory" category are for blue widget books, and the adsense ads right above the listings are for blue widget books, it benefits the advertiser greatly. They get targeted leads, which is exactly what adwords is for.
Agree. Makes me wonder if adwords advertisers like having their ads on specific-topic content sites (assuming that ads on content sites are cheaper -- are they?).
I'm not talking about scraper sites, but actual content/niche directories (where the webmaster has to manually add their site to be included).
I think scraper sites are OK for advertisers, too and I've read more than one advertiser here on WW say that they're fine with them.
Every site has either advertisments, is for-profit, or is a place of intellectual exchange or social interaction which are all definitions of commerce or commercial.
Either way, NYTimes has banners and affiliate links all over their site which, by your own definition, would be a commercial site. How can the NYT site not be commercial but an average affiliate site can be? The entire internet is commerce. You can't even begin to surf or create a website without going through commercial channels to get there.
My point in bringing this up is you initially said a "no commecial results button" would be great, but my question would be who decides which sites make that cut? If you just auto-scanned sites for banners, ads, and aff links, then I'd say the only thing left would be blogs and hobby sites. I would be one upset e-commerce owner if that button didn't allow my site but allowed NYT.com through.
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here with an exercise in futility. :)
com·merce
1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations.
2. Intellectual exchange or social interaction.
3. Sexual intercourse.
-----------------------------------------------------
com·mer·cial
1.
a.Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
b.Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
c.Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
I think scraper sites are OK for advertisers, too and I've read more than one advertiser here on WW say that they're fine with them.
HughMungus, the fact that advertisers disagree so strongly on the value of scraper sites and other "index filler" just supports what some of us have been saying all along: that advertisers need more control over where their ads appear, whether via include/exclude filters or--more conveniently--with a tiered program that would let advertisers choose between the current potluck approach and a subset of hand-vetted sites.
If you remove all directory sites from the
Internet, you will cut the size of the
Internet by 50% or more.
Actually, much more. My company did a test project recently to test if a search engine that listed only non-affiliate-advertising pages was feasable. This is pretty simple to accomplish, by making the web crawler look for adsense/cj/amazon/searchfeed/etc. links in the HTML before allowing the URL to be added to the index.
What we found is that less than 5% of the pages we crawled would be allowed into the listings. We still may proceed with the project, but the test showed that nearly all of the most popular sites on the Internet were making money through affiliate advertising and could not be automatically deemed of lessor value just because of the presence of those ads. This may be obvious to most people, but we just wanted to prove/disprove it.
Interestingly, the majority of web sites that got added to our index were mom-and-pop business (commercial) type web pages, not blogs or hobby sites.
dataguy, you're confusing "legitimate", content sites with the scraper scum that's the subject of the discussion.
Actually I'm trying to show that the distinction isn't quite as clear as what some might make it out to be.
In the affiliate marketing realm there appears to be tolerance for BHO, cookie stuffing, hijacking, etc.
Why? Money.
In the contextual advertising realm there appears to be tolerance for scraper scum, etc. Why?
I'm afraid the answer is the same: The publishers who are complaining aren't likely to quit the program and those who are advertising aren't complaining in large enough numbers to outweigh the profit to be had.
Like EFV and others soberly observe: The crux of the problem for publishers is that IF the AdSense ROI for advertisers is dragged down by the low quality publishers then, implicitly, that drags down the number of advertisers and the amount they are willing to pay - which in turn hurts all publishers.
Publisher fear: Factor weighing in decision making algo: For driving revenue of X$ quality of content < or = sheer volume of ads served.
Contextual Adsupplier's fear: If their program drives down the ROI for publishers then other companies will enter the market to cherry pick the better publishers and offer them better deals on better targeted, better converting contextual advertising.
The business of advertising is competitive market in which all manner of weakness in any given program will be exploited by a competitor. There is at least the appearance of a weakness in AdSense with its appearance on minimalist sites, which are not far removed from straight PPC domain parking sites such as DomainSponsor, Fabulous, Sedo, etc. Maybe all AdSense needs to do is to draw this distinction by creating a few more tiers with related/defined programs.
<Edit: Replaced one fluffy final sentence with a fluffy paragraph. ;0)>
[edited by: Webwork at 4:36 pm (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]
>>distinction isn't quite as clear
Dataguy, the distinction between the scraper sites and the rest of the world is very clear. The problem with your project was that you started off by assuming that any site with an affiliate ad is the same as a scraper site. That was the premise of your test, not the conclusion.
Actually I'm trying to show that the distinction isn't quite as clear as what some might make it out to be.
True, and that's why algorithms were invented. :-)
Google is certainly capable of developing an algorithm that takes many different factors into account before determining whether a page is an affiliate page, an e-commerce page, or none of the above. At the most basic level, such factors would obviously include the presence (or lack) of an affiliate or shopping-cart link, but other factors could come into play, too: e.g., certain layout characteristics, the presence of certain words or phrases, and the overall theme or characteristics of the site.
And remember, Google doesn't have to determine with absolute certainty whether a page is an "affiliate," "e-commerce," or "information" page. If, for example, Google Search offered buttons that allowed users to choose between "information" and "commercial" results, the algorithm wouldn't need to act like a binary filter--it could simply weight the results more heavily in favor of the page type that the user had selected.
A "no directories" option could work in the same way: not by filtering out directory pages entirely, but by giving them less weight in the search results.
Obviously, Google doesn't want to make the search process any more complicated than necessary, but it wouldn't have to make users click radio buttons or whatever on every search: Users could continue to accept the current potluck search results by not clicking the radio buttons, or--better yet--they could use "options" or "my preferences" settings to establish their personal defaults.
Bestbuy.com would be viewed as a commercial site; NYTimes.com wouldn't be.
You must be visiting a different NYTimes site than I have. The one I've seen is extremely commercial and has as its primary goal making money.
My dictionary defines "commercial" as "[s]ponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising." Your site, EFV, is commercial. It's okay EFV -- "commercial" is NOT an evil word, at least in the U.S.
I think the distinction is more between valuable (additive to the user experience) and not valuable. Valuable sites, like EFV's site, add to a user experience. Sites that lack value do not, but ONLY earn profits for their owners.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, a directory that is the same as many others (including DMOZ clones) or that comes from scraped content does not add value, but a unique and targeted directory can add tremendous value. On the rare occasions when I find a good directory related to a search I'm conducting I find it to be the most valuable resource that I could possibly have.
MQ
