Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Almost none of these sites offers any user-value and few have any chance whatsoever of surfacing in serps based on pagerank, anchortext, or any other seo variable. Which leads me to suspect that the majority of clicks being generated by these sites are suspect at the very least.
It astounds me that google continues to let this crap go on. Who suffers? Presently advertisers and publishers (advertisers lowering bids due to smaller ROI). But, at some point, how can this not affect google? This is a branding problem that yahoo/overture are not indulging in themselves.
The solution, to some extent at least, would be to manually review all sites. Makes me wonder if the google posting on craigslist for a quality reviewer had something to do with this.
I know of some AdWords advertisers not too happy to see their ads coming up on these sites. This is not good for Google, the advertisers nor indeed the user.
Are you sure about that? I think users who rely on google may be more astute than that. Think about it. A user who performs regular searches on google and KEEPS SEEING these bogus-type sites (and how could you not see them)will probably conclude at some point that:
1. these pages do NOT exist for the purpose of delivering information, but rather for the purpose of delivering adsense blocks.
2. these pages (particularly the ones that list non-working links) are annoying because they waste search time.
This is the kind of thing that gradually begins to dissipate that warm, fuzzy feeling people have about google. It's the kind of thing also that AT SOME POINT makes people begin to not TRUST google's search results.
In other words, the more these "things" appear in the serps...well, it really won't matter at some point how good the google search algorithmn is in all other respects. Google will have begun to lose its chief asset: the faith held by the user that the search results are genuine and unbiased (kind of hard for a user not to feel that way when scrapers appear everywhere with "ads by google" emblazoned all over them)
What they should probably do at this point is require a handreview each time a publisher adds a site. Maybe this might mean that each publisher's site would be assigned a unique ID and adcode would be generated for use on that specific url only. I have no idea if this is technically arduous. Perhaps the only other solution would be to get a lot more warm bodies in there.
Also, it's often mentioned that adsense should begin to distinguish the better sites from the lower-quality sites (a vetting) for the purpose of allowing advertisers to bid as they see fit from the perspective of anticipated ROI. But this does nothing about the quality of the serps which is a user satisfaction issue and a long-term adsense branding issue.
In the past three weeks, I have all but given up on Google. I start with MSN, go to Yahoo and if I still haven't found what I want ... then I go to Google.
I've just bought camera equipment and a bunch of desperately needed household items over the internet totalling about $5,000.00 in the last three weeks. None of the sites I used to buy the products from were found on Google!
I had very specific needs. I used advanced searchiong techniques. MSN proved to serve up the best (most relevant) results (though there was still some crap there as well) with Yahoo a distant second and Google incredibly came in last.
I have faith that Google will fix this problem ... the worrisome thing is how long it may take? I hope it doesn't take as long as the 302 redirect problem has lasted! :(
Common Google - Get this thing fixed! Its an embarassment to leave this stuff out there.
Wrong....If this continues these harmless scraper sites will become web monsters. The more dough they milk from adsense, the more they can afford to promote their pseudo directory sites, the higher they rise in the serps.
I've also noticed that many of these scrapers use redirected links. So not only are they copying page titles, blocks of text and descriptions from your site, they can page jack you, and show up higher for those very descriptions.
The adsense revenue helps pay for links, which increases their ranking. The more links they have coming in, the more powerful they become, increasing the chance of them pagejacking your web site, or a page from your site.....The final insult.
I have operated several alternative search engine / directory web sites since before Google was in existance. Whatever your definition of "Made for AdSense" is, I think this shows that beyond all doubt, my web sites were not made for AdSense.
Truth is, I built my sites because I love data, and the data agregation that operating a search engine requires is a lot of fun for me.
Not quite a year ago, I decided that maybe AdSense was worth a try, and I added it to my sites. The money that AdSense has provided me and my family has been pretty good, but certainly not enough to live on. Most of the income that I receive from these sites comes from sponsorship or premium listings. Either way, a lot of the traffic that these sites receive comes from Google. Google is not my main source of traffic, but they are my #2 source.
What would happen if some pencil-pusher at the Plex decided that my web crawlers were really screen scrapers? I mean, there's not a lot of difference except people request that I crawl their web site, but Google doesn't know that.
If G/Y/M decided that alternative directories were bad, my business would be reduced greatly.
Manual reviews are error prone, with a much higher error rate than algorythms. If G listened to the advice in this thread, I would fear that I would be in big trouble.
If they wait, the problem will grow to even greater size, and the SE's will be more likely to take Draconian action and sweep away the good with the bad.
If Google started closing down AdSense accounts of the worse offenders, word would soon spread and a lot of the problem would take care of itself. This is because I'm guessing that a lot of people who run their scraper sites also have legitimate sites. Once they feel the scraper sites are threatening their entire account, they will close them down on their own accord.
"The problem is that we are looking at those scraper websites from a webmaster's point of view. For an average Internet user those sites come across as simple directories"
I'm not so sure about that. As directories, they tend to be pretty lame. And they're a symptom of a bigger problem--the explosive growth of script-generated pages that began with boilerplate affiliate sites and now encompasses everything from AdSense "scraper sites" to phony product-review sites that consist mostly of datafeed price-comparison information with a few links to external sites.
Case in point: Just the other day, I saw a Webmaster World post where a member was complaining about Google's treatment of the million-plus pages that he'd uploaded recently. Is it any wonder that Google has trouble maintaining the quality of its SERPs?
We're wandering a bit off-topic here, so I'll just say that I agree with Freedom's comments and that a Wild West AdSense landscape isn't in the long-term interests of AdSense, Google's SERPs, or Google's stockholders. I think Google is aware of this, and that we'll see changes later rather than sooner.
Google actually supports this. This is from their optimization tips:
1. The background color of the ad the same as or similar to the background color of your page.
2. The border of the ad a color that is prominent on your page.
3. The title of the ad a color that is similar to the text on your page.
4. The URL of the ad a color similar to other link colors on your page.
Dataguy, as someone else who runs directories, I can understand where you are coming from. I think it is all the more reason, though, to want Google to take action sooner rather than later.
I guess I really haven't seen many of these scraper scum directory sites, or maybe when I see them I don't even consider that they are supposed to be directories.
I know there are a lot of really crappy sites out their running AdSense, and there should be some sort of method of determining what is unacceptable. But where can you drawl that line if it doesn't break TOS? I mean, there are also a lot of crappy sites out there that don't run AdSense.
Publishers need to think of the value they're delivering to advertisers. Most don't, so it's no wonder that many advertisers are leery of the "content network."
Margaret Thatcher once said "you can't buck the market" If G needs to adjust its policies to protect its bottom line it will do so, have no fear.
In the meantime leave off the criticism of people earning a legal income with the full approval of G.
Of course, to some Spam equals:-
S ite
P ositioned
A bove
M ine
More the truth is these sorry excuses of information do appear above sites I would like to find!
In the meantime leave off the criticism of people earning a legal income with the full approval of G.
Isn't it the moderator's job to tell us what we can or can't discuss?
Of course, to some Spam equals:-S ite
P ositioned
A bove
M ine
That cliché is becoming pretty tired, if only because it has been used so many times by the self-justifying "black hat" SEO crowd.
In the meantime leave off the criticism of people earning a legal income with the full approval of G.
Yep. I'm tired of arguing moral issues about Adsense and "scraper sites" and "made for Adsense" sites (whatever that means). I'm going to use that time making money, instead. :D
I'm tired of arguing moral issues about Adsense and "scraper sites" and "made for Adsense" sites (whatever that means). I'm going to use that time making money, instead.
Most of our forum discussions of scraper and other made-for-Adsense sites aren't about "moral issues," they're about the practical consequences for Google, advertisers, and publishers if such sites are allowed to persist.
As for making money, you'd probably make more money if the AdSense network were more selective--unless, of course, you're running a scraper or other made-for-AdSense site. :-)
The real story involves the long-term health of both google as a SE and adsense as a program. For those who'
ve indicated that the problem will worsen, based partly on profits derived from adsense, the inevitable conclusion is that the problem will, at some point, merit a fix. With msn eyeing the market and yahoo out there, google can't afford to let problems like this grow too large for too long.
"As for making money, you'd probably make more money if the AdSense network were more selective"
My sentiment exactly. Publishers have good days with adsense and bad days and a few publishers have never felt the bite of declining epc, but epc (to whatever extent) in a network-wide, general sense does seem to be trending downward concurrent with a rise in scrapers.
Eliminate scrapers and get more selective about participating sites and google may lose a certain amount of revenue in the short term, but many or most advertisers will likely start to see better returns for their advertising dollars and why wouldn't that have a corresponding effect on epc?
Doh!
Wrong thread.
Duh ... nu uhhhh. That post is in the right thread and its all about scrapers.
My point is about the frustration to surfers trying to find info without clicking and clicking and clicking and still not finding the info they wanted in the first place!
G loves anything - within reason - that adds to its bottom line.
Don't we all ... but the key point here is "within reason"! It is not in anyone's best interest nor is it within reason to have the first two or three pages of results be chock full of these ridiculously poor ad pages masquerading as content!
If G needs to adjust its policies to protect its bottom line it will do so, have no fear.
And adjust it they need to do ... and PDQ!
In the meantime leave off the criticism of people earning a legal income with the full approval of G.
Struck a nerve have we?
By the way ... welcome to WebmasterWorld! ;)
I know of a lot of what you term "scraper" sites that have been submitted for approval for Adsense and been approved.
I just took a peek at what I assume to be your site, and I can see why you would be defending that practice :)
[webmasterworld.com...]
I happen to agree with your post.
Just wanted to clear that up, next time i'll use the
"move along nothing to see here" line i've seen here, just to avoid any confusion.
My basis for "Don't be evil" is evidently a very different flavor than Sergey. So my advertising dollars will be spent with websites that are truly providing a value to their users.
It'll be difficult to actually assign value to a page other than through pagerank like algorythms since what is spam to one may have value to someone else.
Certainly we can expect yahoo and msn to achieve similar signal to noise ratios as google as theyre trying to copy google's search model.
Otoh it's also up to the advertisers to write the kind of ad that gives them qualified leads and to land people on a page that generates a sale. A scraper site often looks like an advertisement driven newspaper and many print publications also seriously blur the line between content and advertising.
Otoh it's also up to the advertisers to write the kind of ad that gives them qualified leads and to land people on a page that generates a sale.
This is the single most important factor for ensuring success with an AdWords campaign.
As a publisher my job is to place Google ads on pages that offer useful content.
Google's job is to accurately determine the theme of the page and place ads on the page that are relevant to that content.
The advertiser's job is to write enticing ad copy that draws a click after creating a landing page that sells the product or service just as effectively as the best used car salesman.
As long as there are other navigation choices (other links besides AdSense ads) and the visitor is capable of reading and clearly understanding the ad copy, there should never be an issue of "poor quality traffic".
Since the actual ads shown are out of the publisher's control, it's up to the advertiser to write good, accurate ad copy that EXACTLY describes what the visitor will find offered on the landing page and sales copy that gets the sale. Anything less will result in poor conversion rates.
In other words, if I'm visiting a page with several navigation options and see an ad offering cheap web hosting, I'll click the ad if I'm interested in purchasing a cheap web hosting plan (not a dedicated server, not a reseller plan, but a cheap web hosting plan).
If I don't need a cheap web hosting plan (or if I need a dedicated server or anything else that isn't a cheap web hosting plan) I won't click. If I do click, it's the advertiser's job to convince me to buy HIS/HER cheap web hosting plan once I hit the landing page.
Although it's great when it happens, it isn't the publisher's job to "pre-sell" a cheap web hosting plan (or anything else) to the visitor. Google decides which ads to place on the page, not the publisher so the publisher can't "pre-sell" anything. All he/she can do is provide useful content that draws related ads and leave the rest up to the advertiser.
With my AdWords campaigns, I get clickthroughs from some pretty low quality sites (some you wouldn't believe how low). But my conversion rates from the clicks from the low quality sites are very much in line with those of the clicks from high quality sites.
Why? Because the visitor knows from reading my ads EXACTLY what will be staring them in the face when they hit the landing pages and my sales copy closes the deal.
So true. In the beginning, when I got my first cheque from Google I was so proud... "Ah! I'm on Google's payroll :-D" Today that feeling has withered a bit but I do hope that they'll come back. I do look up to those guys and I have had the opportunity to meet some of the guys in bangalore. They really are quite bright and fun. Unfortunately this money craze is making us loose a gem on the Internet... Really sad.
As long as there are other navigation choices (other links besides AdSense ads) and the visitor is capable of reading and clearly understanding the ad copy, there should never be an issue of "poor quality traffic".
If that were true, there wouldn't be any need for media buyers in ad agencies.
The source of traffic is extremely important in qualifying leads. That's why Seabourn Cruises advertises its $700-a-day cruises in CONDE NAST TRAVELER and not the travel section of the PODUNK POST or in a chain of weekly shoppers. It's also why a maker of cameras for wedding photographers advertises in SHUTTERBUG, and it's why a private bank that caters to the wealthy advertises in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or THE NEW YORK TIMES rather than THE NEW YORK POST or a community newspaper in the Bronx.
Internet ad networks can't break out audiences by demographics (at least, not yet), but it is possible for them to use another benchmark that offline advertisers take into account: editorial context. Just as many offline advertisers wouldn't be caught dead advertising in HUSTLER or THE RUBE REPORT, many potential online advertisers would almost certainly be leery of scraper sites and other online media that deliver less quality than the junkiest traditional media. I've seen made-for-AdSense sites that consisted of total gibberish. Even my neighborhood pizza parlor or dry cleaner can deliver a higher-quality "media experience" than that. Does a vendor of $10,000 cruises or $50,000 industrial widgets want to pay $2, $5, or $10 per lead for traffic from gibberish pages and junk sites? I don't think so--and I say that as a former ad man, not just as a publisher.
If that were true, there wouldn't be any need for media buyers in ad agencies.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Text advertising on the web is a completely different animal than traditional advertising media.
Conversion rates of text ads depend almost entirely on the effectiveness of the ad itself and the quality of the sales page, and personal experience continues to bear that out.
If the "quality" of the page sending the traffic had a major impact on conversion rates it would be easy to spot when analyzing conversion and tracking data. There simply is no huge disparity there that I can find with my own AdWords campaigns that cover several diverse industries.
Perhaps others have difficulty writing good ad copy and sales materials but that is what's required to ensure a profitable conversion rate.
To reiterate what I've said before, we need to think of AdSense as a platform, not an end product. The current one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it version of AdSense may survive as a run-of-network product (the equivalent of "occupant" direct mail), but one would have to be naive to assume that refinements and product extensions aren't in the works.
To reiterate what I've said before, we need to think of AdSense as a platform, not an end product. The current one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it version of AdSense may survive as a run-of-network product (the equivalent of "occupant" direct mail), but one would have to be naive to assume that refinements and product extensions aren't in the works.
That's true, but it's a completely separate issue than the one we were discussing (conversion rates of ads on sites of varying "quality".
The future of AdSense will be whatever Google makes it. All that publishers can do is play withing the confines of Google's current playing field. If Google changes the "rules" we'll either adapt, get kicked out, or move on to a more profitable revenue source.
The future of AdSense will be whatever Google makes it.
Yes, and publishers and advertisers will influence what Google does, which is what this thread is all about.
The don't worry, be happy crowd is taking a very myopic, short-sighted, short-term view to adsense. They also will not be around 3 or 4 years from now because of this attitude.
The top priority for every successful AS publisher should be the long term preservation of AS. And if this means I have to stand in front of the Googleplex chanting:
Hey hey, yo yo, scraper sites have got to go!
because Google has lost a bit of it's direction, then so be it.
