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.
Internet ad networks can't break out audiences by demographics
Yes they can. It's called profiling. Never been 100% accurate, but the goal is to improve at the margins. Harder to do with modern browsers but still possible. Ad networks sync cookies across multiple sites with sites people enter demographic data or where sites already know about them.
The top priority for every successful AS publisher should be the long term preservation of AS.
The top priority for every successful publisher should be the ethical preservation and growth of his/her own business. Right now Google just happens to be one of the most effective tools available to help us meet that objective. There are and will continue to be others. If AdSense goes away tomorrow competent publishers will drive on, adapt and thrive.
Of course I hope they stay around and stay profitable for them AND publishers for a long time, but my #1 priority is MY business, not Google's.
The top priority for every successful publisher should be the ethical preservation and growth of his/her own business.
Well, I won't argue with that but still believe in what I stated.
Do you really that believe if AS disappeared other contextual ad providers would be able to fill the void with the same capabilities?
With kanoodle and adsonar, as others report, you get generally targeted ads simply because those ad providers don't have a large enough stable of advertisers. Adsense (when things are working right) can provide dead-on targeting only because of google's reach and the perception among the public regarding google (reliability, trustworthiness). Very doubtful that any of the others current in existence will EVER be able do this (yahoo or msn could but they're not in this game yet).
Adsense really is the only game in town for most publishers and so I would agree that, yes, it's long-term health and viability is a paramount concern.
And since reliability and trustworthiness are the elements that have allowed google and adsense to become what they are, those attributes should be protected by the same.
Discount CSS Style Sheets
New and used style sheets. aff Check out huge selection now!
e bay.com
I knew there were no discounted syle sheets on ebay but had to look to see what I'd get. Bed sheets, music sheets. <sigh>
Do you really that believe if AS disappeared other contextual ad providers would be able to fill the void with the same capabilities?
Of course they would. Every void in the marketplace can be filled, including one left by Google.
The only thing a couple of the current also-rans need is more advertisers and publishers. Let Google go by the wayside and they'll get plenty of both in short order.
What we are talking about here, is Google rewarding incompetence. I can’t imagine that would be a void others would rush in to fill.
What we are talking about here, is Google rewarding incompetence. I can’t imagine that would be a void others would rush in to fill.
That all depends who who is demonstrating incompetence in the long run. The only true advantage that Google has is a HUGE big lead in the contextual advertising race. Leaders often stumble, especially when they make short-sighted decisions in order to appease investors ("smart pricing" is an excellent example).
The site is the first .com in its niche and fits almost exactly the profile of a scraper site. If google were to aggressively go after scraper sites they could loose their account. And there are many sites like it.
Google doesn't need our complaints, it needs a solution. They could for example consider a multiple tier adsense where you kind of are promoted into the higher tier upon meeting certain qualifications. In a way they already do that (premium adsense, fedex club, etc) but that isn't reflected in choices an adwords advertiser can make. There are tons of difficulties with that solution not the least of which is the many sites that would be pooled in the same tier as scraper sites.
Google is working on this problem because it is on their radar and for them this is a business that runs into many billions of dollars, they will find some kind of solution and we'd better hope it's a balanced one.
And again, it is really up to the advertiser to understand the medium and write proper ads. You pay for each click so you better make sure you qualify your prospects with the ad before they click it. By using the tools adwords provides you can do well even on scraper sites. The market has to mature, scraper sites dilute not just the value of adsense, but also that of the serps and they diminish the average CPC for adwords. I'd love to see them gone but not at the expense of a witchhunt that'll punish many `real' sites too.
Smart pricing was designed to please advertisers, not investors.
This is a ruse. Smart pricing is simply an excuse to get clicks on the cheap and use the "discount" amount to pad the bottom line. Anyone who thinks Google passes the entire discount on to advertisers is fooling themselves. Of course a nice side effect is making advertisers think they're getting a good deal.
This is a ruse. Smart pricing is simply an excuse to get clicks on the cheap and use the "discount" amount to pad the bottom line.
So why are some publishers taking more of a "smart pricing" hit than others are?
And why on earth would you work with a business partner that you [somehow] know is cheating you?
So why are some publishers taking more of a "smart pricing" hit than others are?
Crazy things happen when you try to do statistical anaysis with an insufficient amount of solid data.
And why on earth would you work with a business partner that you [somehow] know is cheating you?
Dollars and cents. As of right now AdSense supplements my affiliate earnings better than any other existing alternative.
I was taught at an early age to consider all angles of a situation before making a decision, especially when it comes to love and money.
While the AdSense way of doing business has a few problems, it is still certainly worth having on my sites. In other words, I'm not one to cut off my nose to spite my face. I just state things as I see them, and I see smart pricing as a ruse.
Then we (and Google) would be better off in the long run having nothing at all.
Without a sliding scale of discounts, will advertisers feel comfortable paying for ads on "content sites" that range from editorial sites to scraper directories? Google obviously doesn't think so, and Google is probably right.
Give the advertisers the control since the advertisers are footing the bill.
I agree that advertisers need more control over where their ads appear, but advertisers will differ in what degree of control--and what kinds of controls--they want. The more sophisticated advertisers may want include and exclude filters, control over what kinds of sites or pages their ads appear on, and other forms of targeting. Less sophisticated advertisers may prefer very broad controls, such as "search," "AdSense content sites," "DomainPark," "gmail," or "all of the above." And some advertisers may prefer what they have now: a run-of-network potluck approach with discounts (a.k.a. smart pricing) for different types of content.
Controls are likely to come, but will they mean an end to smart pricing? Probably not, since advertisers--who, after all, are Google's paying customers--have no reason to complain about discounts.
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.
How so?
Do you really that believe if AS disappeared other contextual ad providers would be able to fill the void with the same capabilities?
Of course they would. Do you think they would just leave that money sitting on the table?
The other contextual ad companies are, likely, never going to have this kind of advertiser network...because outside of this forum and others, which mom-pop website has ever heard of kanoodle, adbrite, adsonar, yadda yadda.
They've all heard of google because google as the major SE has tremendous reach. Yahoo and msn have tremendous reach and could step in. But if adsense disappeared...don't kid yourself: there's no one out there that can offer the same product. It doesn't exist.
Which is why the long-term health of adsense is vital to publishers.
C'mon, think of the comments people usually make about adsonar and kanoodle and all the rest. With few exceptions, everyone says the same thing. The earnings are less and the ads are generally targeted to content, not specifically targeted to content.
This is BECAUSE to get targeting that good you have to have LOTS OF ADVERTISERS. And the others will never have lots of advertisers (not tens of thousands certainly). Because why?----Because no one has ever heard of these other ad programs.
Yahoo and msn have tremendous reach and could step in.
I wonder what Overture will come up with? And when? It's hard to imagine them being satisfied with high-volume portals, newspaper sites, etc. Such "premium partner"-type sites may deliver a lot of traffic for certain topics, but there must be tens of thousands of niches (some quite profitable for Google) where Overture's partners can't supply impressions or clicks.
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.How so?
It does make you wonder. I can't imagine msn not jumping into this at some point. After all, ms would like to be the master of all it surveys (os, applications, search, game consoles, software development firms, maybe at some point electronic hardware as well). It just seems inevitable that they enter the foray.
As for overture, they would seem to be halfway there. Maybe they have something in development and they're just sitting back watching for a while?
Why would either party simply cede so many millions away?
My quess is they may start accepting mid size niche traffic sites, over 250,000 visitors per month, and pay on a CPM basis.
The scraper sites that happen to be on the first few positions of the serps are just either directories or fake search engines....
Anyways, for my keyword, they bring in converting traffic... also google will probably never ban scraper sites from the adsense network cause they are also the same sites on yahoo and msn which means google is making money off these other search enine results indirectly.
I do agree that they should be cleaned from the serps and allow the real sites to rank well. But then again this would be a loser for google because if sites like mine dominate the first page then we wouldn't be paying the money we are.
I think that google would rather have scrapers ranking well to increase their bottom line. Their "Do No Evil" mantra has changed to "Do No Evil To Our Bottom Line$$$"
I think that google would rather have scrapers ranking well to increase their bottom line
I disagree, for these reasons:
1) Google's core product is search. If its SERPs are dominated by scraper pages, it will lose market share, traffic, and revenue.
2) Google needs to increase its advertiser base, both to keep revenues growing and to prevent competitors from winning the hearts, minds, and dollars of mainstream corporate advertisers and ad agencies. It can't do that if its content network is associated with scrapers and other bottom feeders.
3) Why should Google share ad revenues with scrapers who bring no value to Google's SERPs? If users want to click on search ads, why not encourage them to do their clicking on AdWords?
Google isn't an Internet startup that's trying to inflate its bottom line in the hope of a quick sale to some clueless media company before the bubble bursts. It's already a successful business, and its growth depends on delivering a quality product to end users and advertisers.
My quess is they may start accepting mid size niche traffic sites, over 250,000 visitors per month, and pay on a CPM basis.
A guaranteed CPM would certainly be a good way to grab AdSense publishers' attention.
Pro: Publishers could easily see if Yahoo's offer is better than what they've been earning with AdSense.
Con: Publisher could easily see if Yahoo's offer is worse than what they've been earning with AdSense.
Also, less risk usually means lower rewards, at least over the long haul. So some publishers might want to stick with EPC-based compensation instead of settling for a fixed CPM.
I don't like the scrapers any more than the next guy as I know they're competing with me for the higher paying ads. But I don't think most advertisers care (with few exceptions) where their ads appear as long as they get good conversion and ROI.
When the scrapers start negatively impacting advertiser ROI, and the advertisers pull back, and Adwords/Adsense starts to fall into decline THEN Google will act, but probably not one minute before there is an economic backlash.
As long as the Google Ads are performing to the satisfaction of the advertisers it's all a moot point.
They aren't performing to the satisfaction of all advertisers.
But just as important is the number of former or prospective advertisers who aren't using the content network. To grow, Google can't just depend on current advertisers who are happy with the status quo--and in the corporate world, it's grow or die.
