Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It involves TWO websites (2 different domain names). One of them is an auto generated website made with several of the available "made for Adsense" page makers (this website should be 1000+ pages).
The other is a website of about 10 webpages, each page with original articles of about 200 words each. You could put some Adsense blocks on the pages with your original content for some extra cash.
Then put in a link on EACH page of your original website to the index page of your auto-generated website. Pay more attention to your original 10 page website concentrating on getting a higher page rank for that site (links, maybe even more original article page, etc). With higher page rank, spiders will crawl it well and follow it right to your auto-generated 1000+ page Adsense website.
Does this sound like a good method? It's worked pretty well for me. I figure I'm doing work, getting visitors to Google advertisers websites so it's a win/win situation...beats writing 1000+ pages of original content, I just have to write 10 pages of original content. I'm in this Adsense game to make money and since this an Adsense forum, I assume readers of this post are in the game to make money, too.
You are displaying your customary naivety on this issue and your responses are getting a bit clouded by emotions (See my earlier comments on confusion between the terms "autogenerated" and "scraper").
My naivety?
Clouded by emotions?
You can pontificate until you're blue in the face but the OP said:
auto generated website made with several of the available "made for Adsense" page makers
My comments have all been based on his original post and sticking to the topic and not drifting off on some philosophical rant tangent about all types of autogenerated sites, just the type of "nade for adsense" sites he discussed.
Sorry you can't distinguish between focused and confused.
- unflappaBILL
[edited by: incrediBILL at 3:11 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2005]
...auto generated websites made with several of the available "made for Adsense" page makers...
I see some of us in this long thread refer to so called auto-generated sites. If I made a number of them it would only be to get more websites up and running and online and possibly start to get some typein traffic too.
Also would not want to generate hundreds or thousands of pages that some of you talk about but limit to a small number of pages for a number of my domains.
As time goes by I would slowly work on them, adding good content and making them valuable and content driven. I doubt if I would even add PPC programs to the auto-generated sites until they first had some relevant content and links.
So therefore being able to buy an "auto-generated" program would be most welcome but I have never seen one advertised anywhere? I have also searched for them and never found such software programs.
Can someone please tell me the names of such programs )preferably good ones you can recommend) so I can find its website and possibly buy it? Thanks.
[edited by: trader at 3:17 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2005]
Can someone please tell me the names of such programs )preferably good ones you can recommend) so I can find its website and possibly buy it?
Not a good idea as the SE's are getting better at weeding these sites out.
Your theory of using auto-generating programs to start a domain until you get around to adding original content could backfire and get the domain blacklisted instead.
For example, was thinking of perhaps initially 10 to 20 pages (or less) per domain and then slowly adding good content.
If it does somehow get blacklisted the benefits of getting lots of domains online would seem to outweigh possible negatives. Keep in mind, these domains would rely much more on (low numbers) natural type-in traffic and not SE traffic anyway.
Also, could a blacklisted site not eventually get non-blacklisted?
The first, the main focus of this thread in its' latter stages, is business ethics; the questions to be answered are "what is ethical?" and "what is legal?". Many scraper sites are engaged in unethical practice, which may even be illegal and/or contrary to Adsense terms.
One solution is for SEs to learn to distinguish scrapers from original sites, and exclude the former from SERPs. Another solution is for Adsense robots to recognise and flag sites that may be scraping, so their participation can be reviewed. All bona fide publishers and search engines would surely unite in tackling such a problem because it is in all their long term interests.
The second issue is normal business practice: how do small adsense publishers survive in a rapidly changing market. Some of the problems you mention - eg: autolink and rel=nofollow - are within the control of the publisher, but many others are not. For example, does Google's indexing of books from libraries present a potential threat to Adsense publishers, because it might cause a shift in the habits of content-seeking surfers away from open sites?
I think it is quite normal, and to be expected, for a big business like Google to spot opportunities and go for them - providing their actions are legal and ethical - because business is competitive.
Nevertheless, I recognise the threats you raise. In many industries big players' opportunism has often led to the demise of the smaller operators. This is a fact of business life - eg: the demise of the corner shop in favour of departmental stores; we still have small shops, but the ones that survived generally were the ones that adapted in response to business change.
I hope and believe that any success achieved by scraper sites, and others that use unethical business practices, will be short-lived. The SEs will quickly learn to weed them out, principally because it is in their own interests to do so. Even if that doesn't happen, I would hope that regulatory authorities would eventually catch up with the internet and make/enforce laws that ensure the game is played fairly.
But being an ethical Adsense publisher does not provide immunity from business change. Many of the threats we face are legitimate, and it is our responsibility to get our business forecasting and planning right to anticipate and respond to such change.
It may be illegal for someone to sell contaminated cheese, but 'who moved my cheese' is a fact of business life.
Legal RSS Feeds -
Data sent to participating website by copyrighted owners or a company with a legal contract to do so. Data types most commonly fed are daily news and product catalogs. Totally legal unless the originators do not have legal grounds to deliver or if the receivers are using the data outside the legally stated contract with the originators. Illegal if the originators or receivers do not have the authorithy to use the feeds in the manner in which they use it.
Scraper Sites -
Websites that contain content extracted from other websites (whether autogenerated or not) and has added no value to the content. If I visit the sites I have scraped and provide my own opinions regarding the quality of the listed sites, while I may have "scraped" content, I have added additional value if my opinion is regarded as such. If you are using some available piece of software that just rehashes existing content, you are not adding value. If you are scraping 10,000 pages at a time, good luck adding value to all these pages. I would rather create original content. The scraped content could invite trouble in the copyright world. Not everything has been tested in court. I, therefore,
do not build sites like this. It has been the opinion of many that these sites clutter the web. I agree and I, therefore, do not build sites like this.
Autogenerated Sites with Content Extracted from Other Sites -
See Scrapers (above)
Autogenerated Sites with Original Content -
You can infuse your own content (articles, favorite links, pictures) into some of these systems to create a desireable series of pages for the web. Nothing wrong with this.
Database Driven Websites -
Kind of a different animal than autogenerated. The interactivity and submission of additional information (articles, comments, pictures ect.) for most of these types of sites make them one of the favorites for most visitors and webmasters these days. I stop here because if it is original content or submitted original content, there is no problem with it.
Search Engines -
Search engines add value to the content in the fact that they rank websites based on their original algos. If you want to start an SE, be my guest - just don't steal my algo or my Search Engine Result Pages. Once again because "snippets of content" are displayed, some are inclined to believe that copyrights are being broken - a potential possible issue here. Google somehow hit one of my websites and found a way into a database of information I did not want in the SERPS. I emailed Google and all 800 database generated pages were removed within a week. You think a Scraper would do that?
No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.I'm pretty sure auto-generated sites fit this clause.
Those autogenerated SERPs had better stop showing ads. ;)
21_blue, thanks. Both you and Chrisweg have made excellent and well thought out posts. I look forward to some meaty and dispassionate replies to those posts.
Scrapemasters, legal or illegal, ethical or non-ethical?
You are displaying your customary naivety on this issue and your responses are getting a bit clouded by emotions (See my earlier comments on confusion between the terms "autogenerated" and "scraper").
This thinly veiled insult would be enraging if not so laughably off base. Clearly it is you that are confused, because the OP tricked you into thinking the sites he was talking about -- categorically scrapers -- were otherwise, by simply calling them by another name.
He is a Scrapemaster with a twist of lime.
the OP tricked you into thinking the sites he was talking about -- categorically scrapers -- were otherwise, by simply calling them by another name
Nope. You seem to be working on the assumption that all "Made for Adsense page makers" are scraping based. It's called jumping to conclusions. They may well be scraped but they could also be non scraping based autogenerated pages that compile a load of garbage text around the selected keywords.
It is very simple to find them, even more so for Google engineers. A little searching netted me dozens of worthless sites in the SERPS, with most showing Adsense. One in particular was hilarious because it was full of shoe links and shoe-related Adsense but in the middle of the page was a short article about planet Mars. There must be strong reasons why Google doesn't expel them more rapidly. Profit, maybe?
If the website goes beyond snippets and into copyright infringement, then legal action should be taken by the parties involved.
There are too many legit sites that share the same chareceristics of a "scraper" for them to make an algo that bans them.
The Google News forum has several recent threads about directory sites that have been banned by Google Search (presumably because the sites had certain characteristics that an algorithm identified as being suspect). It's easy enough for Google to throw a few babies out with the bathwater and fix any errors via reinclusion requests.
Whether AdSense would ban such sites is a different question. The AdSense team's objectives aren't necessarily identical with (or even compatible with) the mission of the Google Search team. And the AdSense team may well feel that "smart pricing," improvements in advertiser controls (via domain blocking and site-targeted CPM ads, for example), and improvements in Google Search filtering are more effective ways to deal with junk sites than banning individual accounts.
Reinclusion for Joe.
Smartpricing for sites that don't convert.
Of course, if the scrapers (or directory sites) are bounced out of the SERPS's it really doesn't matter if they are in Adsense or not, to any great degree (as far as I am concerned).
There is no ethical thing here. It is just a prefrence. I wish you would quit making this an issue of right and wrong. Some people make different sites than you. There is no law being broken.
Someone will most likely capitalize on this and put together the auto-generated-website toolbox and hock it on some light night infomercial. Then every get-rich-quick nut will buy it and their will be so many of these sites that people will be lucky to make $.02 a month with em.
A lot of what you say in your post makes very good sense. Good businesses identify a market need and satisfy that need. What I understand you to be saying is that Adsense conversion rates on scraper sites demonstrate that they satisfy a particular need, at least as much as poorly-designed original sites.
However, your premise (expressed explicitly elsewhere) that Google is a scraper site does not make sense, to me at least. As I've hinted elsewhere earlier today, this is incorrect because of Intellectual Property Law.
Ownership of copyright material gives one the right to stop others from using that material. In the case of Google, the originator of material can prevent Google from using it by, for example, the inclusion of an appropriate line within robots.txt.
Most scraper sites, however, exploit other sites' intellectual property not only without seeking permission but also without allowing any opportunity for exclusion. Therefore, in terms of Intellectual Property, such a scraper site is operating outside the law.
This isn't to say that all scraper sites are bad or incapable of generating revenue. Clearly, the former is a subjective value judgement and the latter is refuted by examples cited in this forum. Nevertheless, there are international copyright laws that determine whether a scraper practice is right or wrong.
Ironically, this does present an opportunity to develop a code of practice for scraper sites. The idea of running a scraper site ethically may seem anathema to some, but in 5 or 10 years those who can see that opportunity may be the only ones still generating revenue from scraper sites.
My visitors average 3 article readings each and spend an average of 15 minutes. My site is better because it provides useful information. A scraper site is a subset of incomplete information, rendering it generally useless unless clicking to the complete site, which is where the visitor belongs in the first place. It is a duplicated SERPS page and is not necessary in the grand scheme of the web. In fact, it diminishes the overall efficiency of the internet. Poorly developed sites are no reason scrape their content and create Made for Adsense websites.
A scraper site relies on legit sites to develop content. It is nothing more than a subset of a SERP. If visitors see an ad at that point and click, it's too bad they didn't see it on the Google SERP. A scraper does not deserve the revenue. A Scrapemaster uses SEO and the content of others to rank high on search engines and welcomes visitors to their site in the hopes that they click on an ad. They use the numbers in their favor, to build 1000's of pages in hours, using the content of others. Original content often takes that long to create one article. If you offer nothing but poor quality links, the easy way out for a visitor might be an Adsense click. See it all the time.
If you created an algo to rate your links, you are an SE. Super. Value provided. If you use an SE's SERPS to generate your content, you are using their intellectual property.
If you visited each site and used your expertise to comment on the quality of the sites, you are providing even a greater service, provided your expertise is valid.
Google and other SE's will have to weigh the following:
Do SE SERPS provide visitors the fastest way to get what they need or is the mess of millions of generated scraper pages devaluing the web?
Do scrapers generate revenue that SE's could not generate with original content websites? At this point probably not, so that is the real problem, in my opinion.
Is a scraper site operating within the boundries of the law and can there be a degree of enforcement to minimize profiteering at the expense of the intellectual property owners?
I have the same conversion rates as a completly unique site maybe more...
Even if that's true (which I tend to doubt), it doesn't matter. You've got to look at the bigger picture. As a corporation, Google simply can't afford to let the button-pushers control its search results. If the inmates run the asylum, users who aren't crazy will go somewhere else.
So therefore being able to buy an "auto-generated" program would be most welcome but I have never seen one advertised anywhere? I have also searched for them and never found such software programs.
Can someone please tell me the names of such programs )preferably good ones you can recommend) so I can find its website and possibly buy it? Thanks.
it's officially been advertised by the op, as some attentive members suppose. sticky him.. no, don't do that!
this was exactly the intention of this guy, very clever, excellent below the line marketing for his crap product..
conspiracy theory: you ARE the op! (sorry, of course not..)
man, these guys are tricky.. unbelievable. i feel disgusted.
this was exactly the intention of this guy, very clever, excellent below the line marketing for his crap product..
So a guy goes to a webmaster forum. Talks about all the easy money he is making with almost no effort whatsoever and is happy to share his knowledge on earning easy money with anyone that asks. Most people that figure out a unique scheme on how to really make money don't shout if from the rooftops, they tend to keep it low key.
Oh, and BTW, anyone interested in making $100,000/day selling real estate, even if you have no prior knowledge of selling real estate, drop me a line. I have a $500 introductory package that can have you earning 100,000,000 miiillion dollars *dr evil voice* in your first year.
Whether AdSense would ban such sites is a different question. The AdSense team's objectives aren't necessarily identical with (or even compatible with) the mission of the Google Search team. And the AdSense team may well feel that "smart pricing," improvements in advertiser controls (via domain blocking and site-targeted CPM ads, for example), and improvements in Google Search filtering are more effective ways to deal with junk sites than banning individual accounts.
I'm not sure that the Adwords team and the Adsense team share common interests sometimes. Maybe that is part of the problem. One very minor example being that whilst Adsense allows limited pop-unders so long as they don't interfere with display of the ads etc, Adwords won't let your ad land on a page with them. One does wonder if they have many other differences that are rather more serious.
EFV - whilst I respect your views and opinions, you do seem to have a blind faith in Google's algorythms that I find difficult to understand. The above quote of yours was in response to a poster that expressed the view that it wasn't possible for an algorythm to work in all instances.
Google seem to have absolute faith in their algorythms, yet most people here simply don't have the same faith based on their experiences. I think most people here would like to see more manual input. The extra "Bums on seats" in the Googleplex *would* be an overhead, but less reliance on the algorythms and more reliance on human intervention would probably pay dividends several times over the investment in new chairs.
Let's face it, two of the main algo's Google uses simply don't work very well. Smartpricing has the tendency to react violently downwards if you make major changes to your site. That starts a vicious circle downwards that can take a while to recover from. I have emailed Google to complain about this twice in the past, and on both occasions got the standard bolier-plate reply that the algorythm couldn't possibly be faulty, and on both occasions I suddenly saw smartpricing stabilise immediately and recover in very short order.
The target bot is also pretty unstable in many people's experience. Google collect information all the time. They must have huge databanks of the stuff, yet when it comes to making sensible decisions on targetting it completely ignores anything relevant.
In my case, Goolge must have nearly 2 years of data on what ads work on my site, what my demographic is etc. It's fair to say that a reasonable amount of the time I see ads that work on my site, but it's also fair to say that the bot makes stupid decisions far too often.
For example, Google should know by now that my demographic is middle aged family men. Yet it has a habit of targetting Acne cream ads of late. That isn't good for me, or advertisers. Neither gain from this placement. In fact what happens is Google REMOVE ads that both they, and I know work and replace them with totally irrelevant ads we both know won't work.
Google also should know that it's no use placing ads on my site because they have a high CTR on other sites. If they used their huge databanks on every individual account to assist targetting then a lot of these stupid mistakes would not occur. The only solution seems for me to block the ads both of us know won't work.
My experience in these areas is far from unique. To me, this suggests that the algorythms are far from foolproof. If they can't get smartpricing or the target bot to work, why would they succeed in getting any other algorythm to work effectively?
I know algorythms are necessary - Google couldn't function without them. It's the "Blind faith" they have in them that is the problem. Rather than admit they have limitations, and invest in humans to solve the problems algorythms can't, they seem to simply pile more cash into developing algorythms that STILL don't resolve the problems.
More "Bums on seats" and less reliance on faulty algorythms is the answer.
As a corporation, Google simply can't afford to let the button-pushers control its search results.
Time for a snide comment about inmates at the Google asylum, but I'll resist the temptation. :)
I know algorythms are necessary - Google couldn't function without them. It's the "Blind faith" they have in them that is the problem. Rather than admit they have limitations, and invest in humans to solve the problems algorythms can't, they seem to simply pile more cash into developing algorythms that STILL don't resolve the problems.
Why do you think Google has recruited human quality evaluators?
This sounds like a good time for Ronburk to step in with one of his well-reasoned lectures on data mining. :-)
Why do you think Google has recruited human quality evaluators?
Does this mean that they didn't have them before now?
I think it's good news that they have faced the fact that algorthms have severe limitations. I just hope they are seriously committed to quality, and will enforce the TOS. Time will tell.
On a side point, over in the Adwords forum there are a fair few advertisers unhappy with the behaviour of both the targetting bots, and pricing mechanisms. These supposedly foolproof algorythms don't work well for them either it seems.
