Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Let the system work, rather than chasing a golden goose(!) and kill it.
What legitimate reason could you have for this information?His reason is legitimate. It might be something that you might not agree with, but it is legitimate. There is a reason why US sitcoms are targetted to 18-34 years old. There is a reason why 60 minutes although it has a large audience is not coveted by advertisers. Content has been and always be shaped by the need of advertisers to reach a target audience. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this. It is on Google's best interest and their publishers that there is some editorial guidelines as to which sites are allowed and which aren't, but trying to work within those guidelines "written or not" is perfectly ok.
I wish you people would quit looking for ways to scam the system. I am sick and tired of finding those sites. Everybody is trying to make a mesothelioma info site and make it rich. You are going to ruin the thing for what it was designed for. Your a bunch of bottom feeders as far as I'm concerened. It was never designed to be a get rich quick scam.Exactly who do you mean when you said that?
If I were an advertiser and came across one of those spam pages that Shak mentioned the other day, I would send a report to Google about them, specially if they are in your topic. That is unless, I had tracked my conversion rates on the visitors that this page sent me and realized that they were converting at an acceptable rate.
My site covers about 10 broad topics, and each topic contains about 10-15 subtopics. For each subtopic, my site has about 10-50 articles, all of which have 400-2000 words on them. My site is definitely not a bottom-feeder and was not created specifically for Adsense (we went live in 1998 long before Adsense).
But I want to know the value of the keywords so I know what article I would highlight on my homepage. While not all visitors reach my site through my homepage, my homepage is top ranked in our most important and generic keywords and attracts the most number of visitor entry.
What article (and what topic it is) I feature on the homepage spells a huge difference on my income for the day. I have found some topics generate better click through than others; while some have indeed have a higher earning per click.
Don't crucify the OP and immediately think that the question was asked to try to trick the Adsense system. Skuba may have legitimate reasons in asking his question.
I agree about those idiots that set up websites specifically for adverting reasons, 99% of them have useless, repeated information in them, if not entirely made of adverts.
W.
You mean like half the newspapers and TV stations are setup just for advertising? :)
Skuba may have legitimate reasons in asking his question.
Sorry, I still doubt it.
You mean like half the newspapers and TV stations are setup just for advertising?
If I saw a website setup only for advertising that I felt was worth advertising on I would. In Adsense I bid on a keyword and end up on “Adsense optimized” sites I didn’t know exist. The newspaper comparison was thrown out a few years ago.
I guess I could just quit using Adsense to market my sites if I don’t like it. Every advertiser who pays for these “Adsense optimized” sites has that option. Rather than spending my time tracking ROI from Adsense referrals I could come to WW to read the daily “my earnings are down and I don’t know why” thread and laugh.
read the daily “my earnings are down and I don’t know why” thread and laugh.
Hehehe is your money, and you are welcome to get out as no one is forcing you. But I still don't get why you would laugh...
P.S: Florida affected everyone, but some people also benefited, of which I am sure a lot are adsense publishers. If they are making more money does it make you sad?
You mean like half the newspapers and TV stations are setup just for advertising? :)
No, they aren't. Except for weekly shoppers and a handful of cable networks like The Shopping Channel, newspapers and TV stations are content- and audience-driven. In other words, they sell to exist, but they don't exist to sell.
Now let's consider the question of whether most advertisers are comfortable with sites that were created solely as AdSense vehicles. I don't think they are, for a simple reason: Few such sites are likely to provide users with information, and that means users are more likely to click on AdSense ads just to find the information they're looking for. In other words, those people who click aren't "qualified leads"--they're information-seekers.
In some cases, advertisers may not mind getting information-seekers, especially if the cost per click is low or the reader is likely to be a hot prospect for what the advertiser is selling just by virtue of the information he or she is looking for. (Most people don't look up rare diseases or class-action law firms out of idle curiosity.) But in other cases, information-seekers represent expensive waste circulation.
I suspect that, as time goes by, Google will either give advertisers greater control over where their ads appear or offer an "AdSense Select" network where advertisers can pay a premium to have their ads displayed on sites that have been approved and categorized by human editors. In other words, advertisers will be able to choose between run-of-network audiences and targeted audiences instead of having to rely on keyword targeting alone.
I meant laugh at the fact that people are willing to blame anything under the sun other than errosion of the Adsense program due to 'bottom feeding' sites.
Or top-feeding sites, if you're talking about sites that target big-money keywords. :-)
I am providing FREE information on the subjects
Why on earth would you do that, better off getting a job in a charity if you want to help the world...
Shak
In my case, I am providing FREE information on the subjects. The information comes from an encyclopedia.
Are you licensing the text from the encyclopedia? Or are you just rewriting the encyclopedia's text? (I ask only because a lot of people have the mistaken idea that encyclopedias and other common reference texts are in the public domain.)
You know what this whole thread says?
"My self interest trumps your self interest".
"But my self interest is more important than your self interest".
"Does not".
"Does too".
"My self interest trumps your self interest".
"But my self interest is more important than your self interest".
"Does not".
"Does too".
You forgot one pretty important part...
"Does too, because I've got the money and I decide how to spend it."
"Does too, because I've got the money and I decide how to spend it."
There is a say "Business is Business", the strong will survive and thrive, the weak will perish. Unfortunately and harsh, but that is the way it is. Let the market decide as my opinion or yours isn't worth much, but the opinion of a thousand advertisers or a thousand publishers is.
