dmoz and adsense

[newbies]

I have seen adsense on sites using dmoz data. So I am going to build a site using dmoz data. I have some questions on this:

1) currently I have adsense on one of my sites, can I add adsnese to the dmoz site without applying a new account?
2) There are two ways of using dmoz, one is store the data on your own server, and build pages from the data; the other way is to using script to grab data from dmoz and display on your site. I guess the first method will work better because you got static pages. am I right?
3) how much revenue is expected compared to content of your own?

Thanks.

[EliteWeb]

be cautious to be categorized as 'duplicate content' many of the dmoz dating using sites have additional information besides the dmoz data that makes it still useful for the world surfing.

[JinxBoy]

dmoz?

[trillianjedi]

dmoz?

www.dmoz.org

TJ

[newbies]

be cautious to be categorized as 'duplicate content'

Do you mean google page ranking or adsense will care about it?

[eaden]

What you are doing is against the Program Policies. Read them carefully.

[newbies]

What you are doing is against the Program Policies

I don't undertand what is against adsense policy. First I have seen many dmoz sites use adsense and they must have been approved by G; 2nd, it's perfect fine to use dmoz data.

Anyone out there use dmoz and adsense?

[eaden]

Ad Placement
- Ads may not be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

You have said you have seen other sites with dmoz and adsense so you are going to set up a dmoz site to show adsense.

[jomaxx]

I don't think that's what that clause means. Probably the majority of all pages on the Internet exist "specifically for the purpose of showing ads". Google just don't want AdSense ads to be shown on pages with no useful content.

[eaden]

I think by 'ads' they mean 'adSense ads'.

AdSenseAdvisor?

[europeforvisitors]

I don't think that's what that clause means. Probably the majority of all pages on the Internet exist "specifically for the purpose of showing ads". Google just don't want AdSense ads to be shown on pages with no useful content.

Well, it says "whether or not the content is relevant." And I disagree that the majority of all pages on the Web exist "specifically for the purpose of showing ads." Millions of pages exist to deliver information, sell products, provide community interaction, etc., with ads being present to monetize those pages. If you were to remove the ads, those pages would still have a reason to exist.

IMHO, a good rule of thumb might be to ask:

"Do the ads support the content, or does the content support the ads?"

If the content exists to support the ads, then it violates the "specifically for the purpose of showing ads" guideline in the AdSense TOS.

[seaboy]

EFV, I understand your point but it's not quite as clear cut as that, is it?
Although there are many, many sites that were built with no thought to making money or showing ads that isn't the case for all.
Your site for instance is obviously a quality site, provides good info, etc, etc, but would you really put the same amount of work into it if you didn't see a penny in return?
If we look a tv for instance, NBC certainly don't pay millions of dollars per episode of Friends because they like to make people happy, they do it because it is "content (that) exists to support the ads" - not necessarily a bad thing. And I think one could make the same case about your site (not a criticism) - What I think the clause means is the kind of 'domain park' pages with nothing but PPC results or similar showing.

(edit)That is not to say I want to see yet another site of DMOZ info running ads - I think that is against the TOS, if only for the reason that it doesn't

adhere to Google's WebMaster Guidelines

, namely

"cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.

[europeforvisitors]

If we look a tv for instance, NBC certainly don't pay millions of dollars per episode of Friends because they like to make people happy, they do it because it is "content (that) exists to support the ads" - not necessarily a bad thing.

I'd disagree with that, because the network's core business is broadcasting, not running ads. Sure, it might not be in business if it weren't able to run ads, but its mission isn't "to serve as a platform for advertising." Its mission is "to broadcast entertainment and news."

In the case of AdSense publishers, some may have a mission of "to deliver information to readers," while others may have a mission of "to sell widgets to customers." But in either case, the sites weren't created solely as AdSense vehicles.

[Sharper]

There are web pages that consist of essentially nothing by advertisements and affiliate links, without any other content beyond perhaps a title. It's obvious that the page was created simply to display ads.

I think that's the kind of thing Google is talking about, not about creating content pages so that you can show ads on them.

[ken_b]

"...Not quite as clear as that..."

And it's probably intentionaly vague so as to give Google some leeway in the approval and rejection process.

[seaboy]

And it's probably intentionaly vague so as to give Google some leeway in the approval and rejection process.

Absolutely. We could argue all day about whether a particular site is built to make money via ads while also providing useful info, or vice versa - but I don't think those are the ones Google is out to stop. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I can't define a page published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, but I know it when I see it".

[loanuniverse]

"I can't define a page published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, but I know it when I see it"

Seaboy: You are correct. This is purposely in the TOS to keep the quality of the network, and I don’t think they will enforce it unless the offending site is clearly bad for the network.

[jomaxx]

EFV, do you have to take issue with everything? There's a sense in which you are correct (your pages could be said to have a reason to exist on their own) and a sense in which my point is correct (with no advertising, those pages probably would never have existed in the first place).

The point is that eaden's advice was incorrect, and that Google doesn't know or care about a webmaster's secret motivations for building a site. All they care about is the end result.

[europeforvisitors]

The point is that eaden's advice was incorrect...

I beg to differ, because the sentence in the TOS says otherwise. Obviously, Google doesn't go around looking at every site to guess at the Webmaster's "secret motivation," but (as Seaboy and loanuniverse suggest) having that line in the TOS provides Google with a legitimate reason to dump sites that don't pass the "sniff test."

For the member who started this thread, the next step is to determine how much time, effort, and bandwidth are required to publish a DMOZ clone with AdSense ads. If the investment is minimal, he won't stand to lose much from trying. But the project is going to require a hefty outlay of time and/or money, he'll have to weigh the possible revenues against the risk that Google might give the site a thumbs-down during a routine check or if something like invalid clicks triggers a manual inspection. As in anything else, the risk-reward ratio needs to be considered before making a decision.

[loanuniverse]

I think the original poster's main question was:

how much revenue is expected compared to content of your own?

For what is worth:

IMHO, the potential is great. I think that you could do even better by creating many category specific directories and giving each one of them its own site. You could actually pick the categories that might bring the high paid advertisers and not really have to replicate the whole directory {assuming the license allows you to do that}.

On the other hand, there are a lot of possible negatives. Off the top of my head.

1- How much additional content needs to be added in order to meet adsense guidelines? Does any need to be added?

2- How much additional content needs to be added in order to not be considered duplicate content by Google? How about the other SEs?

3- Double check those DMOZ guidelines. I know nothing about that part of the directory.

4- How about the new pricing? Do you guys think Google has worked something into their pricing algo that discounts ads shown on pages that are DMOZ copies? Will they include it now that one of them is reading this post?

[europeforvisitors]

How about the new pricing? Do you guys think Google has worked something into their pricing algo that discounts ads shown on pages that are DMOZ copies? Will they include it now that one of them is reading this post?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Also, I wonder what the discount is for directory pages in general, and how much of a role content type or format--as opposed to conversion tracking--plays when advertiser discounts are calculated. (My directory pages are so closely integrated into my other content that I haven't been able to set up a separate channel to track them.)

[paybacksa]

Content is more and more created for the purpose of selling ads, or products. Would advertisers balk at running ads during commercial breaks on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?" That show is admittedly advertorial...content created for its ability to showcase products in advertorial context. Is it entertaining? Yeah..so is Vogue magazine, which by my quick view is 90% ads. Is it too over-the-top? Who's to say.... it needs to be discussed.

Is your website too "over the top" as an adspace? Is it also entertaining or edutaining enough? Who's to say? It should be discussed.

In my experience G will reject the site for "navigation difficulties" instead of saying it is too ad-serving. Kinda makes sense... if there's no where to go but BACK or click on an adsense ad, then does it suffer from poor navigation?

[robho]

Also, I wonder what the discount is for directory pages in general

I have a small specialist directory site (original content, reviewed categorized links), that gets an EPC and EPM around 4 times that of my main site content pages, so I don't think there is any general discount.

[loanuniverse]

...(original content, reviewed categorized links), ....

There is a big difference between this and a DMOZ fed site. :)

[jomaxx]

It seems to me that Google is primarily driven by a desire to create value for its advertisers. IMO the fact that content may be coming from DMOZ is irrelevant to that goal.