Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The problem that I see is that these people are running adsense on these pages. I know that some of these sites are very possibly being built by other members here, but I just want to throw in my $0.02 and say that this is being a freeloader, and Google should discourage this practice.
For crying out loud, one page only had one link {mine} and about 70 words extracted from my article.
To make matters worse wathever script they are running creates the subdirectories to fully SEO their pages as in:
Disposable-domain.com/keyword/keyword/crappy-page-with-“borrowed”-content.html
This might make me some enemies, but really…. Isn’t this just a little evil?
I appreciate the links, I probably got a couple of dozen already, but I am willing to live without the couple of hundred referrals.
There are people doing just this with WebmasterWorld content and running AdSense and affiliates on there.
I noticed just this some days ago when searching on Google. The first entry was a WW topic and the second one a page that had posts from that WW topic as page content. Not very nice. I reported it and I am pretty confident it has been taken care of. I am against these practises, beacause (1) I spend hours and hours doing research and writing to create quality content that is actually usefull and they are taking my add dollars with very little effort(2) those stolen content pages add NOTHING to the web and is imo not what the web should be like.
Google has made it clear they do not want to be the middle man for disputes. They offloaded copyright to the DMCA process, offloaded trademark to the trademark holders, and now their SEC filings state unequivocally they are outsourcing the whole adsense billing and accounting to a third party.
Will a handful of crappy sites ruin AdSense? I doubt it. Will alot of whining and complaining to Google about crappy or rogue sites ruin AdSense?
Let the advertisers handle it with the Google media sales team and the rogue site owners as they deem necessary. It fits Google's apparent model for *not* taking on middle-man responsibility, and it doesn't increase the hassle factor or workload for Google (which makes it better for everyone).
Google has made it clear they do not want to be the middle man for disputes. They offloaded copyright to the DMCA process, offloaded trademark to the trademark holders, and now their SEC filings state unequivocally they are outsourcing the whole adsense billing and accounting to a third party.
That is wonderful, isn't it! And while I have never, ever been one of those nauseating, self-righteous "white hats" I have now become determined that if I can find grounds I *will* report such faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
When it will be costing me personally upward of a thousand dollars this month alone to replace hardware and software and bring in a technician to get my systems operational after being decimated by drive-by downloads from *directories* in the SERPs that are no more than PPC traps intended for malice and destruction, so that I can work for a living, I am now bound and determined to turn into an instrument of retaliation against those evil-doers who care nothing for who they damage as long as it puts a few centavos into their filthy, profane pockets.
They use your content and deliberately and intentionally entrap and wreak destruction and damage upon the innocent and unsuspecting. They are amongst the lowest of the low, imho, and whatever we can do to stop them is a service and a kindness to our fellow internet citizens who are being exploited, deceived and victimized.
[edited by: engine at 4:24 pm (utc) on June 10, 2004]
In any case, it's in Google's own financial interest to prevent abuse of AdSense by copyright infringers and other low life--just as it's in Google's own interest not to stand by idly while its SERPs are cluttered with spam.
Google has made it clear they do not want to be the middle man for disputes
A middleman is "middle" between two other parties. Here, Google is a party to the problem and hence can't be classed as a "middleman". By complaining to Google you are hoping to make the dispute one between a third party and Google.
Hey Marcia I feel your pain and note that this is an excellent topic for discussion, but really doesn't it just highlight the necessity of you, as a webmaster, to advance your technologies with the times?
As technology advances your competitve edge is eroded (along with your profits). Sure you can complain and try and fight through protectionist-style actions, but wouldn't it be more "organic" for you to fight back with technology? Keep your "edge" and your profits?
E-mail addy harvesters evolved to scrape websites. Smart webmasters implemented "black holes" that trapped the harvesters in endless loops, feeding them as many bad addys as they would eat. Worked like a charm for the savvy webmaster, and the rest continue to be eaten by the harvesters. Do you use them? Do you even know about them?
Sure one could complain that "I shouldn't have to do that work" but isn't that always the case with competition? As a publisher who has to hire tech people.... again I can sense your pain, but you're not just a publisher but an electronic/web publisher.. isn't use of technology a responsibility? Is it so unusual for you to have to revise/upgrade your technology as competition in the industry increases?
Either pursue them via DMCA or copyright or trespass to chattles, or block or confound them... but to just complain and seek out protection of the status quo? Really?
As for the "interesting thread", I don't know if many would be willing to reveal secrets, but there are many ways to block - confound - trap content harvesters.
If you work hard to add useful content on your site, you would be hurt to see your content stolen. It could make you weep. Don't forget, duplicate content can lead to site penalties too.
If you are honest, you will respect honesty in all forms.
These people who steal our content are lowest of the low and if adsense does not stop them, this trend would continue.
I know a site which has duplicated content from atleast 50 sites using a website copier programme.
And to rank his site higher than those sites, he has taken 'hidden links' from a Government site, obviously with the help of a corrupt webmaster.
These small site owners have woken up now & would take necessary action I am sure.
Adsense is a God given gift for small honest webmasters and we all want it to continue.
But I want to compete on the quality of content I offer my visitors, my keen prices, the quality of my after sales service etc.... and not in black hat technology.
But I want to compete on the quality of content I offer my visitors, my keen prices, the quality of my after sales service etc.... and not in black hat technology.
I think that is true of many of us, but is it realistic?
MQ
I think that is true of many of us, but is it realistic?
Yes. The internet can either recover and reward commercial behaviour that is of interest and use to the visitor/internet-user/SE searcher i.e. the guy who finally pays for everything.... or it can get more spammy, SERPS can get more corrupted, users can get disillusioned and that will result in them avoiding the internet in favour of researching/shopping elsewhere. It's therefore in every webmaster's long term interests to promote useful commercial activity that contributes to the internet being seen as the wonderful invention that it is...even if that's at the expense of foregoing some short term commercial gain to be had through the type of questionable tactics that caused the start of this thread. It is therefore in every webmaster's interest to report such unsavoury activity when they see it. Even more so if they are not involved in the questionable practices that do result in those short term gains ;)
Nah. that's status-quo protectionism. If G went along with that you'd all go down together while the next competitor took over the world.
Please note I was not referring to black-hat techniques or illegal stuff, just the questionable stuff you all seem to like to brand as illegal. I know it's easier for you all to agree with the status quo if you envision I am referring to black-hat stuff....
If it's copyright infrinegment that's illegal so pursue it. If it's DMCA stuff go for it . If it's black-hat stuff let Google "adjust" around it - that's their job.
However, drive-by snippets, look-and-feel mimicry, and other forms of competition, however insulting or distasteful, are fact of life!
efv.. have you fairly established ___forvisitors.com as a trademark yet? You have started, but I doubt it qualifies yet as a family trademark yet, such that you can block the next "european city for visitors" dot com knock off. How about somecity4visitors.com? It is certainly legal today. If you get copy-catted, will you "report them to Google"? C'mon...it's business, and competition inspires.
Every webmaster should be protecting their content, if that content needs protection.
However, drive-by snippets, look-and-feel mimicry, and other forms of competition, however insulting or distasteful, are fact of life!
Well, if the "drive-by snippets" are grouped together based on a specific keyword combo, that is considered keyword spamming, which is a blackhat technique.
I don't see how Google can afford to stand by while black-hat publishers pollute the index with duplicate (and often outdated) content.
Where's the harm to Google or any other search engine/directory?
efv.. have you fairly established ___forvisitors.com as a trademark yet?
I doubt very much if a name like "[Destination] for Visitors" could be trademarked; it's too generic. In any case, there are all kinds of "for visitors" sites and domains around--a few owned by me, and many by other people. Offhand, I can think of India for Visitors, Thailand for Visitors, Spain for Visitors, Scotland for Visitors, and Ireland for Visitors, plus various About.com sites. Then there's visiteurope.com (the European Travel Commission's site), which has been around quite a while.
FWIW, my site has my name and photo prominently displayed on it--not because I'm vain, but because "personal brands" have been important in my field (travel publishing) since the days of Karl Baedeker. To put it another way, Arthur Frommer's name is more memorable to readers than "Europe on $XX a Day" or "Dollar-Wise Guides." In my opinion, independent publishers can enhance their credibility by putting their personal stamp on their sites (which is something that the big corporate guys can't do). Credibility or personal accountability isn't just good for winning repeat visitors and unsolicited links; it also makes visitors more comfortable about clicking affiliate links and AdSense ads.
Yes, Google DMCA works very well. AdSense cares less about the provenance of where ads appear - to see it from their viewpoint, the contents might be crap but at least they were bad enough to cause the visitor to click the ads. If you consider that the visitor was looking for that subject matter and saw the ads, you can almost convince yourself that the ads were clicked by someone genuinely interested in the subject.
It's beyond content thievery and "technology". In addition to that, with phonied up links that aren't actually going to where they say they are, they're also serving drive-by scumware downloads that highjack to PPC affiliate junk sites.
That's what the link at the bottom of the page is for - if you're dissatified with results. And sites that hit with downloads like that are definitely not satisfactory.
A site by name of india 4 world has stolen content from over hundred websites and one can see it very clearly visible in the source code.
Most of the HTML source codes on pages show " website copier" blah blah etc etc.
Funny thing is it is also showing adsense twice on many pages.
It's a new site but shows copyright dates of 4 years back on some pages........wierd eh?
....but does Google pay more attention if more than one webmaster files a DMCA or Adsense complaint about these sites?....
Personally, I am going to send adsense emails on sites like these that are using my content starting in a couple of weeks. I was probably going to let it slide, but people here make a good argument for sending complaints.
Sorry if this is going to get some people in trouble, but I think is within our rights to complain about the practice.
suzie
If it's your content, it's your right for sure to report 'em.
Your Silence will only encourage such elements.
suzie
Adsense doesn't care whether content is stolen or not. They feel they shouldn't have to determine which one came first, and so it should be reported to google using the usual methods, not adsense.
...Adsense doesn't care whether content is stolen or not. ...
Now this is just my educated guess, but we should keep in mind that we are talking about two different departments with two different set of procedures and guidelines approaching similar problems.
Trust me they care or will care.
[google.com...]
