Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is this illegal, and will G Adsense ban me. Ive seen an ad coming up on my site that I blocked "Thanks Ann for the info on how to do that" that is just this 20 pages of raw info from other websites like <SNIP>
Are thes MFA's and what is there conversion rate like is it anything above 10% cause I still would not see the sense for them doing this unless they had a massive concersion rate..
Anyway does anybody have any thoughts on this matter
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:12 am (utc) on Oct. 14, 2006]
[edit reason] Edited per TOS [webmasterworld.com] . [/edit]
>Do they offer only what your pages contain as content?
The ads seem to be pretty spot on, yes (well, I optimized for Adsense as well as normal SEO so they should be spot on). With the exception of bad landing pages (see above) which is a Google problem.
>Does your content provide any value without the Ads?
Some value yes. More than your normal MFA site, but not a lot more.
>Does it explain the services and products available and their advantages or disadvantages?
Oh yes - absolutely, but in a boring way.
>Does it help to grow the market - encourage more sales?
No. Got me there. But then again any (genuine, say a government one) site on, say Mesothelioma won't do that either. It will just provide the info in general, just as my sites.
>Does it separate out those visitors who will not buy from your advertisers and point them somewhere else?
No. That is not my responsibility. Trying to cover absolutely everything and provide links to everywhere seems silly to me. If they
are interested in the website subject they are probably valuable to the advertisers on the site. If they got to my site for other reasons - that is beyond my control and I do not provide an exit route for that. They will just have to click "back" on their browser and try something else.
>I think that unless the answer to these quaestions is "yes", then your site could serve as a definition of MFA.
I agree there. I certainly made these sites to make money from advertising. I did try to make them reasonably good - but of course I don't want people to hang in there for hours and then go away. I want them to click ads. So by definition, the sites are MFA.
The whole point of my writing here is to point out that most sites with Adsense ads are MFA, it is enough that you create a very good and informative site with the intent to make money from ads - that is by definition then an MFA. All you guys out there with 2, 5, 10 or 50 sites - surely you haven't created all these just for fun - and then you happened to stumble on Adsense...
The fact that the TOS mentioning of a site being created for the purpose of displaying ads is disqualifying it from start - is something I consider stupid. Not from Google's point of view of course, it gives them a rubber-band clause to use against virtually any publisher, any time, if they feel like it. Most times they don't feel like it - but it's good to have (if you are Google). However, it is not very honest treatment of people spending a lot of time building websites (and I don't mean my semi-crappy ones but rather much better sites out there - we have all read the "banned by Google" stories).
Sorry if I didn't explain properly about my reasons for writing here.
I wanted to reply to the original question on conversion rates of MFA sites. Why it is higher than for normal sites (if properly done) etc. As I don't run 100% MFA sites, I can't say for sure what the CTR's are - but based on my semi-MFA sites I can make a good guess which might be of help to others.
I also wanted to highlight this slightly dodgy part of Google's TOS:
"No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
Which clearly disqualifies most sites out there with ads on and although very convenient for Google, it is a dishonest way of doing business.
The question is of course: Who is the dodgy guy here? The spammers - or Google with their "we'll do what we like and never tell you what hit you" terms? Maybe it is a bit of both and maybe clearer rules would be beneficial to all.
>>> "No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
>>> Which clearly disqualifies most sites out there with ads on and although very convenient for Google, it is a dishonest way of doing business.
It is?
Why?
None of my sites were built, or added to, with the intension of sticking ads on. In fact all of them existed well before google and were pure useful shared knowledge and content sites. The type of site that google INTENDED to display their ads on.
Now "thin" sites, pure MFA sites and all the other basically crappy adsense sites I come across mean that
a) Google look bad
b) Real useful sites look bad because they are tarred with the same brush
c) Real sites look bad because half the ads are also linking to pure MFA sites.
d) Click through and the publics attitude to "ads by google" drops because most of these pages also buy traffic from google! This will eventually wreck the system for google and the genuine publisher.
e) They take money from the advertising pools budget that real publishers should be getting. And feed most of their gains back to google in advertising.
F) They piss off advertisers (check the adwords forum!) meaning that many advertisers just bid low or not at all on the content network.
So google have every right to throw out those that they wish to do, that are damaging the system for the rest of us.
This final post from me will conclude my participation in this thread. Before leaving, I will make a few more explanations and clarifications.
I too have a few sites which go back many years, to before Adsense. Everyone's sites aren't that old though and younger people wanting to get in deserve decent answers as well. We can't all have started 5 years ago or more.
I did a lot of research about a year ago when I started to plan for my extension into almost-MFA sites (actually I had never heard of MFA before then). Very naively, I started to read the Google TOS. I quickly realized that these regulations would disqualify most people who wanted to make a living on websites with advertising. I also - after some more research - found out that it actually doesn't in practical life, because Google only have the "..published specifically for the purpose of showing ads.." term in there as a "maybe we'll need it" thing. They don't actually pursue it.
Very handy. It gives Google the power to terminate most sites out there if they feel like it. Say if they suspect fraudulent clicks - why bother investigating, just ban them and don't reply to emails. That is cost effective, I'll have to give them credit for that.
After some more research, I found out that Google actually does exactly this. Not in a high percentage of the cases, but in alarmingly many cases. Not that they always ban the wrong people - I found that many of the complaints were of the type "I clicked my ads to see what they were" etc. But enough many cases of banning seems genuinely wrong (just Google for "adsense banned account" and you will see what I mean).
The dishonesty here lies in demanding people to play by the rules, but not telling them what the rules are. "Just make it genuine and you will have no problems" etc. But that is not true - which is pretty obvious if you start to read about the cases of banned accounts.
I realized that I could not create a site and try to make a profit out of it (with Adsense ads, or any other ads) and still follow the TOS. The really annoying bit is that most people (just read any thread in this forum about profits, CTR etc and it becomes very clear that the main interest is to make money from ads - not running a website for other purposes) do it and seem to get away with it.
I had two choices. Play it safe, follow the TOS, make a few dollars after much hard work and still risk being banned for unexplained reasons - or break the TOS (in the respect explained above), make more dollars and try to stay under the radar like everyone else.
I'm afraid I am a weak soul, not equipped with such a noble and idealistic mind as the best guys out there. I decided to go ahead, optimize my websites and make money. My main aim right now is not to get better CTR or more traffic etc. I have solved that bit and I am very happy with the results. My main aim is to stay under the radar and not getting banned. It has actually come to the point where I can't afford higher CTR...
Hence my interest in the subject of this thread. I would really like to know what a MFA is (and not the usual "you know it when you see it" answer - that is only good for identifying the very obvious cases which don't really need identifying at all) so I can place myself outside of that border. Now it is a bit like driving on a dark road with no speed signs but you can still get a ticket for breaking the unknown limit. Issued by a machine. No discussions.
Anyway. Enough explaining. I went into this thread with the somewhat naive idea that you really wanted to know what CTR these sites have, as asked originally. I now realize that it maybe was a bit of a rethorical question and I apologize if I have offended anyone. That was really not my meaning and I will leave you to continue this thread as you wish. Please accept my apologies if anyone got upset.
I'll keep searching for that illusive border and in the meantime, I'll try to stay under the radar. Thank you all for your attention.
Does not matter if they are aff links, adsense, google or whatever. To me and to google it seems, they are just another layer with all the bad effects seen in my post (two posts back). Thats why google have started to try and dissuade them. From both adword side (quality score - looking for a real useful website) and it seems now in adsense with lower payments.
Your definition may be different. As in a site made for adsense, but the same basic rules apply. If the site has intrinsic value then people want it. Google want it - advertisers want it = more "value" to both parties... And you earn reliable decent income.
If you just think content is "filler" then nobody wants it but the owner! The google algos are getting better at seeing the difference it seems. Its not just about keeping below the radar so you are not banned any longer!
PS clickthrough rate has nothing to do with being banned. One of my small sites has a clickthrough above 45% for three years. Its not a problem. Its far more sophisticated and getting better (or worse for some) at seeing the difference between "thin" sites and quality ones in both payout and ads and conversion as well as traffic quality!
And it will most likely continue to get better (worse?) as these things get refined as time goes on. Eventually gaming the system will become less and less profitable but as more advertisers find better returns from better targeted traffic from real quality sites that remain their budget and number will increase. Meaning the real quality sites will earn more. Hopefully!
[edited by: Genuine1 at 11:55 pm (utc) on Oct. 22, 2006]
