Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyone squeezing into an already established chain as a middle man when not needed is bound to complicate things for all. I see no reason why there should be a site that is in anyway involved in buying advertising to sell advertsing should have no reason to exist.
Let's get back on topic: What are the reasons for the continued survival of MFAs?
1) Because eliminating them manually is as hopeless as trying to get rid of a flea problem by picking fleas off your dog.
2) Because eliminating them through automation takes time and tweaking, unless the eliminator is willing to accept a high level of collateral damage.
To echo what rbacal says, just because you see scraper or click-arbitrage sites with "Ads by Goo[ooo]gle" boxes or spam pages in Google Search doesn't mean they have Google's official blessing. More likely, it means that Google hasn't figured out how to eliminate them without exterminating the dog along with the fleas.
If you can't reasonably discuss an issue without resorting to innuendos and name calling, then you may want to consider the TOS.
You're the one stating OPINIONS as FACTS. I didn't know the number of connections with a company was a measure to determine when things are facts or fiction.
If you want to have discussions in this forum than please let it be discussions.
Or are you trying to imply I do?
This is truly the first time in my life that I've had to use this phrase other than in jest: "It's not all about you..."
I don't know what kind of on-line businesses you run (other than your "thin" consultancy site which I've seen and is perfectly legit so far as I can tell). You and others assure me that you have no conflict of interest. Good to know. I have no other data points, so I'm not drawing inferences or name calling. You may have noticed that I strongly dislike ad hominem attacks, whomsoever they are against.
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 6:38 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
Some parts of G may or may not approve of MFAs, and G is quite likely not totally internally consistent on this as EFV suggests, especially across AS/AW/SE divisional boundaries.
Rgds
Damon
It's all about getting it down to an acceptable level using technological solutions, since there is really no applicable (international) law, still less any enforcement, in this area.
It's the most monstrous exercise in plain-text stats with cheating players: well beyond anything we even *contemplated* in my AI degree!
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 6:55 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
How could they?
The result being, (IMO) Google did not predict the sharp rise in MFA's, or the revenues produced by MFA's.
Essentially, you have to ask yourself (or Google): Does Google care more about their reputation and how MFA's affect it, or do they care more about the profits generated from MFA's?
From Martinibuster: The number one reason for MFA/Scrapers to still be around is they must be converting.
I agree, and if a company with Google's deep pockets can't make a dent in a problem of this magnitude, then it's reasonable to believe that it's because stopping them isn't a high priority.
From John Carpenter:
If people get used to AdWords ads leading to weird places full of other ads and no meaningful content (add any other common attributes of MFAs), they will eventually stop clicking the ads.
True, but that's like saying men who meet disgusting, ugly girls via online dating will eventually stop using the service. Some will, but many won't. The select group (be it 100 or 100,000 men) who choose to stop will be replaced by another 100 - 100,000 men. In essence, there will always be people clicking on ads.
Conspiracy Alert: What if Google's intention for making a move against MFA's, is only meant to combat the worst of the worse? What if the introduction of landing-page quality scores for advertisers is meant to suffocate the low-quality, low-revenue-producing MFA's -- leaving the the huge "con-men" to continue their underground schemes?
From Farmboy: Is there anyone on this forum who agrees with the above and would start your own MFA sites without concern for losing your AdSense account?
I would never start my own MFA site. Many who choose not to, do so because they believe in protecting their own reputation, no matter how much money they could make. This is similar to asking a respectable woman why she wouldn't sell her body for money, knowing she could cash checks for an eternity if she did.
Think about it: Any problem (you or a large company) may have that also produces revenue, becomes much more than an ethical problem.
You're the one stating OPINIONS as FACTS. I didn't know the number of connections with a company was a measure to determine when things are facts or fiction.
The TOS here prohibits me showing evidence to back up MB's claims, but he's absolutely right that Google likes MFA and scraper sites. These sites generate good income for Google and they won't go away any time soon. However, Google will remove this crap from Google's index but they won't remove it from AdSense because it will continue to generate profits via Yahoo and MSN.
Best I can tell, there's nothing you can do about pure MFA's unless they are blatantly violating the TOS and then it's not always an open and shut case.
However, scrapers are another story because you can use that DMCA complaint and legally zap them from the index and AdSense, at least until the scraper removes your content and files a re-inclusion request.
More likely, it means that Google hasn't figured out how to eliminate them without exterminating the dog along with the fleas.
That would be incorrect as they can easily find thousands of MFA template based sites in just a few minutes. It can't be that hard to find MFA sites because I've personally found close to a hundred thousand of the damn things and I don't really try too hard.
As a matter of fact, there's a splog hunter site I know that posts lists of tens of thousands of splogs that exist in blogger itself, and those splogs Google seems to remove from blogger, but the AdSense account may remain intact best I can tell.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 8:13 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2006]
Essentially, you have to ask yourself (or Google): Does Google care more about their reputation and how MFA's affect it, or do they care more about the profits generated from MFA's?
You missed a third alternative:
Does Google care about a loss of profits if users lose faith or interest in AdSense ads (and if advertisers look for better alternatives as a result)?
Or, to put it another way:
With nearly all of Google's revenues coming from AdWords and AdSense, can it afford to let its billion-dollar "content network" become dominated by low-cost, low-margin ads? In my opinion, the most sensible solution would be for Google to have a commodity product for bottom-feeding advertisers (and publishers) and Google-branded premium ads with higher minimum bids and standards. But I don't think the current one-size-fits-all, lowest-common-denominator "content network" will exist in its current form indefinitely, because that would open Google to competition from more selective networks.
"No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
Doesn't sound like MFAs could be "legitimate members of the AdSense community", as some people assert. They were, are, and will be, nothing but scum and plague of the web. Get used to it.
From EFV: Does Google care about a loss of profits if users lose faith or interest in AdSense ads (and if advertisers look for better alternatives as a result)?
That would've been a good statement to include, but I guess I sort of included it with my observation: "The select group (be it 100 or 100,000 men) who choose to stop will be replaced by another 100 - 100,000 men. In essence, there will always be people clicking on ads."
From John Carpenter: They were, are, and will be, nothing but scum and plague of the web.
I don't think anyone is arguing the "scuminess" of MFA's. They are certainly undesirable web presences.
But the issue still revolves around whether Google worries more about its reputation, or more about its pocketbook. Ideally, they would probably (IMO) like to be equally worried about both, but find it difficult when MFA revenues keep growing.
The original question centers around "why" MFA's continue to exist, and we all know that money talks. Even though MFA's are not "legimate members of the Adsense community", they are legitimate money-earners for Google.
Again, I believe it's an ethical decision with ten times the difficulty since money is involved.
[google.com...]
You could argue it's not the same, it's a domain park, it's all just type in traffic but that's nonsense as some of these domains still show up in the search engine, often as links from existing sites that don't know the domains are dead. People click those links from those sites and land on a page of nothing but advertisements, which is MFA if I've ever seen it, but of course the rules for these sites are different and it's allowed.
Not only that, they recently partnered with GoDaddy to create even MORE junk domains with AdSense:
[godaddy.com...]
A couple of days ago I caught one of these so-called parked domains trying to run arbitrage in AdSense showing up in the ads on my site.
Some people know I run a directory and I wrote my own link checker to keep it somewhat clean. My link checker looks for fingerprints that can identify over 200 types of domain parked and MFA sites. I run this script periodically against all of the sites in my directory to see if the domain has fallen into domain park hands and zap them from my directory.
If I can detect and eliminate them accurately from my directory, then you know Google could do the same from their search engine and AdWords. Yet one of those parked domains, one that my link checker code easily identified, was in an AdSense ad sitting on my site.
It was a complete junk site yet ordained by both AdSense and Adwords.
This must tell you something about their business model and why MFA sites will be here to stay for a long time.
Like I said before, scraper sites you can fight with the DMCA complaints and they have to pay attention but you might as well give up worrying about the rest of the MFA sites as they aren't going away anytime soon.
Doesn't sound like MFAs could be "legitimate members of the AdSense community", as some people assert.
If Google knows about a certain network of subdomains featuring a photo in the center of the page, and AdSense to the left and right of it, and AdLinks directly below the photo, and after a year of knowing about that network does nothing about it, what does that tell you about how Google AdSense feels about that network of subdomains?
These subdomains range from mesothelioma.example.com to boats.example.com. There is no content beyond the photos on many of those subdomains, while some feature wikipedia content.
If Google didn't whack them after an entire year of knowing about them, what does this say about their status in the AdSense network? It's pretty obvious that for the AdSense program they are a legitimate member of the AdSense community. YOU may not feel that way, but if Google keeps them in the program, it's pretty apparent what THEIR opinion on that is.
I'm not defending anybody's business practice, neither Google's nor scrapers. I'm only pointing out what is glaringly obvious.
If Google knows about a certain network of subdomains featuring a photo in the center of the page, and AdSense to the left and right of it, and AdLinks directly below the photo, and after a year of knowing about that network does nothing about it, what does that tell you about how Google AdSense feels about that network of subdomains?...I'm not defending anybody's business practice, neither Google's nor scrapers. I'm only pointing out what is glaringly obvious.
Two options other than Google is accepting of these sites:
1. As someone mentioned previously, Google is trying to develop the algorithm "homerun" to get rid of these sites plus many more like them and views acting on these individual sites manually as a waste of resources.
2. Google is watching these sites and gaining "intelligence" for other purposes. Drug dealers sometimes exist in neighborhoods long after local law enforcement becomes aware of them. That doesn't mean law enforcement welcomes the drug dealers in the neighborhood. It may mean, for example, they want to watch these small time dealers in hopes of catching bigger fish later.
FarmBoy
1) Because eliminating them manually is as hopeless as trying to get rid of a flea problem by picking fleas off your dog.2) Because eliminating them through automation takes time and tweaking, unless the eliminator is willing to accept a high level of collateral damage.
As I've written before, I think there is an "in-between" option. I certainly won't claim it is the ultimate solution, but I do think it has benefits.
Google could zap a few MFA's and make the information public - either by directly reporting on their actions or by leaking it to some of the people with inside connections I keep reading about.
Word would spread fast and ...
1. If there are organized crime elements operating networks of sites, it probably wouldn't deter them other than making them work harder to hide
2. MFA "wannabe" operators would be deterred. I'm thinking of people who read this and other forums and have decided there is little risk in launching MFA sites. It would make some, if not most, of them think twice and prevent a few more MFA sites from appearing.
3. Perhaps the biggest advantage would be the message this would send to those of us who follow the rules and are frustrated that others don't without seeming to suffer consequences. I think it would be a big morale boost.
FarmBoy
I run a legit site, some visitors coming to my site click on the Google ads. However, because Google is complaisant about the MFA issue, the click on an ad does not take the visitor to a relevant site but to a MFA where a further click may, or may not, get him to the product.
Okay, I've been paid for my click; the visitor might not mind clicking once more, and perhaps Google appreciates the extra revenue. But the people who most surely do mind are the adwords advertisers, who are paying for all this. If the MFAs exist because Google is happy with the current situation, it's a rather short-sighted strategy.
I don't have a business degree, but it strikes me that if visitors were taken where they thought clicking on an ad would take them, advertisers would be happier to do business on adwords content sites, genuine publishers would get more revenue, and visitors would click more. And the entire PPC business would have lost some sleaze from its reputation, encouraging yet more punters.
And Google can't see that? Heck, the saying 'Don't p*ss in the well' existed before Google, and if Google really does think encouraging MFAs is a good long term strategy, the saying will exist long after Google too.
Just to refresh memory, the official stance with regard to MFAs:"No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
This presents a problem for Google. A few months ago in another thread here, I wrote of what I consider "Tier 2 MFA's." These are sites that we wouldn't normally consider MFA's, but they are sites that have been built solely because AdSense exists. The example I provided previously are sites where people hire article writers for a few dollars per article and build entire sites based on these articles. These violate the AdSense policy mentioned above.
Google's problem is they have failed to enforce the policy and/or to clarify it further.
FarmBoy
If Google was concerned with the quality of their AdSense network why would they leave a site in AdSense that they remove from Google search results?
Google isn't trying to develop the "homerun" algorithm to get rid of these sites because many of these spammy sites have been dumped from their SEARCH ENGINE, but NOT from ADSENSE! Therefore, it's obvious that they already know these sites exist and the rules being applied to SEARCH are not the same being applied to ADSENSE.
I also seriously doubt they are just watching them, as Google knows every place your publisher ID exists and showing up on thousand of domains would sure trigger an alert if they cared about such things. If you saw a publisher ID with so much coverage of the web you could easily take a look at that network of sites, see it's junk, and zap them, but they don't except from the search engine.
This practice has been going on for YEARS now and so have many of the sites.
It's a very simple fact that if they wanted MFAs gone, they would be gone and have had years to get rid of them, but they don't.
From IncrediBill: It's a very simple fact that if they wanted MFAs gone, they would be gone and have had years to get rid of them, but they don't.
From Farmboy: ... Google is trying to develop the algorithm "homerun" to get rid of these sites plus many more like them and views acting on these individual sites manually as a waste of resources.
As IncrediBill pointed out in a previous post, getting rid of them isn't that difficult. If Google is developing a super-algo to obliterate MFA's, they sure are taking their sweet time. Why?
M-O-N-E-Y
As long as prolific MFA's are around, Big G is raking in cash and they won't be so quick to eliminate that meal ticket.
From Biscuit: ... it strikes me that if visitors were taken where they thought clicking on an ad would take them, advertisers would be happier to do business on adwords content sites, genuine publishers would get more revenue, and visitors would click more.
In a perfect world, yes. But Google cannot, and probably never will be able to precisely track conversions. In either case...(perfect world scenario or MFA-scum scenario)... Google is making M-O-N-E-Y.
Right now, Google is the number one contextual ad network and as long as that is true, advertisers will spend money advertising with them. Of course this may change if another company (Yahoo, MSN, etc.) takes a majority share of the contextual ad market away.
From Biscuit: ...if Google really does think encouraging MFAs is a good long term strategy, the saying will exist long after Google too.
Google doesn't encourage MFA's, but they're also not going to completely shut them out. Especially the profitable ones.
Quoted by Farmboy: "No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."
If you want to get down to the truth of the matter, many sites are created nowadays for the simple purpose of generating revenue. Should we call them (MFE-Made for Ecommerce, MFA-Made for Affiliates, MFS-Made for Selling, or MFA-Made for Adsense)? Either way, people are making sites (with or without quality content) for the sole purpose of generating profits.
I run a legit site, some visitors coming to my site click on the Google ads. However, because Google is complaisant about the MFA issue, the click on an ad does not take the visitor to a relevant site but to a MFA where a further click may, or may not, get him to the product.Okay, I've been paid for my click; the visitor might not mind clicking once more, and perhaps Google appreciates the extra revenue. But the people who most surely do mind are the adwords advertisers, who are paying for all this. If the MFAs exist because Google is happy with the current situation, it's a rather short-sighted strategy.
You're describing the practice of ARBITRAGE and Google could eliminate AdSense arbitrage by simply checking from AdWords to see if the site being advertised runs AdSense ads.
Obviously this is a trivial thing to check to see if the landing pages have AdSense.
Even if the landing page target was being cloaked without AdSense to Google's engine, the landing page will ultimately show up in Google's AdSense database when the ads run and/or someone clicks those ads.
The practice is bad for users, it annoys them, and it's bad for advertisers.
The only people that arbitrage is good for is the people running the arbitrage campaign and Google.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 1:55 am (utc) on Dec. 31, 2006]
If Google was concerned with the quality of their AdSense network why would they leave a site in AdSense that they remove from Google search results?
Google has said that AdSense and Search are completely separate operations. Also, in large corporations, it's quite common for the left hand to be unaware of (and not particularly interested in) what the right hand is doing.
You're describing the practice of ARBITRAGE and Google could eliminate AdSense arbitrage by simply checking from AdWords to see if the site being advertised runs AdSense ads.
They might eliminate AdWords/AdSense arbitrage, but it wouldn't prevent YPN/AdSense, Kanoodle/AdSense, MSN/AdSense, and other forms of click arbitrage. That wouldn't just fail to end click arbitrage--it would enrich Google's competitors at Google's expense.
They might eliminate AdWords/AdSense arbitrage, but it wouldn't prevent YPN/AdSense, Kanoodle/AdSense, MSN/AdSense, and other forms of click arbitrage. That wouldn't just fail to end click arbitrage--it would enrich Google's competitors at Google's expense.
They could easily end YPN/MSN/etc. arbitrage as well simply by checking the page referrer and displaying PSAs.
Besides, this might be in Google's best interest to let the lesser networks get the cheap clicks and give Google the more expensive clicks. If that wasn't the case, arbitrage wouldn't work in the first place.
Besides, Google has been jacking up the prices of ads with their new quality stuff and some arbitrage campaigns got brutally slaughtered, so the migration to a YPN/MSN -> AdSense arbitrage situation is already probably in progress for those that they've priced out of business in AdWords.
In personnel, perhaps. But there is so much complimentary data between AdSense and Search that it would defy logic and be contrary to Google's known data mining practices to withold information between the two units. I mean, seriously, this is GOOGLE we're talking about. They take to data like monkeys on banana, lol.
EFV, you're a logical and reasonable person, think about it for a few seconds, you won't need more than a few seconds because this is so easy to comprehend: The two sides have data critical to the integrity of the other. It makes sense in every way for them to share data between their units.
We already know that AdSense and the Robots unit are sharing data because the AdSense bot delivers data to the search unit. They even share the same cache server between different units.
What higher purpose could possibly be served by witholding critical data between the two units? Especially within a data hungry company like Google, does it sound reasonable to assume Google would overlook or prevent the opportunity to mine valuable data?
Farmboy, re your two points, I can't speak to their validity in other instances, but in the case I presented, to which you offered those explanations, it doesn't fit. I'll give you more information (that you didn't have, sorry) to explain why:
1. Google is trying to develop the algorithm "homerun" to get rid of these sites
Google has known about this site for a year and a half. It doesn't take Google a year and a half to hit a home run.
2. Google is watching these sites and gaining "intelligence" for other purposes.
Well, this site is not allied with drugs, crimes, or anything unlawful. In fact, this site is associated with some of the biggest names of the internet. They are immensely influential. I don't mention names because I don't want to break the TOS. But Bill knows to whome I'm referring to and he can vouch for what I'm saying.
Besides, Google has been jacking up the prices of ads with their new quality stuff and some arbitrage campaigns got brutally slaughtered
IncrediBILL, are you suggesting that Google actually has been taking action against MFAs? :-)
Martinibuster, I agree that it would make sense for Google AdSense and Google Search to share some data, and perhaps they do. (Well, we know they share some data, now that Googlebot and the AdSense bot are using a common crawler cache.) But that doesn't mean the different teams have the same objectives, or even that any given group of people within a given team have the same objectives. For example:
- Some members of the AdSense team (the ones who deal with publishers) are expected to help publishers optimize their pages for clickthough rates and revenue. That's why we get "heatmaps," "Webinars," etc.
- Other members of the AdSense team (the people who devise smart-pricing algorithms) are expected to protect the interests of advertisers by bringing click costs into line with actual click value--which means that, in some cases, they may be working at cross-purposes with the staff who teach publishers how to optimize for clickthroughs.
- People like Matt Cutts of Google Search's antispam team devise filters and penalties that, in some cases, will hurt publishers who have been helping the AdSense business types to meet their revenue targets.
That's how things work in most large corporations. When I was doing contract work for MSN, the MSN team was--in some cases--using technologies from Microsoft's competitors. Different teams, different goals; different people, different pressures. In the real world, chaos is the norm, and rigid top-down control is the exception to the rule.
I have no inside information but after a year++ of seeing these type of business model flourish under the adsense program have to believe they are acceptable. My opinion of whether I like it has no bearing on the reality. Google has made no moves directly to eliminate this model....so have by default said it is ok.
The moves recently to add a quality score is in my opinion the same as smart pricing. Fancy words by Google that mean nothing to me...and I have to wonder is nothing more than corporate speak for profits:):)
What higher purpose could possibly be served by witholding critical data between the two units? Especially within a data hungry company like Google, does it sound reasonable to assume Google would overlook or prevent the opportunity to mine valuable data?
Google has repeatedly and publicly explained HOW and WHY it separates search from adwords/adsense, in very clear terms that make perfect sense. The integrity of their search results is a critical part of their business strategy. Except for bot caching, the algos, according to google are independent of each other.
Of course, if people think that google outright lies in public, then there's not much that can ever be said to convince them otherwise.
I have no inside information but after a year++ of seeing these type of business model flourish under the adsense program have to believe they are acceptable.
Do you also believe that crime in your country continues to exist because the government has incorporated it into its "business model?
After all, the justice / legal system is a HUGE business.
Or, is the reason that crime exists still because while it might be possible to eliminate much of it through harsh, totalitarian methods, that would mean violating much of what is important in your country?
It's the same principle here. I suspect many won't "get" this, but what the heck.
IncrediBILL, are you suggesting that Google actually has been taking action against MFAs? :-)
No, they are taking action against arbitrage in AdWords, the AdSense on the site is left alone. I know you were making a joke, but others might miss that subtle point so I thought I'd explain it even if it killed the amusement value.
But that doesn't mean the different teams have the same objectives, or even that any given group of people within a given team have the same objectives.
You're restating what we've already stated!
The search engines goal is spam-free results, the AdWords/AdSense groups goal is $$$.
The search engine group boots spammy MFA sites, the AdSense group does not.
If they were really using the same goal, when the search engine group punted a site from Google it could be automatically de-listed in AdSense and AdWords, but it isn't.
I don't think this is a case of chaos as you put it because they are very well connected opposed to the chaos I knew Lotus when I was there, sheesh. Can't go into details due to TOS, but suffice it to say the AdSense group won't punt them unless it's a clear TOS violation or you get served with a DMCA notice.
Just because you don't like or agree with a business model does not make it criminal.
The search engines goal is spam-free results, the AdWords/AdSense groups goal is $$$.
Uh, you are choosing two goals that are on different logical levels.
Do you think that google attempts to provide spam-free results as a public service? You need to analyse goals at the same levels, oranges with oranges, financial with financial, enabling with enabling, and terminal goals with terminal goals.
