Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For this day (17 May), does it mean that they will pay for April 1-30 earnings, or for May (1-18) also?
I quoted from a 'learn how to make MFA's' website about 20 pages back. Right there, the author said that he grabs content and doesn't care about duplication.
I remember reading that information.
Sadly, you don't need to go to a different website to find that attitude. There are people right here on these forums who eagerly "borrow" content and then twist themselves into pretzels in their attempts to rationalize and justify the practice.
FarmBoy
If the crack down also gets rid of some of the article pages with "borrowed" and/or "reworked" content, maybe there will be less borrowing of content in the future.
Two other possible benefits:
1. There may be some used domains back on the market
2. I might be able to advertise via AdWords Site Match without the concern of my content being stolen
FarmBoy
Sounds great to me. I was happy with prices legit advertisers were willing to pay before all the nonsense scam artists decided to rear their ugly heads.
Exactly.
I joined AdSense in the second month of its existence and over the months/years I watched my EPC decline as I saw more MFA type sites appear on the scene.
I can't say with certainty there is a coorelation, but I'm certainly willing to find out.
FarmBoy
When the arbitrageurs are gone by June 1. the regular publishers will be stuck with their less optimized sites with less optimized ads, causing a lower general CTR network wide, and hence less money from the advertizers flowing into the content network.
I don't think it's that simple. In the short run, there may be some loss of revenue (especially by publishers who have been subsisting on MFA ads), but in the long run, the June 1 change should boost advertiser confidence and make the "content network" more attractive, resulting in greater competition and higher bids for ads.
Other factors will come into play in the next few months:
- Advertisers will have better statistics from Google, making it easier for them to add non-converting publisher sites to their domain filters.
- Advertisers will be able to bid on site-targeted contextual ads, not just site-targeted CPM (run-of-site) ads.
These changes may lead to further shakeouts and a greater spread between the haves and have-nots, but that isn't a bad thing if it means that pricing is brought into line with value.
I think a bigger issue is what is Google doing about MFA? So the arbitragers are kicked out but what about MFA sites that have organic traffic? Also I have heard that there is a solid plan for Arbi-2.0 – I don’t know the game yet and I don’t want to know, but from what I have heard it is going to be a lot harder to stop.
I for one am getting out of the game because it is an unhealthy place to be – but from what I hear the game is on come this summer.
The bottom line is the key to stamping out unwanted behaviour is to stamp out MFA and until they do that I think this may just be a blip on the landscape.
Arbi-2.0?
Let me guess:
Minimum content
Buying cheap traffic from elsewhere
but what are they going to do to get a new account, change their names?
As for traffic sources I don’t know.
As for changing their names – who uses their name? If you are playing this game you are running it through a corp that you can shut down without any hassles.
That's what I'm wondering too, Hobbs. Seems to me there's nothing even close to what they had with Google.
Or is that too radical to consider? Seeing that any site that pays for traffic must be BAD?
That doesn't mean that there are not other sources of traffic, even non-SE traffic. For example, my traffic switched from about 90% from G to 90% from one link on a big site. I still barely believe it, but if an MFAer was in that position then maybe they could live on that footfall with a CPM ad network.
Rgds
Damon
