Forum Moderators: martinibuster
However, it seems that these sites are popping up more and more each day.
I break my but trying to develop useful content while battling ads that sometimes go off target and smart pricing.
I'm starting to think that we should be reporting these sites. Clearly, they hurt legitimate publishers and bloggers who use AdSense.
AdWords users (of which I am one) set limits on having their ads shown, and if these guys are eating up the inventory, it hurts the good guys.
Am I wrong?
I imagine a lot of the big brands just won't do contextual ads until they have more control over where they appear or they're satisfied with the quality control exerted by the likes of Google.
Makes you feel like following the old saying "If you cant beat them join them"
The point we see is - We all dislike our hard work standing second to spamwork or scraperwork.
I disagree with the statement that "if users don't like the sites, they are bad. end of story. "
No story ends this way and a healthy debate is often fruitful than brushing issues under the carpet. At some point of time we all like to believe that we work best and we must get rewarded for that, failing which, we tend to get biased.
No single user can define any site ( even spam site ) as BAD.
Today, the fact is that we live in G world and if G algos keep the spam site above ours, ranking and positioned better than our hard worked site, .. you know what i mean.
Most spam sites are lean, mean and muscle sites using good tech skills, often using web fetching beyond human recognition. Hundreds scraper sites use Yahoo! (dynamic)search data (NOT G search data) as a show of the content they have. This tells me that content maybe the king but use of technology is the 'kingmaker'.
One of my site ranks between 5 to 10 for main keyword and almost 4 sites above me are spam sites, which take a good amount of share of traffic i deserve.
I saw the suggestion to make a site for bad links and sites... think of it.. it would actually be one of the most traffic churning resource actually.. Listing, with description of ..say 10000 such sites, sectionwise, interestwise, [and probably with sectionwise adsense appearing there too] .. think of it.. challange your thinking..
EXAMPLE: search for 'web design' and one of the top 5 sites you see is about web designs that suck [a usability guide site]. Try to think how much traffic would such a site attract.
Life isnt fair anyways, and so is the netlife.
Most here are ethical, legitimate webmasters (if we still use the term) and follow the rules.
Google, for example, sets rules for participation in their search engine. We follow along but become frustrated when seeing cheezy sites with better search engine results. (By cheezy I am referring to the clear-cut spam sites that offer no content but a host of ads and keywords)
If Google is not going enforce the rules, they should let us know so we can spend less hours optimizing, researching, writing, and testing.
We avoid link farms, hidden links, stuffing, and a host of other "easy way" techniques so as not to become banned. When G doesn't enforce the rules, the only ones benefiting are those who ignore G's rules.
Welcome to the real world of advertising, where businesses care about the company they keep.
Where's the harm to a brand when it appears on a site that appears to be "made for Adsense"? Do you think the average surfer knows that a site is "made for Adsense" or "spammy" or whatever else that might put it in the "bad company" category? Of course not. All the average surfer sees is little content with some ads. Where's the harm in that?
Where's the harm to a brand when it appears on a site that appears to be "made for Adsense"?
Many companies do care where their ads or names appear. Some even go to the extreme of demanding that Webmasters obtain permission before linking to their Web pages.
Look, I didn't make this up. Neither did the other member who referred to "brand managment." If you want to argue, don't argue with us--argue with the companies that care about their images and worry about guilt by association.
