Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It involves TWO websites (2 different domain names). One of them is an auto generated website made with several of the available "made for Adsense" page makers (this website should be 1000+ pages).
The other is a website of about 10 webpages, each page with original articles of about 200 words each. You could put some Adsense blocks on the pages with your original content for some extra cash.
Then put in a link on EACH page of your original website to the index page of your auto-generated website. Pay more attention to your original 10 page website concentrating on getting a higher page rank for that site (links, maybe even more original article page, etc). With higher page rank, spiders will crawl it well and follow it right to your auto-generated 1000+ page Adsense website.
Does this sound like a good method? It's worked pretty well for me. I figure I'm doing work, getting visitors to Google advertisers websites so it's a win/win situation...beats writing 1000+ pages of original content, I just have to write 10 pages of original content. I'm in this Adsense game to make money and since this an Adsense forum, I assume readers of this post are in the game to make money, too.
I hope nobody (Google and us included) ever thought that these algorithms were or could be foolproof. Too much academic (eg AI, linguistics, philosophy) and business literature and plain old experience out there on the topic for that to be a reasonable position.
There just ain't no such thing in natural language processing, especially when a bunch of black-hat ethically-challenged fast-buck-makers are actively gaming the system.
(Heck, in my MSc thesis I put forward the idea of complete by-word indexing of USENET, ie before the Internet really existed, and was told that (a) no one would be interested and (b) it couldn't possibly work. I also described the basis of phone-pad predictive text encoding, and browsing the Net over cable connections, ahem, but nearly failed my course! Roll over Sergey & Brin I say!)
Rgds
Damon
I hope nobody (Google and us included) ever thought that these algorithms were or could be foolproof.
I don't think anyone here has ever suggested that Google's algorithms (or anyone's algorithms) are perfect.
In any case, Google doesn't have to be perfect: It merely needs to be better than its competitors.
I think some people *have* been raging because the algorithms *aren't* foolproof, in this and other threads, which is a definite waste of cortisol IMHO.
But I'm furiously agreeing with you and others on G only having to be "better" than everyone else to win. I think the thrust of this thread is that there are several clashing views of what "better" is, and even G has several opinions it seems, in its AS, AW and SE divisions.
Rgds
Damon
As a corporation, Google simply can't afford to let the button-pushers control its search results.
As a corporation that prides itself in being the ultamate button pusher it is hard for them to judge other button pushers.
I don't think anybody got my point. Most of the stupid scraper sites that everybody hates only rank for terms that are extremly easy to get. If they did not exist there would be very few results for those terms and the ones that did would be completly off topic. If you can't beat a scraper site you are a very poor seo and need to find another line of work.
There's all this pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth because some webmasters scrape content from others and post it on their sites. Would the scrapers' actions be more tolerable if they stole pages of text from print books rather than snippets from your website? Obviously not. It's still theft, it's still wrong. What about if they stole it and put it online but always guaranteed to remove it if you managed to find that content and report it as theft? Nope, theft is theft and offering to return the goods if you get caught doesn't make theft legal.
But, Google Print does just that and hardly anybody here bats an eyelid. (Others are less tolerant of IP violations [news.com.com]). Why do people who get annoyed about scrapers not get similarly annoyed when Google's the one blatantly playing scraper (of print material)?
You mean like apart from the fact they'll be running Adsense ads on that scraper content? ;)
You've got experience of getting stuff into print. Can I take it you don't object to Google scraping books?
Google Print does just that and hardly anybody here bats an eyelid.
Fundamentally Project Gutenberg has already done the same thing for 16,000 out of print and out of copyright books. However, people are batting eyelids and copyright lawsuits are gearing up to attack Google for scanning currently copyrighted material.
This is drifting way off topic and is already a thread in Google News:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Class action law suit, I'd say the eyelids did bat and bat heavily.
Project Gutenberg doesn't differ from Project Google Scraper in just that they use out of copyright books while Google doesn't care whether it's copyrighted or not. Project Gutenberg doesn't use other people's content to run Adsense ads.
This really is a big issue and very closely related to the OP. If Google has a new and substantial volume of content competing for the SERPs that content is likely to appear for the multiple word searches that ogletree mentioned i.e. Google will be competing directly with scrapers for traffic. No bad thing in itself some may say, but if that content is running Adsense it will have an effect on the ads available for the rest of the inventory (your site and mine). But, more significantly, they won't give me, the author of the book they're reproducing, even a cent - kinda like what scrapers do. Scaper and Google Print Scraper, they have the same stink. Who'll join me in condemning both?
Fine if you have 10 million pages. But if no site links to those URLs they never get spidered and never show up in serps.
No scraper site, even one diguised as a portal, can have 10 million outbound links on it's index page.
In all the excuses presented to justify Made For Adsense autogenerated sites, was there a clear explanation of who benefits?
Obviously the owner of the autogenerated site benefits.
If conversions on click-thrus are good, then the advertisers benefit too. On the other hand, if conversions are poor, then advertisers can lose out.
Google benefits in the short term, but if people start to doubt the integrity of the ad network, then they could lose business in the long run.
End-users lose out the most, because scraper sites are a pollution in search results. It can be compared to email spam. Probably 99% of people don't buy things from email spam, just as probably 99% of people who are led to a scraper site quickly hit the back button. Sure, there's that 1% who enjoy spam, but there's no accounting for taste.
I myself don't find Google's SERP's one bit useful anymore - the truth is that I still find myself trying my search query on Google first - finding nothing - then moving to another engine.
I think this is happening to more and more people.
Google is an 83.90 Billion dollar company, as of today, according to Yahoo.
So who's to blame - it's people like VKWorld who think that learning how to make money by using other people's credebility [in this case Google's] is being smart. Yes, it may be legal as Oddsod said a few times - but who decides if it's legal or not. In this case - Google. So what we are probably seeing is a company trying to make money for it's share holders. Will it last - no it won't - why? because sooner or later that "credebility" factor will vanish. But many would have made money from it by then.
Ultimately who will loose in this auto generated content market?
Google will. Good publishers will continue with other advertising networks. Eventually people like VKworld [I like to think these people are more like businessmen who only care about the money] will find a way to destroy that - and the circle will continue to many full circles with various networks and companies.
Unfortunately I don't think Google can do anything about their SERP's. Their model has been exposed and now there's no turning back unless someone in the company actually takes an initiative to make it a "useful" search engine. But with the kind of money involved - I think that person will always have strong oposition.
