[google.com...]

They not only anticipated MFA's, but as far as I am concerned the above link indicates that they actively encourage it. MFA's are part of their business model.

MFA provide them useful way to get clicks and USE UP advertiser budgets. All hue and cry is cosmetic and in the long run they need MFA's to grow.

Unfortunate but a business reality.

Whoever developed an Internet advertising method that worked would have precipitated a growth in rubbish sites to use the ads.

That's the way the world turns. It happened to be Google.

If M$N or Y! had done it, the same thing would have occurred.

It works simply because the average web user finds it easier to click and trigger an exit payment than to use the 'back' button - and it will continue to work until users - not webmasters - get sick of seeing the sites, and realise that they are feeding them by clicking.

Don't feed the trolls eventually caught on (mostly!); "Don't feed the MFA" (made for advertizing) is the only conceivable cure.

Blaming Google makes webmasters feel better - but utterly misses the point.

[edited by: Quadrille at 8:01 am (utc) on Aug. 8, 2006]

Blaming Google makes webmasters feel better - but utterly misses the point

That's like saying don't blame scientists that develop biological and nuclear weapons because others are bound to develop them anyway..

No, it IS the point, Google did not invent the PPC model but propagated it to the next level, and like any other conglomerate, did it with full awareness of the "collateral damage" (God I hate this phrase), and a prime directive of first serving its owners and share holders, I wouldn't do it any other way myself so no high moral chair there for me, fine, sell manure (do no evil) just don't ask me to embrace it.

rubbish sites to use the ads.

Rubbish for who?

Do they convert not for the advertiser?

TJ

I could have my guys here list off within 24 hours over 2 million MFA sites and those are just ones that have scraped our urls so to put it bluntly yes they were totally ready and willing for MFA's and seem to have zero regard towards the problem since they do not consider it a problem.

Every day we wake up to tens of thousands more MFA sites scraping our content, every day we have thousands of different and new mfa ads loading on out properties via adsense. The fact that the problem has gotten worse highlights to us the basic principle that Google wants MFA's, they want there deceptive, stolen content, 3 cube ads above the fold and scraped content 4 scrolls down websites to represent them.

Anyone who questions Google's tolerance for MFAs need only do a Google search for the word "adsense", and then look at the ads that appear on the right side of the search results page.

yeah I see it too.

but notice the sponsored listing in the result

[google.com...] - no trailing slash

the first result
[google.com...] with trailing slash

must be a rule on listing the same url on a serps page twice even when one is sponsored

Rubbish for who?

Rubbish for visitors. Who else?

on the other points raised ...

I'm constantly amazed that people blame Google for having a successful business model. Did you blame the 'banner exchange' inventors for that? Do you blame television advertisers for advertising - or NBC for selling 17 minutes of ads for 43 minutes of 'drama'?

It's business; if Google hadn't found a way, someone else would. Even us Brits with an all-powerful BBC don't blame commercial TV for existing (indeed, opinion polls suggest we blame the BBC for NOT paying for itself - let alone make a profit)

Why is it OK to 'use' adsense and adwords - you mostly do - and yet wrong for Google to run them for profit?

How many members here seriously believe Internet profit is wrong?

Or is it just wrong for everyone else?

Is there one person here who thinks Viacom Outdoors should stop looking for places to put hoardings so's not to pollute the countryside? If local planners want to control these things, then let elected folk make the rules; to single out a business for being a successful opportunist strikes me as undemocratic (and naive in the extreme)

Rant over ... I promise not to post in this thread again!

Even if Adsense pays me to ;)

Obviously there's nothing against profit but this AdSense for domains program invites people to register domains so they can do nothing more than run ads on them. This creates a huge number of websites that are nothing but ads. It's hypocritical that Google pretends to fight spam out of one side of the mouth but promotes it out the other.

How easy is that?

Every day we wake up to tens of thousands more MFA sites scraping our content, every day we have thousands of different and new mfa ads loading on out properties via adsense. The fact that the problem has gotten worse highlights to us the basic principle that Google wants MFA's, they want there deceptive, stolen content, 3 cube ads above the fold and scraped content 4 scrolls down websites to represent them.

This has become a huge frustration for me. In the past six months I have had to continually ramp up my spam/scrapper bot detection routines to keep the armies of MFA spammers from overwhelming my database resources with innumerable simultaneous requests. For get AdSense profits, Google has a social and ethical responsibility to put an end to these MFA scraper sites by booting them out of AdSense. By allowing these MFA scraper sites, Google is not only profiting off of stolen content, but in the process they are driving up the hosting expenses of the victim sites that have to continually allocate more and more server resources simply to satisfy the demand caused by scraping bots so that REAL users can still access the victim sites.

What people forget is that there isn't any one "Google." Google is a large organization, and different people or teams within a large organizations may work at cross-purposes (intentionally or otherwise).

For example:

- The person who came up with the AdSense concept probably thought "Hey, this is a great way for us to make money while helping mom-and-pop Webmasters earn rewards for their hard work!"

- The businesspeople who built the network and recruited publishers had a different goal: to meet or exceed revenue projections, and to develop AdSense into a highly profitable business.

Then you've got the Click Fraud team, which probably thought "Oh, crap!" as its workload increased, and the Google Search team, which probably thought "those goddamn MBA mother#*$!ers" as they dealt with a new flood of spam just when they thought they'd be able to catch their breaths after curbing much of the affiliate spam that polluted their SERPs in the early 2000s.

Obviously, a Pandora's box was opened when AdSense was launched with minimal quality standards (presumably to achieve a dominant market share overnight), and things have gotten worse with the loosening of rules (such as multiple ad units and blending of ads and content, which have made life more profitable for scrapers and other shady made-for-AdSense sites). But I don't think you can say that any one, all-powerful, omnipotent person at Google knew--and didn't care--that AdSense would replace affiliate marketing as the scourge of SERPs and the refuge of first resort for the get-rich-quick crowd.

europeforvisitors, great (and funny) post. Yes we must always remember that there a many distinct sections within Google with different agendas.

The problem is that we see one entity (Google) while hearing two messages that are not in agreement with each other. This makes you question the message and you begin to distrust the messenger. Someone at Google had better take a long look at this problem unless they really don't care if their brand is destroyed and no one trusts them. You would think that there would be someone smart enough to catch this.

If MSN and Yahoo or some other comepetitor eventually has comes reasonably close to producing Google's search and ad programs people will bail quickly. We've seen it before. We'll see it again. If Google doesn't care about it's ultimate customers they won't care about it.

>>>The problem is that we see one entity (Google) while hearing two messages that are not in agreement with each other.

Oh really? What little bird told you that so that you are so sure?

IF it's the case that EFC's explanation is accurate about big companies, and google, it's simply a sign of a poorly managed company. It's true that the lack of communication occurs in large companies (it's often called stovepiping or silos), but the more prevalent, the more it's a clear system of bad management.

I'm just working on material on strategic planning for one of my websites, so this is a topic of interest to me, and I do management consulting.

There IS a management bottom line in any company, where the buck has to stop somewhere, and senior management is responsible for integrating the information from various sub-departments.

I'm not convinced EFV explanation actually fits. It's clear that google anticipated problems since it did create the approval process for content ads. It simply doesn't seem to be enforcing its terms of service for ads of for MFA's.

Honestly, I can't think of any excuse that fits.

They may have some sensible explanations, but it's beyond me. I can't even guess at a reasonable explanation why they seem to have dropped the ball on quality assurance.

Honestly, I can't think of any excuse that fits.

Just in case there's any confusion, my post wasn't mean to be an "excuse." I questioned the approval process early on, I had reservations about making it easy to blend ads and content, and I've been uneasy about the dilution of the "content network" with everything from gmail ads to parked domains to MFAs and scraper sites. I suspect that changes are coming (as they've come on the AdWords side), and--as far as I'm concerned--a tightening of the screws, or at least improved control by advertisers or greater segmentation of the network, can't come soon enough.

Oh really? What little bird told you that so that you are so sure?

How about I see one entity and my own little bird told me so. It's also my opinion that most people see only Google and not several Googles. You may disagree and that's fine by me.

Just in case there's any confusion, my post wasn't mean to be an "excuse." I questioned the approval process early on, I had reservations about making it easy to blend ads and content, and I've been uneasy about the dilution of the "content network" with everything from gmail ads to parked domains to MFAs and scraper sites. I suspect that changes are coming (as they've come on the AdWords side), and--as far as I'm concerned--a tightening of the screws, or at least improved control by advertisers or greater segmentation of the network, can't come soon enough.

I understood you weren't offering excuses. I agree that changes will continue, but the really puzzling part is why they didn't follow their own quality assurance intentions.

It's a HECK of a lot easier to do this stuff from the beginning (e.g. enforcing MFA rules) than to have to figure out how to deal with a problem they allowed to happen after what? Almost years?

It's really a mystery.

Bad decisions, particularly in technology can take a company down quite fast, particularly in Internet businesses. Apple is a great example of a company that basically self-destructed for years because of some really poor business decisions.

rbacal:

but the really puzzling part is why they didn't follow their own quality assurance intentions.

I don't think it's that puzzling at all (though, I admit I was wondering about this as well some time ago). Just think about it - their success is mainly built around ruthlessly executing a plan, nothing else.

Now the only question is - what was that plan? I'll leave it to you to answer that question. :-)