Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is this illegal, and will G Adsense ban me. Ive seen an ad coming up on my site that I blocked "Thanks Ann for the info on how to do that" that is just this 20 pages of raw info from other websites like <SNIP>
Are thes MFA's and what is there conversion rate like is it anything above 10% cause I still would not see the sense for them doing this unless they had a massive concersion rate..
Anyway does anybody have any thoughts on this matter
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:12 am (utc) on Oct. 14, 2006]
[edit reason] Edited per TOS [webmasterworld.com] . [/edit]
Guys lets say I have a website with 100 pages with 100 articles taken from other websites and lets say I place adsense ads on the top.
Unless you have permission to display the articles you are probably infringing copyright. This is against the AdSense TOS and will get you banned.
This is against the AdSense TOS and will get you banned.
Banned not only from AdSense, but also from the search engines. (All it takes is a DMCA complaint.)
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:13 am (utc) on Oct. 14, 2006]
[edit reason] REMOVED SPECIFICS. [/edit]
(All it takes is a DMCA complaint.)
Anyone else done this with a positive result outside of USA?
I have and it was totally ineffectual!
Site and server in Spain and they couldn't give two figs...in my experience.
Their site is still running my ads with my pub id and I earn money from it!
Interesting that you seek to block sites doing the same thing you do. So you've assesed their worth but can't do the same for yourself when looking in the mirror?
Guys lets say I have a website with 100 pages with 100 articles taken from other websites and lets say I place adsense ads on the top.
Would you have made this site if not for AdSense?
Almost everyone here with a content site started after AdSense was introduced essentially has a "made for AdSense" site.
I interpret it in reality to mean a site that offers little or no real value to visitors. It's like the "I know porn when I see it" quote. When you see a made for AdSense site, you know it.
No useful information, but a huge AdSense banner in the center of the page.
On the flip side, here's an example of a site of mine that is technically against the TOS. It's a site that if it were not for AdSense, I never would have built. It's about a topic I am interested in and provides value to visitors. It's made up of content all written by me about the subject. It's only a couple months old, but 4+ average page views per visit is an indication that the site has real value.
Technically, I built the site for AdSense. Without AdSense, I would not be wasting my time on it as it would have no financial payback. That said, most people would not think that AdSense is the motivation by looking at it or reading the content. By the time the average user is 4 articles deep, they certainly aren't thinking that I'm trying to scam them into clicking an ad. But still, without AdSense I never would have started the site. Is it what they mean by a made for AdSense site? I certainly don't think so.
The real question is does your site offer unique content of real value to visitors? If you were to look at the site as an outsider, would you think the primary intent is to get users to click the ads? If there is ANY doubt in your mind, it's probably a made for AdSense site. That being said, people are getting away with a lot right now and are not being kicked out of the program.
As a side note, you're going to have a very rocky road with google if you are getting content that is already out on the web. Whether you have permission to use the content or not, duplicate content filters will kick in and most likly you'll receive little to no traffic from Google.
Thoughts anyone.
Arbitrage is a tough game requiring deep pockets. As you point out you will need a 50% CTR just to break even. Unless it is a pure MFA with no content, it is difficult to imagine such a CTR consistently.
As of now Google, has made it even tougher to arbitrage, with their concept of QS and aggressive smart pricing. So beware..
Are you trying to ask what the deffinition of a MFA is? If so peterdaly pretty much nailed it earlier in the thread with:-
I interpret it in reality to mean a site that offers little or no real value to visitors. It's like the "I know porn when I see it" quote. When you see a made for AdSense site, you know it.No useful information, but a huge AdSense banner in the center of the page.
MFA's come in various guises but that is the bottom line - they have no useful content but lots of ads.
Alternatively, are you asking how they manage to make a profit? CTR may not have a huge bearing on profits, but scale or operations does.
For example, they have very low overheads. They buy a lot of domains cheaply, and have them hosted very cheaply also. They don't have to worry about content as there isn't any, so no overheads there. In fact, you can get programs that will automate the entire process of knocking up an MFA and getting it online. Although that is possible, Google may be looking for any traces that this is what has happened and automatically boot them.
They don't actually have to make a lot of profit on each site either. They may well have very low profit margins, but spread over 100's of sites that low profit still ads up to significant amounts.
Also, the people involved have spent a lot of time learning how to manipulate adwords, and in reality pay very low costs per click.
The ads get placement as a result of the algorithms Google use interpreting them as the "Best bet" for maximised profit.
So all in all, a lot of people that are very skilfull at the arbitrage game make a lot of profit out of the system. The recent quality scores algorithm on adwords was designed to charge low content landing pages more to have their ads appear. However, this has had only limited success. Some of the small fry arbitrageurs have fallen by the wayside, leaving the way clear for the big boys and a new breed of scrapers.
I'm sure you can find lots of information on all of these topics in the library, or adwords forum:)
The motive of MFA is to make as much money as possible.
Result is wise visitors clicking the cross button, leaving your site and some stupid dumb users who can't differentiate between ads and content links, clicking ur ads.
In fact, you can get programs that will automate the entire process of knocking up an MFA and getting it online. Although that is possible, Google may be looking for any traces that this is what has happened and automatically boot them.
I saw one of these programs advertised in a GoogleAd for the keyword Adsense! :(
I never understood why Google is so harsh in permanently banning Adsensers who violate their TOS but so lenient with AdWords abusers of their TOS. I mean, you could be banned in a day for some violation, but the scammers continue for months unabated.
The whole idea that it should be difficult if not impossible to weed out the abusers by competitive filters is ridiculous. Imagine publishing a magazine and not being able to keep flakes from advertising in your mag.
Some of these abusers are deliberately trying to evade the filters. There's no other reason for all the similar odd domain names only different with hyphens.
Google can't even keep up with its own ethos, "Don't be evil!" There's really no difference when it lets evil abusers run free for months or years. Collusion is evil!
p/g
Google can't even keep up with its own ethos, "Don't be evil!"
I don't see how it's evil to provide an advertising opportunity that converts.
Advertiser pays for a click + Advertiser sells a product = ROI.
MFA sites transform a yearn into a yawn.:)
G Adwords - 5% CTR at a minimum 5 cents
G Adsense - 1% CTR at an average 10 cents per click
Actually they buy their clicks for e.g. DVD at 3 cents
And their "content" is about pharmaceuticals or some other high paying keyword and sell their hits much more expensive than 10 cents. Moreover they have nothing to click on except ads and as such achieve a higher CTR than 1%.
The simplest way around this: match adwords account with adsense account for anybody doing arbitrage and make sure their incoming (adwords) clicks are always more expensive than their outgoing clicks (adsense).
The landing quality tries to do something by making the adwords clicks more expensive, but a more fundamental solution would be to make sure the cheapest adwords clicks are increased in price in order to make it more expensive than the most expensive adsense click from that same site. [I.e. leave the profit with GOOG and the DVD publisher instead of giving the DVD publisher 1 cent and let the arbitrager run of with the bulk of it.]
if you don't like mfa's, tell adwords raise the minimum keyword bid... cheap traffic is the lifeblood of mfa's.
if you don't like mfa's, tell adwords raise the minimum keyword bid... cheap traffic is the lifeblood of mfa's.
Trouble is, MFAs aren't the only advertisers who need cheap traffic. (Some legitimate advertisers also operate on low margins. Also, for publishers who rely solely on AdSense, cheap ads may be better than no ads. (Longtime AdSense forum users may recall how complaints about PSAs were commonplace here until Google lowered the minimum bid for content ads.)
A better solution would be for Google to stop serving ads on domains that appear to be involved in click arbitrage, or to serve ads but pay no earnings (this would require a change to the TOS).
Is there any way to get a clue if that is happening in some instances?
If so, that would kill the prospect of blocking by advertiser forever. Who'd want to take the chance? Not me.
no, adsense site-targeted cpm is what took the place of psas... the minimum content bid is what the advertiser pays for clicks, and while it is a factor in ad placement, it's almost never as low as site-targeted cpm.
A better solution would be for Google to stop serving ads on domains that appear to be involved in click arbitrage, or to serve ads but pay no earnings (this would require a change to the TOS).
This is old news. Many of us here have been suggesting this for well over a year now - ever since the start of the ongoing MFA debate.
However, I'm not sure a change in the TOS is neccesary as the sites we all want to be rid of are already against the TOS in more than one respect. What is required is some willpower on Google's part to actually act. They can't one one hand moan about these ads yet not act in order to make a difference.
Not serving ads on pages that do not comply means they have no money to advertise. I accept that it's simplistic, but sometimes a simple idea is what is needed as opposed to costant ineffective changes to algorithms that do little or no good.
I'm not sure a change in the TOS is neccesary as the sites we all want to be rid of are already against the TOS in more than one respect.
A change in the TOS wouldn't be required to close accounts, but it would be required for the specific situation that I mentioned.
Also:
- I don't think Google is eager to ban publishers unless it has do, just as it isn't eager to ban advertisers unless it has to. Google would much prefer to rely on scalable automated solutions like the landing-page Quality Scores on the AdWords side of the network.
- MFAs exist largely because of supply and demand. Until or unless advertisers can justify bidding more than minimal amounts for traffic on certain keywords, those keywords will attract bottom-feeding advertisers.
The idea of Google serving ads and not paying for clicks generated may well require a change in the TOS, but that's not the answer. There's no reason to introduce such a plan. As an advertiser, I don't want my clicks showing on that sort of site whether I'm charged for the click or not.
If they don't comply then don't show ads. That doesn't need a change of TOS and it's the one thing that will make the biggest difference as we have been saying for a long time now.
Besides, suspending ad serving does NOT necessarily mean terminating the account. It does mean that the landing page has to meet the TOS in order to have ads served, and suspension gives them that chance. That may mean that having to add content to pages reduces the ctr and profitability for the sites we want rid of, but nobody sees any problem with that.
They are not MFA in the meaning of
<Headline>
<Adsense Ads>
<scraped or total crap with keywords>
Instead they have content which is unique but fairly thin. Thin in value that is, not in amount of text. It still provides some value though, it is not zero. The average reader stays on a page for about 30-90 seconds before clicking on an ad (I only have these stats when they exit via an ad). It is boring - deliberately so - in order to make ads a more compelling place to click.
With these (hypothetical, remember) sites I have around 20-50% CTR. I also (hypothetically) run some "normal" sites which have CTR's around 1-5% so the total CTR is not excessively high (yet - but that will become a problem if I extend the SOMFA sites).
Based on this, I would expect totally MFA sites to have a conversion around 50% if they are niche and with well targetted keywords.
The ones where keywords are organized like cluster bombs over a whole country (some blogs I've seen) must have much lower CTR but they appear to exist in groups of 100 or so and the total revenue can probably still be good.
Sounds as though you are deliberately boring your visitors as a means of getting them to click on an ad to escape. So not a good experience for them. Expect this sort of site to get targeted by Google's current and future initiatives.
You don't say how you are attracting your visitors. It is possible that you are capturing and sending genuine new buyers to your advertisers - this would be good for them. If on the other hand you catch anyone one you can and send them anywhere that earns you a click, this would provide a bad ROI for the advertisers - expect to be hit by smart pricing.
Make your content do something for the visitor and the advertiser and maybe the SOMFA are not so bad - this requires a lot more work though.
The obvious value added is Adsense dollars to my bank account.
There is also another value however. I have targeted misspellings here. When someone searches for something and spells it wrong, Google and most other search engines will then put in a "Did you mean X?" and if people click there - fine, they will get what they want.
However - a lot of people do NOT click there (maybe they don't see it, maybe they are absolutely certain their spelling is right, maybe they hate it when Google tells them they are stupid), they click on the search list instead. With misspellings, the search engine results contain a lot of worthless stuff, parked domain pages, scraped sites etc. Totally useless except for the fact that they contain ads which may be of some value (that is why they have a high CTR).
Now - my sites contain SOME value. Much better than a MFA (scraped or nonsense sites etc) but not quite as good as a "proper" site (borderline actually, I've seen quite a few probably proper sites that are not as good as mine). I'm just very good at getting in on top of the search engine results and by doing this, I will push down a number of scrapers, nonsenses and parked domains.
Traffic is driven to my sites by search engines only and since my keywords are highly niched, it is very likely that people searching for these are also very interesting to the advertisers of these niches. So I am sending them valuable customers. If they had clicked on a very good government site instead, they probably would not have found and clicked any ads - so I am "rescuing" them from too much content and instead sending them to advertisers. It is a trick of course - they think they will get non-commercial and unbiased info, but they end up somewhere where someone tries to sell something. On the other hand, that's the way things work (if you watch TV, they are getting more and more sneaky to trick you into staying through the commercial break instead of zapping etc, James Bond nowadays always show the brands of things he is using etc).
If I am doing a really good job, I might find a much used misspelling where Google does not say "Did you mean X?". In those cases - my site adds quite a lot of value. It helps people finding what they really look for, even if they aren't good at spelling.
When I developed the "SOMFA" site idea, I decided I wanted my sites to be one notch better than the scrapers et al to avoid getting killed off in any first wave of Google cleanouts. The idea is actually a system for creating a site that will generate a profit within a short time, without knowing anything about the subject. The profit is not huge per site, but there is no limit to the amount of sites that can be created this way (by hiring subcontractors to help out of course).
Strangely enough, Google apparently aren't bothered though - if you search for anything misspelled, you WILL get a number of crap scraper sites etc on your first page. Google could easily find and kill them if they wanted but apparently they don't. I have tracked a few and they have been around for a long time.
So - if/when Google starts to crack down, you are right - my sites will be targeted but only after many others have been wiped off first. I should be able to see this happening and take counteraction, I have a few interesting ideas there....but nothing I will reveal anywhere in advance.
Does your content provide any value without the Ads?
Does it explain the services and products available and their advantages or disadvantages?
Does it help to grow the market - encourage more sales?
Does it separate out those visitors who will not buy from your advertisers and point them somewhere else?
Is think that unless the answer to these quaestions is "yes", then your site could serve as a definition of MFA.
