Ad Churning and Irrelevant Site Wake Up Call

No, that is not the way the coop network works and you should not change it.

 

Not exactly tough to do - infact I had to modify my code to make sure the ads were constantly updating as I cache my generated pages due to server load issues.

Thing is - you won't gain anything from doing it unless everyone else does it too, the links to your site are still churning away on everyone else's sites.

As the Fryman pointed out - this isn't the way the co-op works so I would suggest you don't do it as you run the risk of getting booted from the co-op.

 

yeah, easy, maybe an hour; mostly spent trying to figure out how it works...

my thought was that if a plug-in was made available; there seems like there is demand for it, so there would be take up. Seems like the only reason it isn't being implemented is because its not challenging enough.

 

Hmmm, I wonder if it's really as easy you guys make it seem. Could be the basis for another COOP here as well as this one??

That way DP could keep all COOP members nobody would have reason to jump ship. I say this because I know many are sitting on the fence (myself included). I have tried another COOP that is based on static linking, the problem is they lack members. Growth is slow but steady. DP has the most important ingredient in a coop...members.

Is it possible to offer two types of COOP networks here ? I feel a little guilty jumping ship and really enjoy the DP forum, it is second to none for me.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Shawn's coop is one of the first, right? It would stand to reason that the copycats/emulators will not be as successful just based on the fact that the DP Community is already large and for the most part dedicated. The network has evolved a great deal over the past year and I'm sure it will continue to do so. I personally would be leary of joining anything that hasn't had a sustained userbase and a dedication to improve. I'm sure a lot of these other networks just "borrowed" shawn's code and that's it. A few of them may have added features here and there, but what I'm saying is that if they didn't write the thing in the first place, it will take them a long time to get better.

Whereas here, we all already know that shawn is dedicated to making this better - and he's not the kind of guy to jump on a bandwagon and change things around because a few people think the sky is falling either.

 

I wouldn't agree with a number of assertions put forward above. Firstly, you couldn't really say this ad network was dedicated to improvement; something more like, dedicated to improvement where it is technically challenging would be closer to the truth. This I have no problem with, since the provider hasn't any obligation for an unpaid service. Secondly, later in time doesn't necessarily mean lesser in quality (I think a good example of this would be Google) people usualy jump quickly to a superior product. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not going to reiterate the supposed benefits of static/semi-static links, categories and other suggestions; only that in those two cases I agree with most of the advantages that have been raised.

 

nevets: I hear what you are saying. and can't agree with you.

I'm from Canada, we have a phone company hear called Bell Canada. This is the telephone company that drilled the holes in the ground and installed all wiring.

For many years us poor Canadians had no choice who we would use for our telephone service we just had to accept it the way it was. Bell Canada now is struggling for a market share due to competition that has decided to use the very phone lines that they installed more efficiently and cheaper, while learning from the mistakes that Bell Canada made and continues to make. Based on this I quickly jumped shipped, cut my phone bill in 1/3 and can make unlimited long distance calls anywhere in the world 24/7.

Maybe these copycats have learned from DP.

As txchou says:

Shawn is nothing short of genius...at the same time he has a day job.

 

But even if you don't relate it to serps, Shawn has said he wanted to make an adsense-like program that wasn't based on Javascript. Adsense targets ads based on themes on the page. This is one of the things that link vault provides that the Coop should have. The reason why is because relevent ads are beneficial to the visitor as well as the advertiser. It brings together a customer and supplier. While the coop was great for its time, I think things like themed links should be the utmost priority, as well as providing more static links.

And to refute nevetS point, yahoo was one of the first to the search engine game, however Google took care of them pretty well and was later to the market. First isn't always better. First just allows for other smart programmers to help fill the gaps to bring a better system. This is called competition. When there's competition most products tend to do better because a fire is lit under each respective ass to motivate all parties to do better. If there was no competition, things can be put off until the time was right or there was time to implement new features.

The sky may not exactly be falling, but trying out new services and seeing what works best for you isn't bad either.

 

first ... last ... whatever. once people realize that (or i should say 'if') G is dropping the worth of dynamic links people will jump ... at least those that are here for serps.

statics kill dynamics people! haven't you noticed you have competition with 250 links while your site has 3500?

now if it becomes harder to evade detection with statics ... that's another story.

i know shawn wants it to be an ad network, i respect that. if that's the reason, so be it ... nothign to see here people ... go back to your lives. the "ease of implementation" logic i can't comprehend, but each to his own. computers were designed to make life easier.

i'd rather be fishing

 

I suppose I didn't completely illustrate my point. My apologies, I've been a little flustered lately.

The DP Co-op isn't unstoppable because they were first. Of course if someone can do a better job they will take over as the premiere cooperative advertising network. What I was trying to say is that it's not going to be easy.

Every month or so, some new fangled idea or FUD will have a bunch of people crying "we need to do this". Someone will mention a new site that does it and will cry that the new site is better and this is why they are leaving. Anybody who has monitored the coop network for any length of time will realize that these kinds of things come up all the time. Some are legitimate reasons to change things. Most are not.

One of the primary reasons that this network is a good one is the number of members. Many of us came here because it was an original idea and it was the only network around. We have stayed because the results of this advertising network are hard to ignore. There have been problems, yes, but Shawn has always been good about responding and correcting problems quickly. Looking at a new network, can you say the same about them? Are the ads moderated? Are they approved quickly? Are violators of the TOS dealt with? Do community members help to police the network? Are all of these things going to be consistent over the long term?

Digital Point isn't just the first, but they have done a good job of fostering their community. I see a comment above that Shawn only makes improvements that are "technically challenging". That's flat out wrong. There have been a good deal of upgrades that have gone through over the last year. Many would say there have been too many. Not all have been required, but there has been a steady push for improvement since the beginning. For somebody who has other priorities, I would say that the dedication is impressive.

You just don't get this kind of a thing from everybody. I'd be surprised if there was another network out there that had a consistent push for improvement, a solid community, a strong fraud prevention effort, great customer service, a large amount of members.

Whether or not this static link thing is worth it or not, I don't know. I honestly haven't been reading about it. I just think that the idea that everybody will start leaving DP because they didn't jump on it right away is silly. If it's the direction that we go in, it will be a well thought out one.

 

Would this have anything to do with nevetS roinuJ?

 

of course. Nothing bad, he's a bundle of joy, but having two little ones in the house is a LOT of work!

 

in this same thread.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=13695&page=4&pp=10

 

I am new to the network, but I do spend a lot of time in forums. Personally, I am disappointed with the link exchange mentality within the network. I would like to see more ads (banners) then the boring and nondescript text links. This may be why most of you are looking at this like it is a link exchange. Unfortunately the weight distribution is actually biased towards the text links because they fit better on most of our sites then 5 banner ads.

This is an excellent marketing opportunity for those of you who can produce eyecatching advertising, create traffic from those ads, and convert those into sales. I don't really know of any other program that will allow you FREE advertising space on so many websites. Give an inch and they'll ask you for a mile.

Lastly, if the COOP did change to "semi-static", how long do you think it would take G to extend their link validation time? Do you want to extend link sandboxes and validation? Very poor idea in my book (a website adds your link and a year later the link actually shows up).

If you expect the COOP to be a saving grace, do not be suprised when the search engines mix it up on you.

 

Shawn has said over and over this is an Ad Network, and thats its against TOS to change the code.

As for Link Vault it is a totally different concept all together, anyone thats spent five minutes on the forum http://forum.link-vault.com/ will see that. And to say the code is *borrowed* from Shawn is non sense!

 

But so far it's only two. If you're planning a third, give it some extra thought. Years ago when this occurred in my family and in the family of a close friend, he remarked, "This is like going from man-on-man to zone defense!"

 

Couldn't agree more. So far (sure it's early days) the guys at Link Vault have shown themselves to be nothing but totally professional. They have obviously put A LOT of thought into it and have implemented it well. To automatically dismiss other networks as sub-standard/copy-cats/whatever seems a bit presumptuous. Have the nay-sayers even looked at Link Vault - let alone given it a try?

I understand that the co-op has been defined as an Advertising Network and NOT a link exchange network. That's fair enough, but from a SEO point of view it seems that Link Vault could well be of more benefit in the long-run.

Shawn gave his reasons for not wanting to implement a static-link exchange network, and that's completely up to him. Some of the co-op members would *prefer* it if the DP co-op would move in this direction, but implementing some sort of hack to the co-op isn't the way to achieve this.

As mentioned before - the co-op's biggest asset is it's members, it was (by all accounts) the first of it's kind and it's members are very loyal for obvious reasons, but to suggest any network that takes that idea and runs with it - in an SEO direction - isn't worth looking at, just seems plain dumb to me.

I have to assume that the DP co-op will never change from rotating (non-static) links, in which case it is obviously not the solution some are looking for if that is what they want.

Given that the DP co-op is so different from Link Vault, I respectfully ask Shawn to re-consider allowing us to utilize both systems on the same pages.

As it is - several people have done this, and when someone sees their Link Vault LINKS on a page also showing co-op ADS, it has been brought to the attention of the forum members. Without this 'inside' information it is impossible to tell Link Vault links from any other regular links. I wouldn't be at all surprised is there are other instances of this happening that haven't been spotted yet, nor would I be surprised if more people make this 'mistake' in the future.

I fail to see why there would be a restriction on running Link Vault on the same page as the co-op, but no problem running the co-op on DMOZ clones and other directories, links pages, forums (with signature links) etc etc. Link Vault is just an automated way to setup indirect-link-exchanges with other sites.

The co-op TOS states:

If Adsense is not considered similar, why is Link Vault? It is not the same, it is not just an AD NETWORK it is primarily a link exchange network. It's focus is on steadily and 'naturally' building static back links on related sites for the purpose of improving rankings in the SEs. The co-op isn't this, and isn't going to change into this.

Link Vault doesn't impose such a restriction, but it does have tighter restrictions on the pages you can use to display links and the pages you can link to. For example - no General Directories are allowed. Those who assumed that there is less quality control with any other network, really should do a bit of research before posting such nonsense.

All previous requests to move the co-op in the direction that Link Vault has taken have been dismissed with the most common response being - the DP co-op is an ADVERTISING NETWORK, it is not a link exchange network and was never intended as such. I propose that this very same argument could be used to allow members to utilize both systems simultaneously.

Allowing co-op members to also use Link Vault on the same pages would, IMO, benefit everyone and might even put an end to this topic of conversation. As far as I'm concerned they compliment each other and the two very different systems together could pack an almighty punch.

So how about it Shawn? Pretty please

 

After devouring this thread, I honor the goals of the coop as it is. That said, I have a concept that might solve 90% of the issues that have repeatedly been brought up. It would continue the advertising network as-is, but make the ads and the benefits stronger, yet have absolutely no downside for anyone. It would:

- Target Adsense/Content-like outcomes (something Shawn has said is awe inspiring)
- Rotate ads completely, where appropriate, for breadth and quantity. PLUS provide semi-static ads exactly where the static links are most needed.
- Place more ads on pages where they are more likely to get click-throughs
- Be challenging in that it would move the coop towards perfection
- Be technically feasible
- Have more ads placed on pages with relevant content
- Settle the link-churning issue
- Provide freedom of choice for ad rotation and content matching for members

Shawn, kindly let me know if it is worthwhile for me to start a thread covering the concept which only you could rework, perfect and make into the strongest possible tool we could envision.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that Shawn came up with the concept first. I think the point was more along the lines of - dismissing any other network using the same principles is automatically just a rip-off and isn't worth considering.

Shawn: can I take it you're not open to the idea of allowing co-op members to use Link Vault on the same pages? Any comment on my earlier post? I'm really having a problem understanding the logic behind the current situation... Having said that - a definative 'No' will put an end to my whining (promise)