Google Cracks Down On MFA Sites

If you're building a site to make money (from ads) then imo sticky would be the last thing you want. You wouldn't want your site to be so good that users stay on it. You want them to come to your site get some information and then follow links (that you provide) in order to get more information or buy a product.
It's a catch 22, most of us want to build good sites and have users visit them and stay on them yet we also want money from adsense which means we have to provide the right amount of information so that the user will click to get more.
The best epcm will come from a site where the most users click thru' not from a site where users come and stay.

torunforever: I tend to agree. A well designed MFA (spam/scraper/normal whatever) site will have pages that are exceedingly well optimized for a given keyword. These sites should get exceedingly well targetted visitors and if the ads are well targetted, then the visitors being passed to the advertisers should be well targetted and therefore have a good chance of converting. If this is the case then that would explain why G aren't exactly going out of their way to crack down on MFA type sites.

 

I dont think google has any real effective way of determing a made for adsense site. It is just random. The algo simply looks for content. Doesnt matter where it came form or the intent of the site owner.

 

You should go to the Edit Profile section of the User CP on this site and stick your blog feed address in the box there.

 

I did, and it doesn't like the feed for some reason. Probably because of the query parameter, I guess, but that's the way blojsom does it:

http://www.MakeEasyMoneyWithGoogle.com/blog/adsense/?flavor=rss

Nothing every shows up, and I really haven't tried to figure out why. Ah well.

 

They are different, yes, but the root cause is the same: advertisers complaining that the clicks they're paying for aren't leading to enough conversions. So Google uses Smart Pricing, Chitika redesigns so that there are fewer clicks. Don't be surprised if Chitika has to do more to combat the "curiosity clicks", though.

 

Do you think there are any MFC (Made For Chitika) sites?

 

Probably. If you have an MFA, it's trivial to add a (non-contextual) eMiniMalls unit to it. And an MFA site is easily trasformed into an MFC site, just change whatever template you're using to build the site...

 

Since it's implied that MFA sites have no value to visitors, how to they manage to attract visitors?

 

Through search engine traffic. The visitors get there because the sites rank highly for particular keywords, but because there's no real content they leave right away. If they happen to leave mostly via ads, then the site makes money. Getting traffic and providing value are different things.

 

Chitika works well on product orientated sites. I'd imagine that there are quite a few affiliate datafeed sites that now run chitika instead of adsense.

 

But is there a point in creating a site full of Chitika ads?

 

Problem with that is it requires Google serps and Google adsense targetting to be extremely accurate for it to work... I don't think either one is necessarily accurate enough to overcome each other in order to deliver highly relevant traffic.

It is not like a scrapper site is giving options. You are given a few doors to go through, whether you want to go through them or not. That is by iteself highly unlikely to deliver quality traffic.

If a high quality site gets 3%-5% clicks, that means that the ads were not the most relevant thing almost all the time. Just because you take away all the content does not mean it automatically turns the ads into what the visitor was looking for.. The relevency is still probably only applicable to the same percentage range.. More people, however will click because they don't have a choice.

Bottom line is taking away content does not make ads more relevant nor more desirable. They just make them a higher percentage option.

Show me a site with a 25%+ CTR and I will show you one horrible site.

 

Do you think that unnaturally high CTRs is a giveaway sign for MFAs?

 

If I was google I'd certainly look closely at them.

 

Anyone cares to say what top CTR for a "good" site is? I mean the max that a real non-MFA site can not beat no matter what, without using illegal techniques?

 

We keep talking about 'made for adsense' sites,..what about 'adsense made sites'?

 

We also keep redding IamNed, but what about NedIAm.

 

You lost me.

 

Really, I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

YokoOno: join the club, I have no idea what he means in most of his posts.
I did have him on my ignore list, but Iamned keeps popping his gibberish into so many threads, I had to remove him from my ignore list - without seeing his odd comments large chunks of threads stop making any sense at all.