ive seen countless websites all running adsense ads that have absolutely have minimal in content. these sites are considered to be MFA but since they have content laying about im guessing google doesn't have a problem. many users who click on ads displayed on proxy/mfa sites are simply doing it to support the site i really doubt anyone clicks on those to actually view the advertisers website. google really needs to start becoming strict with accepting publishers.
1 Publisher can have 100 websites. How do you know which site they used to apply for adsense? I can have an excellent site and use it to apply for adsense and then create 1000 MFA sites afterwards. Google cant control the sites the ads go on after they have accepted the publisher.
sjk.root How come you start comparing proxies with mfa sites? And I agree with Kevinn that a publisher doesn't have to apply with an MFA site, and once accepted he can create or place 100's in his account. And only if he ever breaks the TOS the Adsense team will check all of his sites for infractions
The only this issue can be resolved is the need to have every site approved before ads can be placed on them. This way we will get rid of MFA's, but it can be costly to implement this as it will mean having to employ more people to look at each site and also result in a big cut for google's revenue. However, I do believe they are doing a good job at getteing rid of MFA's from their program.
So those people you are talking about, they arrive on a site with nothing but ads and they click on those ads to support that site? "Man, what a nice site. I have to support it so it keeps going."
How does any site not selling a product make money Einstein? You know like Google, MySpace, YouTube, MSN, and about 2 billion others.
I think what he is implying is proxy sites do not provide anyone with the incentive to click the ads but on a content site, on the other hand, you get users reading content, who are then on the look out for something more, which the ads provide.
I believe this thread was inspired by a thing on slashdot, that shows two sites that reportedly made 1.1million between them and they were filesharing sites. I gave a solution to this, and simply, it would also protect publisher -id's. You declaire in your adsense control panel which sites the ads are on. Of course google only reviews sites when they are get to $100. Pierce
I think these clicks you speak of are all factored in with the free market design of adwords. Honestly, do you think webmasters and business owners are going to continue dumping money into adwords if it's not working? I'll answer for you, NO. It's true that not 100% of the clicks are going to lead to a turnover. but if 1 click in 10 makes you 10 dollars......... then it's ok to spend 50 cents a click right?
If you really think these sites only survive through the good will of their users, "sjk.root", then you should read this forum a little bit more. Those folks click the ads because they think the ad gives them what they are looking for, not because they want to support some MFA or proxy site.
Because an over abundance of publishers vs. advertisers drives the cpc down A LOT, hence Googles cut of the pie.
You could not be more wrong. It is impossible for Google to have more ads they can serve than publishers willing to buy them. It's a free market system where bids drive the price up and down. This causes ads to get bid to a point that is still profitable (unless it's for branding) but once it's there advertisers will buy every single click they can get their hands on. No two ways about it.
I strongly belive google should verify each site the publisher is going to put ads on. Right now, they verify only the first site, then the publishers can put ad on any crap site, this is the reason for poor quality sites displaying adsense. They MUSt get serious about it.