Google to Clean up Adsense

I think, that mjewel means that Google started to rank MFA lower in SERPs in order to provide better experience to Google search engine users, and so doing, keeping theirs share of query. I may be wrong...

 

I sure hope Google is beginning to rank MFA sites lower in the SERPS. No offense to those who do not like creating your own content and all, but I hate competing with MFA sites. It sux to put hard work into a site only to be beat out by a site that copies content or has little to no original content.

 

Here is the number one reason why google wont stop MFA sites. SHAREHOLDERS!

What percentage of their income is derived from so called MFA sites? Even if its only 5 percent, imagine what their stocks would do if that revenue went away. Being a publicly held company means the investor has more power than the end user. User experience is important, but not as important as their bottom line and quarterly earnings report.

 

As long as the click is legitemate and not a click fraud, I personally don't think Google will take an action against the MFA site.

For Google and Advertiser, as long as it's a legitemate click, than it's ok with them.

 

exactly! It's click fraud that they need to crack down on if anything.

 

I don't think advertisers really appreciate seeing theirs ads displayed on scrap sites and paying for click from MFA. (At least, I don't)

Google earn money from advertisers, not from publishers.

Advertisers are starting putting pressure on Google about click fraud, and this is why Google is testing Pay Per Action. MFA's and "irrevelants" clicks are just another good reason to give up PPC.

Well, future will tell us...

 

Yeah.. you're right at some point but not with the MFA site. All website or blogs out there a specifically design for MFA. Even you site is also MFA. MFA stands for "Made For Adsense".

 

Your reasoning is flawed. If the ad isn't showing on a MFA site, it will need to show somewhere else. It will show on a site that is more likely to reach a targeted user that will convert. Advertisers would rather pay $1 a click for one that converts than pay 10 cents for 20 clicks that don't.

Those advertisers have flocked to google search where google gets to keep 100% of that revenue and not share it with anyone. If anything, eliminating MFA ad sites means advertisers will be willing to pay more per click because they convert more. More revenue per click means more dollars to google.

I ran a NASDAQ company. Only incompetent management would sacrific long term goals for a quarter of two of lower results. Insiders are severely limited in the amount of stock they can sell every quarter - a fraction of their total holdings. Short term price swings mean nothing. Google wouldn't lose a penny if their stock dropped in half tomorrow. Stock price plays no role is the profit or loss of a company.

A drop in price means the founders would have a paper loss on stock they can't sell anyway. The shareholders are at the mercy of the founders - who are really free to do as they want. So they get the stock up 20% over the next six months and make a few billion on paper - who cares? - they can't sell even if they wanted. The founders are savvy individuals who seem to have long term vision and know the importance of keeping its users.

 

I'm afraid we don't have the same understanding of what is a MFA site.

 

I think you're right.

It's kind of like abortion. At what point does the site become a MFA and subject to different rules and treatment?

And another thing - is there any documentation that shows clicks from a BS site produce fewer sales than clicks from a site with tons of fresh organic and/or dynamic content? I'd think the decision is based on 1. The text in the link, and 2. The sales copy on the landing page.

Who cares what site you're leaving? It's all about where you land imo.

 

Every wonder why a sector with a high paying keyword produces pennies for a click on an adsense site? It because major advertisers have tried the content sites and found it isn't profitable - even at much lower bids.

For proof, go to overture and look at the bids for some high paying sectors - like brand name prescription medications. You'll see top bids of $5 to even $20 a click - and maybe 3-5 bidding in this range. Then the bids take a dramatic drop - maybe from $5 to 35 cents. Find a content site in that sector running YPN and notice those top paying advertisers ads don't run. The reason is that they won't even bid 50 cents for content, but will pay $5 or $10 for the same click that comes from yahoo search. Click fraud plays a role, but some of the best estimates put click fraud at around 17% - which doesn't even come close to accounting for the pricing differences.

These are billion dollar companies in a high profit sector with million dollar ad budgets managed by professionals. If they could turn a buck with a 50 cent ad, they would do it in a second. They get better results with a single $5 click vs (10) 50 cent content clicks. Most adwords professionals won't touch the content network because it isn't cost effective. There are certainly exceptions, but as a whole, it doesn't. This is why google was forced to go to seperate pricing for the content network (ads that run on adsense sites) and smart pricing. They couldn't get enough advertisers. The market pricing is the best proof you can get.

If you are in the medical sector, a click from an ad running on webmd or other authority site will convert many more times than an average click from content. It's all about perception.

There are some great sites running adsense, but the sum of the whole isn't producing for most - even at much lower pricing. I don't like paying $1 a click (or whatever) and would jump at the chance to run the same ad on content for 20 cents IF it was cost effective. What advertiser wants to pay more per click? When it comes to advertising, it's all about the bottom line.

 

yes yes life is free internet is free,,, come come come and eat at the pretty candy house
where you can find sweets all day long,,, let fatten you all up my pretty ones ,,,,,,,,,,so when the knife falls there will be no excape........
its here the google seo algors are watching and with a touch of 010101010001001 your ppc generated money coffers will come crashing

 

Exactly and this is why these MFA sites "can" convert for the advertiser.

 

But, often it is the content network that provides the real value for the advertiser.

 

As long as the advertiser gets what they want everything should be fine.

 

OK, some good discussion here with plenty of valid points.

One thing that I am going to clear up a bit is the definition of an MFA. I believe since the term is now commonly used, Google should take a quality standpoint and define what determines an MFA from their point of view. Most people on these forums have websites that they hope to get some income generated via adsense, but they produce their own content or syndicate content in conjunction with providing their own content.

A basic MFA, scraper site on the other hand can be set up in a few minutes and left on auto-pilot. No work required from the webmaster as it automatically scrapes the content and displays it on their website.

There is normally 2 courses of action for the MFA webmaster, first being adwords arbitrage. Google have taken action by determining quality score on the landing page that has affected some of these types of MFA, as well as affiliate marketers and other types of advertisers.

A second course of action is backlink building. In terms of an MFA site they can automate the process of generatin related links and outperform many webmasters through their 'spam' linkbuilding.

Most webmasters here will have a site that they work on, they try to promote and build links for. It doesn't matter which niche market you are in, if you come across a typical "automated" MFA site that performs better than you, then your income is being directly affected by them.

The overall impact to all adsense publishers is the fact that automated MFA sites harm you by deflating the prices that advertisers bid within the content network. Google make money from the MFA sites, but they could make MORE if they attract more major advertisers into the content network.

It is a long-term strategy by Google. First they start with the scoring algorithm to determine landing page quality that will appease large budget advertisers to some degree. However, the next step will be moving into cleaning up the content network to then try and entice the advertisers to use the content network in addition to the search network.

If Google succeed, they will make more money. The tougher the stance taken by Google, the more effective it will be in the eyes of the advertisers who generate the income for Google. Publishers have no say on the matter, and the longer Google ignores the growth of automated MFA sites the more infested the content network becomes. This will make it harder to attract more advertisers into the network in the long term.

Arbitrage will still happen - and it is an opportunist that can also deliver value to their visitor that would still be able to profit handsomely. I am not saying arbitrage is wrong but automated arbitrage being wrong. The opportunist who delivers quality and meets the Google definition of quality would be in a much stronger position and earn much higher rewards if more high paying advertisers are in the content network bidding adwords.

Overall, if Google were highly agressive against the automated MFAs there would be less competition for publishers and more competition for advertisers. The cumulative effect is that publishers would receive higher returns, be subject to less smartpricing as more relevant adverts would be available and that advertisers would have to concentrate hard on their landing page to seal a conversion.

A win-win situation for Google and the publisher definately. The advertiser may be paying more for some things, less for others, although the traffic being delivered would be more genuinely interested and as a result they could have a higher CTR.

 

Okay, so there seems to be a growing consensus that MFAs promote a large discrepancy in bids by advertisers. And so it follows that this will eventually hurt Google's revenue.

Am I understanding this theory?

Then will someone explain Domain Parking? Aren't these the most blatant examples of MFA sites? We're not talking crappy, scraper content...we're talking NO CONTENT.

And now that Google has decided to jump into the parking business, doesn't that seem like they endorse the crappiest of the crappy MFAs?

What am I missing here?

 

Yes, domain parking business is an MFA in my opinion... it is up to the *advertisers* to make a case to Google on that basis. As a publisher, I can't make a case as it wouldn't be affecting the content network unless human error (a typo) was made by someone... and there is no empirical evidence that would suggest they had meant to come to my domain over another similarly named domain etc.

The Godaddy and Google domain parking linkup is something I would not want my adverts appearing on if I was a major advertiser... although I do not know the pricing structure associated with it - certainly wouldn't want to be paying search prices, and not even content network prices. If anything it should be a seperate entity and very low CPC.

It has been pointed out that search engines are one of the main causes why spam exists, due to their veiled attempts at reducing it... often they appear to endorse it.

The domain parking between Godaddy and Google may be their method of combatting it by entering into the competition and driving down the prices therefore making it less profitable for those engaged in it. However, in the case of Godaddy, I feel it unethical they charge people for something they already own...

 

GoDaddy is just taking advantage of people who don't know any better and who don't do their homework. It happens all the time in every business. There are at least dozens of other free parking services.

I guess advertisers can use the Site Exclusion Tool, and to be honest, Parking Pages may fall under the Search Network, which can be excluded too. They're not real clear about that in the tutorials. Has anyone seen Matt Cutts lately?

I think if there's enough of an uproar from advertisers, Google will strengthen their ability to judge site quality and relevance. But every time that happens, people find a way to work around it...

 

I agee. With "dishonest" sites it's just google and the publisher making money, but when the advertiser makes money also...who cares?