(i hope im posting this in the right forum) Could you folks express your opinions on MFA sites: It appears that one man's MFA site is another man's legit content site - what are the hallmarks of an MFA site? - if a site has static basic info + adsense, is it considered MFA? - what criteria does Google use to designate a site as MFA? - does static content + rss newsfeed + adsense make a site MFA? thanks for your input.
Yes, there are differences of opinion and a gray zone, along with some pages that are clearly MFA, and others that are not. My distinction - does the page really have any value? A typo-squatter with wigdet.com that has ads for over-priced widgets is not really adding any value from the standpoint of the user. A page that has some snippets of bland info that might be relevant to people interested in widgets (and lots of ads) is probably in the grey zone. A page that provides really useful info is not MFA.
If a page has lots of ads on it, but it still has some value to me as a user then I don't mind it. If it has useless info and lots of ads, then it should be obliterated from the WWW
As soon as man puts ads on website and starts looking at adsense stats and writing articles to make more money it is MFA site Simple and nothing wrong with that There are other descriptions out there but I have unique content where lots of work and research was made and still think my site is MFA site. I am sure the professor which gave his students my site as a reference does not think that
I disagree with the literal interpretation of MFA. An site is MFA if the text is primarily aimed designed to attract search engine traffic, in the expectation that users will click ads rather than read the content. If visitors are expected to stay on the site and read the content, then it is not an MFA. If a site gets bookmarked by visitors it is not an MFA. Usually it is pretty clear what MFA sites are. The text is either nonsensical or boring (at best it is like the crap in article directories).
If the literal interpretation of MFA is not correct, where did the origins from this term come from? If you build a site for adsense isn't it a MFA site where it is legit content or scraped content.
The term comes from the fact that the site is made purely for adsense clicks, not for users to read and click on adsense. The term is generally used to refer to spammy sites, not those with good content.
Made for adsense is just like pornography to the Supreme Court; you might not be able to define it exactly, but you recognize it when you see it. Rule of thumb or basic test: If you run a browser with an ad-blocker, will the page have any interest for you?
MFA sites come in many forms, however, the ones that are true MFA sites in my opinion are: 1) Scraped sites - basically scraping other peoples content and displaying it as their own 2) Search sites - displaying adverts only 3) Only visible navigation are link units - or to partner sites (which are also owned by the same webmaster and have nothing but ads). There are obviously many other forms of MFA site, however, the above 3 types in my opinion are purely made for adsense as there is no intention to provide any legitimate, original or useful content.