So; by keeping it under the radar - you mean that one shouldn't call it an FFA scheme every time one gets the chance right? I have gotten a few clicks from the COOP too. I'd dare say; that the CTR on the COOP ads is about as good as any banner campaign you'll run online, which is to say, its pretty low, but it still happens.
That may be your oppinion. Nobody actually knows for sure what/if/why there is a sandbox. (other than Google)
Good idea... although I'm sure Google already knows about it since employees from Google visit this forum regularly.
Does he know the secrets of the Google algo? Wow, he is going to share them with you because he is your friend? What a pal. The Coop Advertising Network, is just that, a cooperative advertising network. The sites I run the coop ads on have all seen referrals from other coop sites. The only difference with the coop network framework, is that there is no jump script or tracking script in between. In most "traditional" online ad serving technology there is. That is the only difference between using the DP coop network and a system like fastclick or any of the other adserving technology.
Yeah if you were using another ad network with text based links, and your ad was shown on a bunch of other sites, you'd also see a boost in backlinks. (assuming the ads were spider friendly) But because we, everyone here at DP, are mostly interested in the search engine effects we comment on those effects. --- and yes I am sure Google already knows about it as well. My big question is ... I wonder when a big coorpration will start using the coop ad network. If there aren't a few already using it.
What's the difference between using the coop ad network and purchasing ad's on other websites (besides the fact that one is free)? And, if you think Google is so on top of something like this, why havn't they discredited things such as link exchanges or blog spamming? That is manipulating natural SE results and has been going on for years... What is your website, ssl? The way you are encouraging everyone to keep the coop network "under the radar", makes me think that you are either trying to develop something similar, or your business has to do with a highly competitive affiliate keyword and you don't want your competitors to find out about this great tool.
the difference is that to purchase links on 1000s of sites is not as easy as running your ad on this network. the implication in manipulation here are far greater. as I said, it pays to stay silent.
again, the reason for the use of this network is clear - you can phrase it anyway you like, point all the similarities and/or differences, the bottom line is the same.
It's not difference than any other banner advertising system. Bottom line is it drives real user traffic and makes real sales from that traffic. There isn't any reason what-so-ever to "keep it under the radar" because there isn't anything fishy going on. If for whatever reason Google lost their collective minds, and decided that you can't run ads on a site, and asked that the ad network be taken down, it of course would be. I can't fathom that being the case though... it would be along the lines of Google asking websites to not use the <h1> tag anymore or something. But in the end, Google is Google... so website owners do need to bow to their wishes to some degree.
Well, if both are manipulation, why would Google think it's okay to run ads as long as you have to pay craploads of money for them? Link exchanges are free and Google isn't discrediting them (not to say that they won't, but link exchanging has been going on for years...) Just as I thought...I don't trust anyone who won't cough up their url.
ever heard of FFA? this is where I stop as nothing constructive will come out of this further. I thought that this was meant to be an objective discussion, an exchange of ideas, not a personal attack on someone. I must have been wrong. pardon me.
"why would Google think it's okay to run ads as long as you have to pay craploads of money for them" Has nothing to do with money. It's all about scale. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any advertisers that can get you thousands of links on over 1,000 different domains and close to that many IPs. And if it did exist, I bet the price would be huge and Google would be just as interested (or moreso) than the network. Just because something is overlooked a few times doesn't mean it HAS to be okay on a bigger scale. No one cares when I sample a few grapes without paying at my grocery store. With your guys' logic, that means I should be able to walk out with my grocery cart full of free grapes. I don't think that will fly with my grocery store.
Since when did stealing grapes become the same as participating in an at will co-opporative exchange of links? What you've described, in a fairly poor analogy, is theft versus giving away ad space. Each site in the coop has set aside ad space, whether text links or banner ads, to give to anyone who wants it. How is this stealing or doing anything wrong? Who's to say that all links on a web page should be solicited via email or a public forum and have the transaction finished in a silent manner? Why must we be secretive when placing simple links on our sites? Where does it say on google that this practice is so bad that we can be penalized? At worse, the links are devauled and we all learn something. It's not link spam, keyword spam, or any other bad practice. It's a simple rotating text link.
Why is this the post that always gets posted when someone makes for a good debate. "Personal attack"? Where exactly have you been personally attacked? I simply stated that I don't trust *anyone* that keeps their websites hidden. Anyhow, I think I hit your nail on the head by your response...
Not stealing. Not wrong. It is counter to Google's goal....and Google gets to decide what to do about that. And I can already tell I'm going to get arguments about 'Google's goal'. Google is all about enabling people to find information. It's not to provide an unchanging search algorithm. It's not to provide rules that never change. Google can do whatever they want to protect their search engine from manipulated results. And if you are going to argue that this is not maniuplation...I know it won't(?) happen, but what if Shawn's page gets the #1 results for "eBay". If you truly believe that Shawn's page is a better result for 'eBay' then eBay's home page, well, I don't know what to say about that. (My analogy was geared more towards people who say "there's nothing wrong with one link exchange, so therefore Google MUST approve of the Coop." If I have to provide a legal example, I can take any book off the shelf and read it at my library. So therefore I can spend all day and take 10,000 books off the shelf and read them at my table? Nothing illegal. Nothing wrong. But my library is not going to invite me back. It's all about scale.)