I think changing filenames would be a wise precaution, it MAY never be an issue but if everyone did it, it would NEVER be an issue. Unless things were looked at manually of course. Better to do it now when it's easy, rather than try to repair the damage after the s**t hits the fan.
paranoid? i run the ads, don't I? it's an awesome tool and as is i'm not going anywhere. but what i am saying is anything like this is better under the radar. emphasis on "better". why leave a footprint if you don't have too?
To suggest that it needs to run "under the radar" is: a) a waste of time - G knows all about this and has done for some time b) suggestive of us doing "something wrong" I contend that the network is not morally tainted and we should be proud to be members. I have recently started modifying my websites so that network ads have a prominent position rather than being hidden away in the footer. This way they have the potential to deliver traffic as well as link text.
Hey don't get me wrong I'm proud of it too, I think it's a great idea, BUT I'm sure that all the webmasters who do not do anything underhand in thier websites, that are currently sitting in the enviable SERPS position of 1000+ are very proud of thier sites to. Sometimes it is better to just be the quiet little mouse in the corner not attracting any attention and go about your business. If you do something which attracts the cat you may have to fight for your existance.
a) a waste of time - G knows all about this and has done for some time you could deliver this without G knowing and i think it's worth it for the little effort needed. where this is PHP based, it can be extremely stealthy. if you had a checkbox... show ads with no extra tags, or css descriptions... would you check it? i would. b) suggestive of us doing "something wrong" morality and seo... the 2 have nothing to do with each other. i don't understand why trying to influence a se is something that has to do with right and wrong. that said, an engines job is delivering the best results to it's users. 5000 inbound links for a keyword to site pointing to little value for a human isn't a good result and it's the engines job to fix this. it's their job to detect this attempted influence and to try to make it's own determination.
The underhand suggests that you think otherwise. Link exchange seems to be untainted. How (other than we have to trust Shawn to keep us out of so-called bad neighbourhoods) is the adnetwork different. Other than its a lot easier/quicker!
Skattabrain hit the nail on the head. It really does not matter what we think of the coop, the question is what will Google think of it. Utopia thinking is that nothing will happen and we will all live happily ever after. Nice thought, but... Sensible thinking is realizing that Google will probably be forced to deal with it. And history shows that there is a "good chance" that they will. If they deal with it, hopefully all they will do is just disallow the power of the links that alter their algorithm. If that is the case, then the links from the people in the coop who have flown under the radar will still be giving out "good links" while the people who are flagged will be giving out links that have no effect on Google. Next is the worse case. Hopefully the worse case scenario won't happen. But if it does, the people who are flagged will be tossed, while the people who fly under the radar won't be. If you have ever been tossed by Google you know most of the time it is next to impossible to get back in. Once again, the issue is whether the coop affects the rankings of the web sites. We all know that it does. How long will Google allow this? Forever? You might be right, but... I believe that Shawns intentions are most honorable. What started out as a coop advertising program is now actually that, plus, whether intentional or not, it is a way to alter the serps. I love the program and do not in any way mean to be critical of it. I am simply trying to give a "heads up" to all of the fine people here. Blessings to all, Scott
What stops someone from google joining, getting a full ad file then they have a list of all sites that compete in the ad network. Ban those sites in the txt file and the damage is done...
If we are at all interested in our SERPS (and my guess is that this includes everyone here) then pretty much everything we do is our attempt to alter SERPS including: a) modifying existing content b) adding new content c) adding outbounds d) "begging" for links e) exchanging links f) etc The coop is just one more way (and as a bonus it may bring some traffic as well). However, my real point is that its a waste of time trying to keep under the radar. Simply because its seems impractical on an open network like this one. Unless you believe otherwise?
Nothing at all. Google (like any other site) is welcome to join the ad network. The bottom line is that if you think you are doing anything wrong (with or without the ad network), then you are violating Google's webmaster recommendations on your own accord. There is not going to be any sort of blocking or cloaking of ads from the ad server to Google because I don't feel like there is anything wrong being done. If anyone feels differently about the ad network then you really should not be in the ad network to begin with. I would give the same advice to anyone doing anything they felt was questionable in the eyes of the search engines. Regardless of what *I* think about whatever it is, if they can't sleep at night because of whatever it is, then they should stop whatever it is.
Disallow the power of links? Might as well just throw Google away at the same time. There are some real boneheads with this "under the radar" crap. If Shawn wanted to keep it "under the radar", why would he have made the network public in the first place? I think some of these guys are just trying to destroy something good with propaganda and they are mostly full of shit.
anthonycea... no need to be insulting. Shawn, I respect what you are saying and i think everyone posting here likes/uses the service. If I was that worried I wouldn't be using it, but I also believe in always refining a good product to keep it better. That's all ... no harm is discussing ways to improve things... which makes it better for all.
Agreed... there are going to be refinements to it. But thinks like blocking Google or anyone else from joining the network is not a refinement IMO. I'm sure Yahoo could run AdSense on their site if they really wanted to. Google wouldn't block them.
If the coop is mega bad in google's eyes it would be gone by now. Google guy has already been discussing it at threadwatch. What I see as the main thing stopping them is the quality of sites involved in the network. I don't know how many sites are in but I've clicked on tons just to have a look at who else is in and I am very pleased to be trading ads with those sites. As long as the crap sites are kept out it should be fine. My suggestion to Shawn is get snoby and only alow sites that have pre-established pr and backlinks in google to advertise and the same with sites running the ads. I just hope everyone realises the coop is not effective your only source of anchor text. The boost in serps comes from having a low value link from sites on tons of different ip blocks. FIRST... you need tons of links from related sites, directories and blogs. Anchor text amidst a description of your site or blurb / review of it. As Shawn said with his success in serps, the coop only added to a lot of other work that was already in place. The coop gives your site added exposure, it's not the only basket to put your eggs in.
yeah, blocking isn't neeed. i'm talking about our web servers requesitng html output from your server directly via php is a simple way to keep "clues" off of our servers.