1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Using the new rel="nofollow" attribute

Discussion in 'Co-op Advertising Network' started by glengara, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,297
    Likes Received:
    2,602
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #61
    On search results yes... but they are disallowed because they are search results, not because they have ads on them.
    SEMrush
    business.com runs text based ads on spiderable pages below the fold. Here's a random page as an example:

    http://www.business.com/directory/human_resources/

    Yahoo runs text based ads on their non-search (spiderable) pages as well, for example: http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/
     
    digitalpoint, Jan 23, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #62
    Thanks Shawn. FWIW, I do not view text based ads as spam per se. However, the issue does get into more of a grey area (again, IMO) when the publisher is not in control of what ads are being displayed.
     
    Bernard, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  3. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,297
    Likes Received:
    2,602
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #63
    I agree... which is why the theme and language data is being collected on new ads (and will be used at some point). But even in the case of Yahoo's stuff, I'm sure you would agree that it's pretty much an automated process to get an ad there. If I had an Overture account and setup an ad for the keywords "Computers, Internet and Software", then pointed it to a XXX site, chances are with a high enough bid I could get on those pages, because Overture and AdSense ads are not reviewed before they go into the rotation. And in that regard (100% of ads are human reviewed before they are in the rotation with the ad network) the co-op ad network has an advantage.

    As far as addressing the issue of people using spam sites to gain network impression weight, that was addressed in the very beginning by relying on Google to determine what was spam and duplicate content within a site. While lots will slip though Google's filters, it's the best (automated) way that I could think of to do it. At some point we'll probably expand the review process to include sites running ads as well rather than just relying on what Google considers crappy pages.
     
    digitalpoint, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  4. kepa

    kepa Peon

    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    Bernard,
    How in the hell did you manage to sum up all of my posts in two short sentences? Damn it, in humility and everything. . .
     
    kepa, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  5. Bernard

    Bernard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #65
    kepa, just lucky I guess... :D
     
    Bernard, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  6. wendydettmer

    wendydettmer Peon

    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    I think one of the issues involved is not what people are saying, but how it is being presented. When one starts out being brand new, and attacking a system that is in place, it's usually considered rude. As the posts have gone on, things have been much more civil. But presentation is important.

    Ya know, the whole 'catch more flies with honey' thing? If you have a suggestion for improvement, state it as such, don't say that something is useless and is spam and be mean about it.

    IMNSHO i suppose....

    wendy
     
    wendydettmer, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  7. puravida

    puravida Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #67
    I think it's more that some people were overly sensitive. The particular new service of mine that you refer to has nothing to do with the presentation. I have been successfully marketing online for years across a number of niches, so my insight -whether you consider it rude or not- comes from many years of experience of many tens of thousands spent testing methods.

    -Wesley
     
    puravida, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  8. Owlcroft

    Owlcroft Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    34
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #68
    I hate to be repetitious, but almost all the continuing posts here sound vaguely like a defense lawyer briefing his case. But the bottom line remains that what you and I think of the network is immaterial--it is what the SEs think of it.

    There is simply no point whatever in cascading posts in which we tell one another how terrible these misunderstandings are, and how proper it all is, and how wonderful the opportunity, and so on. It is like a collection of marijuana smokers telling one another how wrong and silly the narcotics laws are, and how peaceful smokers are, and how it helps with medical problems. But none of that affects the reality that--right or wrong, justified or unjustified-- the cops will arrest you if they find you at it.

    The cops here are the SEs. And the basing of weight on Google's own results doesn't much ameliorate the problem. I repeat the quotation from "GoogleGuy": I pointed out one network member using hidden text and another with keyword stuffed doorway pages . . . [there are] spammy sites . . . already in the network.

    Google recognized those particular sites as "spammy", yet--since they were visible in the network--Google had not zeroed out their PR or flat banned them. It is thus very, very self-evident that simply relying on Google to deal with those sites that Google itself "dislikes" is not adequate protection from finding oneself linking to what G would call a "bad neighborhood."

    Is that silly or bizarre? Yes. But the reality is that almost everything Google does is silly or bizarre. It does no good to say, "well, that's silly and bizarre behavior, so I'll ignore it." It's like dope smokers saying the cops' behavior is silly and bizarre (which it may be), so they'll ignore the cops. That doesn't work.

    If relying on Google to remove or seriously downgrade sites that Google itself disapproves of, and may conceivably use as a basis for penalizing those who link to them, is insufficient to avoid the risks of such penalties, as we see it indubitably is, then network member sites must each be hand-reviewed for any serious breaches of SE-sanctioned behavior, even if that is, in a sense, having to do the SEs' job for the SEs. That's the long of it and the short of it. Till we know that such reviewing is being performed, we remain at some real and non-negligible risk.

    Nobody in their right mind ever said that life is inherently fair.
     
    Owlcroft, Jan 23, 2005 IP
    miko67 likes this.
  9. ViciousSummer

    ViciousSummer Ayn Rand for President! Staff

    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    526
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    308
    #69
    Do you realize how silly that sounds? So you've decided that links that are on a certain part of a webpage are spam, but if you move them to a different spot, then you will consider them "advertising and link building"? I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous. Since my website generates sales, I would prefer to not scare my customers with obnoxious in-your-face advertising. Text links at the bottom of the page are the perfect option for my site. I've seen plenty of other sites displaying banner coop ad's and text link ad's in all kinds of places, not just the footer.
     
    ViciousSummer, Jan 23, 2005 IP
  10. nevetS

    nevetS Evolving Dragon

    Messages:
    2,544
    Likes Received:
    211
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #70
    I agree that relying on Google to tell us which sites are good and bad is not the greatest way of doing things, but that is the way things started out because it was the best way to do things and I haven't seen anything suggested that is any better.

    Vetting things out manually has it's plusses - but when you get into grey areas, then who's to say whats good and what is bad? It's really a matter of perception.

    For instance - OmkniKnow could be perceived as a spam site - since it's data all comes from DMOZ and WikiPedia (as far as I know, and I'm not judging you Owl - I actually think it's a great idea, and I apologize for singling you out) by one person, and as a quality site by another. Given that there is obvious room for difference of opinion, how is anything decided? Well, Google seems to have indexed your site well, so that's a plus.

    As far as for breaches of SE sanctioned behavior, there are plenty of gray areas there as well. Plenty of sites use tactics that are supposedly bad, but they rank well and get decent traffic. We've all googled for a term and ended up on a site that has nothing but ads and no content. I've complained about sites myself repeatedly and they still end up ranked highly without any penalty even though they have hidden text all over the place.

    So what is it that the Co-op network should do? (honestly, not just trying to be combative). If it's up to the co-op network to police sites, then the co-op network also has the responsibility of keeping up to date with what the SE's consider good and bad behavior. Then there's the end user community in general. I personally hate it when a site tries to install a component, uses flash, or has ad's by one of the biggies that tries to set cookies to track my own personal surfing habits. Should the Coop network be responsible for policing that kind of behavior as well?

    I think that asking google what is good and what is bad is a great idea. Probably some other SE's should be queried as well, but no other SE has an open API and although Google's PageRank isn't a perfect system it's all that we have access to (that I know of).

    DP has been great about responding to user concerns. This one is no different. I don't think there is much to do in this regard right now and I also think that there are plans in place to make things better in the future. Do I think that the "norel" attribute is the solution? No, but that is my opinion. I think that was meant to handle blog spam and that there hasn't been any forward thinking beyond that.

    I suppose one of the reasons I'm so averse to all these "spam accusations" is that I come from a development background. I can see the obvious work that Shawn has put into this idea so far, and I can see all the work he regularly puts into maintaining it. When you develop requirements and put together an application it's easy to get sidetracked with an idea and not to keep an eye on the big picture. Shawn very obviously has a vision to move forward as this network progresses. I've only been around a month or two and I can see that progress is being made quickly. If we have a suggestion or idea then we certainly should be encouraged to share it. Calling his work a bunch of spam belittles the work, belittles all of the network sites, and it frankly isn't very well thought out. This is one of several projects for Shawn, and while he does reap benefits, he's not getting paid for it. The more we use it, the bigger it gets, and the more encouraging the community is, the more time he will spend on it.

    This network is good for the community, and the internet in general. Will abuses happen? Of course. Will problems occur? Yep. Do the benefits outweigh the problems? Absolutely.
     
    nevetS, Jan 24, 2005 IP
    miko67 likes this.
  11. ViciousSummer

    ViciousSummer Ayn Rand for President! Staff

    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    526
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    308
    #71
    That was extremely well said...:)
     
    ViciousSummer, Jan 24, 2005 IP
  12. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #72
    Back on Topic - here is something on the NOFOLLOW command that you should all read
     
    joeychgo, Jan 24, 2005 IP
    mopacfan and SEbasic like this.
  13. SEbasic

    SEbasic Peon

    Messages:
    6,318
    Likes Received:
    318
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73
    Haha - I saw that site the other day...

    Anyone noticed who it's owned by??? :D
     
    SEbasic, Jan 24, 2005 IP
  14. yfs1

    yfs1 User Title Not Found

    Messages:
    13,799
    Likes Received:
    922
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #74
    I will also remind Glengara of this from Search Engine Watch:

    Glengara is a pro at going around the forums answering every newbie question about rankings with "You were probably penalized for using the Coop Network". Never mind they have no idea what it even is. He just enjoys trying to trash it and building a perception that it results in a penalty.
     
    yfs1, Jan 24, 2005 IP
    miko67 likes this.
  15. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #75
    I think Im gonna cry - someone gave me neg reputation because I posted that parody site!
     
    joeychgo, Jan 24, 2005 IP
  16. SEbasic

    SEbasic Peon

    Messages:
    6,318
    Likes Received:
    318
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #76
    You're kidding right...

    Ah... Whatever, I just gave you positive rep for it...
     
    SEbasic, Jan 24, 2005 IP
    miko67 and ResaleBroker like this.
  17. Owlcroft

    Owlcroft Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    34
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    The word "spam" is wildly overused; let's say "bad" sites are the problem. To me, a "bad" site is one that uses overtly black-hat techniques: search-engine cloaking, total or near-total page scraping, passing off search results as "pages", and that sort of thing.

    The OmniKnow site, to continue the example, uses data that comes from pure open sources, and it scrupulously complies with the use requirements of each (indeed, more than does, as a Wiki panelist gratefully noted on the Wiki site); moreover--and this is the whole point of the site--it is not "just a copy" of either source: it is "value added" because it combines, in one place, two utterly independent resources that the average netizen might not be aware of.

    And, for what it's worth, I am having major Google problems: they never seem to get over about 32,000 pages indexed, though there are well over a million in the site (and they were once as high as a quarter million indexed).

    But, as GoogleGuy's remarks well illustrate, Google is not unaware of such places, and even if they do not put, or have not yet gotten to putting, an actual penalty on the sites in question, they nevertheless seem to regard them as "bad neighborhoods" for outlinking.

    But that's the crux. Responsible? No. But, in this sad world, there are a lot of things that folk have to do to keep healthy that are not and, should not be, their "responsibility". But you can suffer the harm, all the while saying "This is unfair, that wasn't my responsibility", or you can put your shoulder to the cart, no matter how unfair that may be.

    But, again--it seems clear that, no matter how bizarre, they themselves do not rely wholly on their own "PR". Re-read GoogleGuy's words. There were "bad" sites in the network. That means, inescapably, that the network's using Google as a litmus test is insufficient.

    I don't think anyone is--and I certainly am not--saying that. What I, anyway, am saying is that bad sites have crept into the network because Google, that bunch of freepin' hypocrites, seems to be imposing higher standards than they themselves effectively enforce on their own listings. The original idea sounded fine--no G rank, no network weight. But, in the fact, it at least appears not to be so. It appears that G is placing a burden that should be theirs on the network--that of identifying and omitting "bad" sites.

    But, for the umpteenth time, saying "It's unfair" doesn't put butter on anyone's bread. Sites in, and applying for, the network will have to receive a human review sufficient to weed out at least the obvious abusers. (Develop an algo that can do it in place of human effort, and you can go to venture capitalists and say that you're ready to displace Google.)

    Does that not depend rather strongly on just what the ultimate "problems" may be? No amount of backlinking in the world is any good to a banned site. . . .
     
    Owlcroft, Jan 24, 2005 IP
    nevetS likes this.
  18. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #78


    WHy - Thank you oliver, someone else did too. No more tears :)
     
    joeychgo, Jan 24, 2005 IP
  19. glengara

    glengara Guest

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    "Glengara is a pro at going around the forums answering every newbie question about rankings with "You were probably penalized for using the Coop Network". Never mind they have no idea what it even is. He just enjoys trying to trash it and building a perception that it results in a penalty."

    Jason there were two questions on falling ranks in Google by obvious members of this network.

    With my view on it, I mentioned it as one possible factor, and though a moderator over there, you did not.

    Who was being more honest?
     
    glengara, Jan 25, 2005 IP
    usandr likes this.
  20. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,297
    Likes Received:
    2,602
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #80
    I would have to agree with glengara on that one. Anything could be a "possible factor". For example, Google could decide they want to rank sites with lots of green high because Google and green start with the same letter. Of course, I've never hear of this happening, but anythings possible. ;)
     
    digitalpoint, Jan 25, 2005 IP