Google Slam Arbitrage Sites

[peter_d]

Google have released new guidelines on their landing page quality scores, outlining the type of pages that will receive a low score.

http://adwords.blogspot.com/2007/09/...w-landing.html

# Data collection sites that offer free gifts, subscription services etc., in order to collect private information
# Arbitrage sites that are designed for the sole purpose of showing ads
# Malware sites that knowingly or unknowingly install software on a visitor's computer
# eBook sites that show frequent ads or install malware
# 'Get rich quick' sites
# Comparison shopping sites
# Travel aggregators
# Affiliates that don't comply with our affiliate guidelines

It is probably fair to say Google don't care for these sites in the main SERP results either...

[John Scott]

# Comparison shopping sites

Why? I like comparison shopping sites.

[noob_0001]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Why? I like comparison shopping sites.

Probably because you can find it for less than their advertisers are offering it for. They don't like the competition.

[peter_d]

Why? I like comparison shopping sites.

Competition

[bcombs]

I like comparison shopping sites as well. So much so that when I want to use one, I go to it.

To me, at least, finding them in Google's SERPs gets in the way.

[cldnails]

Data collection sites that offer free gifts, subscription services etc., in order to collect private information

This is possibly the most irritating, it's completely an opinionated matter. So, what if we have a blog with only a few posts on the homepage, but a newsletter sign up? Does not seem objective enough to me, but Google didn't consult me first.

[XwisnuX]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Why? I like comparison shopping sites.

customers like it, but the online shop sites don't like to be compared.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by XwisnuX

customers like it, but the online shop sites don't like to be compared.

I doubt that Google's motivation is related to that fact.

And, I doubt it to be a fact. One of my clients spends a great deal of time ensuring his site is in all the price comparison sites.

[XwisnuX]

Originally Posted by John Scott

And, I doubt it to be a fact. One of my clients spends a great deal of time ensuring his site is in all the price comparison sites.

or maybe because it catagorized as paid directories?

[John Scott]

Price comparison sites have very little in common with paid directories.

[janhvizdak]

I am sure that these are just another "big" words from Google, but the major part of MFAs and arbitrages will survive.

I personally reported about 200 sites breaking their guidelines (mostly the sites redirecting to meanwhile.com and ndparking.com), but only about 10 of them disappeared in the next 3 months. Moreover I am sure that they disappeared just because their campaigns were not effective.

As days go by I am finding new bad (silly word, I don't want to use another ones) sites which bring misery to all adsense publishers (very low paid clicks)... Google's answer? Nothing.

Of course I am still using adsense ads, but I also added the amazon code onto my pages during the last week because creating a new MFA filter is a never-ending story... it needs to be created once per 2 weeks otherwise the income can decrease by 50%-60% just because of new MFAs.

Fortunately, my amazon campaign is making few bucks (adsense income is much higher right now). At least you are sure how much you can earn with amazon.

[GuyFromChicago]

While I appreciate some transparency this looks like a "do as we say not as we do" move by G'. Not surprising to those who have been playing in G's playground for awhile.

Just to add some clarity to the opening post, they do split the sites into two categories - those that will receive a low landing page quality score and those that are likely to receive a low landing page quality score.

Comparison shopping sites fall into the "likely" category.

The bottom line from what I can see is that Google doesn't want companies competing with them in certain markets to use AdWords to help build their customer base. If they are dead set on using AdWords Google will let them...but they will make so ineffective (from a cost point of view) that the competition will most likely decide AdWords is not the way to go.

That's my + .

[2mymall]

Originally Posted by janhvizdak

I am sure that these are just another "big" words from Google, but the major part of MFAs and arbitrages will survive.

I personally reported about 200 sites breaking their guidelines (mostly the sites redirecting to meanwhile.com and ndparking.com), but only about 10 of them disappeared in the next 3 months. Moreover I am sure that they disappeared just because their campaigns were not effective.

As days go by I am finding new bad (silly word, I don't want to use another ones) sites which bring misery to all adsense publishers (very low paid clicks)... Google's answer? Nothing.

Of course I am still using adsense ads, but I also added the amazon code onto my pages during the last week because creating a new MFA filter is a never-ending story... it needs to be created once per 2 weeks otherwise the income can decrease by 50%-60% just because of new MFAs.

Fortunately, my amazon campaign is making few bucks (adsense income is much higher right now). At least you are sure how much you can earn with amazon.

Amazon pays you for sales. Google pays you for clicks.

You can earn more through Google Adsense clicks but be accused of click fraud and lose your account and earnings overnight through no fault of yours. But Google decides.

Google claims to be protecting the advertise when banning publishers. If what they said is true, they should be using clicksentinel to control click fraud at their end first.

[qbert_seo]

arbitrage sites that are designed for the sole purpose of showing ads

Now this surprises me, and I find it somewhat hard to believe, since Google derives a large portion of its revenues as a result of its affiliate site. (Not to be overly cynical, followed by a comment that is). The bottom line is Google disappointed analysts last quarter and even though they claim not to care about analysts opinions; I doubt they would purposely eliminate this revenue stream. Of course the argument can be made that the by doing so it will result in a better user experience, ultimately generating more revenues for the company. I find this argument weak as even Google has to look at short term revenue drivers in conjunction with the longer term ones.