17th July 2007

GWHG Highlight: Overwhelmed


Warning: copy() [function.copy]: Filename cannot be empty in /home/jlhdes/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mytube/mytube.php on line 220

Today in my Google Webmaster Help Group highlights I am going to pick a thread from each sub-group to emphasise.

Crawling, Indexing, and ranking:

The archive for this group is currently unavailable.

We’re sorry for the inconvenience. Please try again shortly.

Google Webmaster Tools:

The archive for this group is currently unavailable.

We’re sorry for the inconvenience. Please try again shortly.

Sitemap Protocol:

The archive for this group is currently unavailable.

We’re sorry for the inconvenience. Please try again shortly.

Suggestions & Feature Requests - webmaster-related only please:

The archive for this group is currently unavailable.

We’re sorry for the inconvenience. Please try again shortly.

Random Chit-Chat:

The archive for this group is currently unavailable.

We’re sorry for the inconvenience. Please try again shortly.

It’s like driving up onto a car accident, you wonder if you should call 911 or if a dozen other people already have. I’ve got to assume that someone is trying to get the hamster back on the wheel by now. I just hope they didn’t crash the mother board on the Google Groups server, because parts for Commodore 64s aren’t that easy to come by any more.

posted in GWHG, highlights | 2 Comments

12th July 2007

GWHG Highlight: MFA (adsense) vs. MFA (affiliates)


Warning: copy() [function.copy]: Filename cannot be empty in /home/jlhdes/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mytube/mytube.php on line 220

Before I get started on the subject at hand, I’d like to point out a new commenter on this blog, Susan M, of Google fame. I appreciate her time and insight. I’m not an A-list-party-with-googlers-all-the-time kind of blogger, but you will see that the people who regularly comment here are all very much more intelligent than me, a theory which is only backed up with your presence.

There are two quite interesting threads in GWHG right now. One has gotten a significant amount of blog airplay because Adam Lasnik made a pretty revealing comment**. [as an aside I have to volunteer that I responded** to it somewhat negatively as the banned site is no more in violation of Google quality guidelines than other very popular sites. Popularity, as we all know from going to high school, is not an indication of quality.] The one Adam is involved in was about an obvious MFA (made for adsense) site** that has been banned, the second site that hasn’t gotten any Googler play is a MFA (made for affiliates) site**, which is possibly under penalty.

I don’t have the answers for the two sites involved, but I did make a few observations while viewing them. If Google is working on cleaning up it’s index by removing sites of lower perceived value I applaud them, there is a lot of junk out there. A lot of junk that they created of course as a secondary effect of adsense. If they really want to make an indent of the junk I’d like to point out two sites that provide very little in the way of valuable content. The wiki is mostly information pulled together from other sites, and about.com is just a giant made for adsense trap taking advantage of subdomain spamming techniques. Spam doesn’t just mean using hidden text and links but also useless sites, a much more subjective assessment tha’s probably as not as easy to mechanize.

MFA (Made for Adsense)

These sites have no real purpose but to generate clicks on adsense ads. The designers put together content that will attract high paying ads (the ads you get are contextual). Part of the TOS (terms of service) of Adsense is that you are not allowed to encourage clicks or even draw undue attention to the ads. The revenue model for being a successful adsense publisher is that you need people clicking on those ads, you don’t get paid by them viewing your site. The best way to get the ads clicked is to design the site to be less fulfilling than the ads. In order to make any money on adsense you need to design the site to be good enough to generate some traffic, but be bad enough so that the viewer doesn’t get what they came for and will go looking further, hopefully through the ad. If you write the worlds most definitive article on digital cameras, answering all the users possible questions perfectly, they won’t click your digital camera ads, why would they?. If you write a vague article mentioning digital cameras enough to get some search traffic, but crappy enough that they won’t get any real answers, they are more than likely to click your ad looking for satisfaction. It’s an unfortunate fact about contextual ad publishing, the best sites as far as content don’t do well, the garbage ones do.

MFA (made for affiliates)

The model for building an affiliate site is different than getting paid for clicks. You only get paid when someone follows your affiliate link and then purchases an item. Contrary to adsense you encourage people to click the ads or follow the links. Unlike adsense you don’t get paid just for them clicking the ad, they need to purchase something, you need to close the sale to get the pay out. In affiliate driven sites, the job of the content is to inspire you the visitor to go somewhere else and purchase an item. Poor affiliate sites that are not successful may generate traffic, may generate clicks, but don’t close on the sale. The best affiliate sites give the consumer enough information to make an educated purchase decision. Affiliate marketing pretty much encourages good writing and research. The poor ones usually just copy content and republish it, those types of operations require millions of page views to be at all successful. Writing the same digital camera information site monetized by affiliate sales would require your visitors from search engines be VERY satisfied with the information they received, so satisfied in fact that they are willing to go and buy the item.

The motivation for publishing both types of sites of course is renumeration, but the methods needed to be successful in either one inspire entirely different content creation styles. I back Google up in their quest to clean up the worst MFA (adsense) sites as long as they get rid of the worst but very popular crap as well. I’d also hope they continue their assault on copied or scraped affiliate sites, we don’t need another site in the world publishing Amazon’s write up for some SEO Books. On the other hand, if I am looking for some lawn care products I hope I find a site like that one, which provides a 3rd party point of view on many related products. It’s information I cannot find on Amazon’s site.

(Like the adsense and affiliate link drops? Ironic isn’t it?)

** Sorry for the nofollow, but I don’t link to places that have a policy of not linking out. Add me to the what we are reading blogroll (or any google domain for that matter) and I’ll be sure to remove all of the nofollows. :)

posted in GWHG, Webmastering, highlights | 1 Comment

10th July 2007

GWHG Highlight: Javascript


Warning: copy() [function.copy]: Filename cannot be empty in /home/jlhdes/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mytube/mytube.php on line 220

Google Groups pfingo wonders:

When i click on the cache, i get a google error.

And Webado sharply notes.

Disable javascript and then go and visit your homepage at http:// www . pfingo . com/

You will see a blank page but viewing the source code you will see this: [code]

This is 404 page (not found) , so this is all that a robot will see.

For your human visitors you have the javascript redirection which is totally useless for robots.

Google is not a person. She doesn’t view your website with firefox or internet explorer, which also means when crawling your site your java script is not going to be executed. If you use that script to redirect your visitor, google is not going to see it.

When designing your site you must not only consider how it looks in many browsers but how it works with features like Java and Flash turned off. Not all people, including Google, browse with these features on. Using allows you to download add-ons to disable javascript, view as IE, turn off images, highlight external links, etc.

posted in SEO, highlights | 0 Comments

10th July 2007

GWHG Highlight: Hidden text and the reconsideration request


Warning: copy() [function.copy]: Filename cannot be empty in /home/jlhdes/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mytube/mytube.php on line 220

Google GroupsA thread was started on July 3, 2007 by the owner of a site who believes that Google has stopped indexing his/her site because:

About three weeks ago I turn[ed] a cookies feature on which would help to prevent abuse of the site. I believe this also cause all bots to stop crawling the site.

Google does mention that the use of cookies could be problematic, specially if it’s required to properly see the site.

Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site, because most search engine spiders see your site much as Lynx would. If fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash keep you from seeing all of your site in a text browser, then search engine spiders may have trouble crawling your site

Had the cookies caused a problem it could have been diagnosed by using the Lynx browser.

That’s not why I am pointing out this thread.

Googler MattD steps in and points out some “old” pages of the site that contain a significant amount of hidden text (click link to view the hidden text). Noteworthy in this discussion is the fact that MattD went beyond normal protocol and provided site specific information. The danger of doing this is that everyone may expect this sort of person treatment, which isn’t feasible and is the wrong assumption, but it also is a great milestone and example that should be held up as model for others to learn from. From this example I drew the following opinions.

  1. It’s good to have an idea of what you may have done to get in trouble, but don’t let that idea get in the way of other possibilities. Often having multiple people look at the site will get you differing views that you the owner who is often too close to the site and wouldn’t see as a problem.
  2. We don’t know how MattD knew what the site was in trouble for, was it a manual review or a signal in some of their wonder tools? Either way they know. Remember Susan mentioned that a review of your site will probably include a deeper look at it’s over-all practices.
  3. When submitting your reconsideration request you must be forthright and include ALL discretions, even the old ones specially the old ones. More than likely a ban or penalty is not from what you did last night but from a while ago, a review of the entire site is in order along with a recount of all the changes.
  4. It is entirely possible that the site and or pages ranking was affected by the hidden text, after reconsideration the site may not regain its original position since that effect is now gone.
  5. If you are penalized its because Google has decided that you were attempting to fool the search algorithm. If when you submit a reconsideration request that is incomplete and doesn’t include all problems, that could also be considered an attempt to deceive, though Adam Lasnik has said multiple reconsideration requests are not seen as a signal to be held against you. I wouldn’t assume that filing a 2nd or 3rd request would be aggregated with the previous one, more than likely a different person is reviewing it. If I were to submit an additional request with more information I’d include the previous statements as well
  6. This is always a problem with a 3rd party looking at a site. We are not always given all of the information available, access to all of the sites pages on the server, or knowledge of what was done before. We only see the state the site is in now and without a context in which to put that in. Google on the other hand is the king of data storage and can contrast and compare multiple various previous incarnations.

posted in SEO, highlights, reconsideration request | 2 Comments

  • Please Support

  • Marquette University

  • Sponsored

125x125

  • Donations


  • ;

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

rss posts
  • Readers