Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Google Webmaster Help
Home
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Two weeks in Google Jail and No Chance of Parole it would seem!!
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
JLH  
View profile  
 More options Jul 11 2007, 7:10 am
From: JLH
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:10:10 -0000
Local: Wed, Jul 11 2007 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Two weeks in Google Jail and No Chance of Parole it would seem!!
Print | View thread | Report this message | Find messages by this author
I'm not sure what to think on this one.  Sure it's a MFA site, but
that's the web today, most sites are made for adsense, or amazon
affiliates, or commission junction, or ... you get the idea.  To me it
looks like a weak about.com with less obtrusive ads.  Take a look at
http://coffeetea.about.com/ vs. http://www.alkenmrs.com/coffee/ .
Both are just general discussions on the subject with neither being an
authority.  Both are basically there to serve up ads.  The  basic
premis of adsense on content is that you don't want the content to be
authoritative, otherwise no one will have a reason to click the little
ad.

So what's the primary differences between alkenmrs and about? I'm not
sure, but here are a few.

1. Subfolders vs. subdomains.  Is that a consideration?  Do subdomains
protect the main domain from being harmed by the diversification of
information?  About.com and blogspot do pretty good and neither are
about any one subject, then again wiki is good for 2-3 of the top 10
on just about any search on google and they use subfolders.

2. Size?  Since Google has given them the boot I'll have to use yahoo
data, but alkenmrs has 15,600 pages listed and about has 7,400,000.
Perhaps if he went the other way and just started adding content
rather than narrowing the focus.

3. Links? 11,000,000 for about.com and our alkenmrs only has 8000 or
so.

I haven't done any forensic research as to the originality of the
content nor looks for the usual reindeer games, but a bit at a loss on
this one.  Is it the best site in the worlds? I don't know that's a
matter of opinion, I hate the wiki thing more than expired ebay
auctions but it seems to be doing pretty good, about.com has as much
value but has the link advantage.

Have you seen any signals in your adsense?  Increase of those PSA ads?
Decrease in CTR? decrease in revenue (before the ban of course)?  If
it were truly a poor user experience you'd think the adsense
department would have acted before the spam team.

If this ban is based purely on the quality of the site's information,
who instigated the ban? The algorithm? Manual Review? A Complaint on
search quality? A spam report? Adsense?

Those are my thoughts, not much help I know.  If you've written the
information yourself I know what I'd do, and I don't want to offend
Adam here, but I'd repackage it and republish using subdomains on a
fresh domain, new owner, new adsense account, and start over.  As far
as the old domain goes, not sure, it has some value perhaps.

I'm just confused and don't know what to think, as I said before.  The
domain doesn't have a lot of theme, in that it's not just about one
thing, but then again neither are millions of blogs, wiki, about,
ebay, amazon, or google for that matter.   Have you syndicated your
content?  Could this be caught in some sort of dragnet on the aritcle
publishing industry? Sort of like the assault on the realtors recently
launched?

On Jul 10, 8:16 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:

> Alan - I have a few sites on hobbies, for instance, water gardens,
> saltwater aquariums, composting and other things that I add "content"
> to by doing book reviews and helping people find products currently.
> The difference is that I actually have aquariums, water gardens and
> compost bins. I just got a good digital camera and will be taking
> pictures to do some "show and tell" type pages that others might link
> to in a natural way to reward their value. I bet people would like to
> understand the basics of a saltwater aquarium setup right? See where I
> am going with this?

> Do you honestly enjoy "Hair Disorders"?

> Are you a doctor?

> The most evil thing I have seen is people trying to cash in on cancer,
> no joke!

> This post is a good lesson for all, nice!

> On Jul 10, 8:46 pm, alkenmrs wrote:

> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me
> > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.

> > Thanks for your insights John - No offense taken.

> > This site is some 10 years old and was obviously around before adsense
> > was even a glint in Google's eye.
> > The original sections as in TV Merchandise and the Video Conversion
> > service were all that was on the site until late 2005. It was also the
> > time that adsense was added to give some monetization to the site.

> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way
> > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block
> > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they
> > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put
> > > it into words).

> > I just tried to answer that in my previous response to Adam so rather
> > than repeat, take a look at my previous post regarding the goal come
> > site history.

> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of
> > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared
> > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct
> > > support through links from other sites.

> > Apart from the latter minisites, most do have incoming links although
> > they are natural linking and not ones that I have gone out looking
> > for. In fact, I have never gone out looking for links. I am more of
> > the opinion that people will link to a page on it's merits or not as
> > the case maybe.

> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really
> > > that compelling?

> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?

> > A good question - what exactly is compelling content. I am more of
> > 'History, Why and How'

> > Alan

> > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, JohnMu wrote:

> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me
> > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.

> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way
> > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block
> > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they
> > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put
> > > it into words).

> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of
> > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared
> > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct
> > > support through links from other sites.

> > > Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your
> > > articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from
> > > other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding
> > > things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have
> > > access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that
> > > Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of
> > > content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates withhttp://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/vshttp://vitamins-for-health.com/vit...
> > > -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original
> > > content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that
> > > they're more than just similar.

> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really
> > > that compelling?

> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?

> > > John


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google