Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: Latest AP Newsletter [thin affiliates]
I just read the Allan's newsletter and downloaded the spam guide ...
Now I m wondering...
If I have more than couple of links which re-directs to cj then to Merchant then I can come into Thin affiliates???
I write lots of content myself(sort of pre-selling)
my content is in form of Articles, Product Reviews, some has RSS feed(from my own blog)...
tho I have aroudn 200 pages indexed in google... but I don't get that much traffic from them...as compared to Yahoo...
Seriously I m now beginning to wonder if I should continue like this.. n not worry about it at all.. so just scrap some extra links from every page?
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 6231 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:43 am Post subject:
If you're talking about getnetgo.com, I'd say Google's evaluators would definitely classify many of the pages on your site as "thin affiliate" pages.
In that confidential report, Google is aggressively against "thin affiliate" sites.
The real test, however, is how effective Google is at tweaking its algorithms to downgrade such sites. From what I've seen on Google search results pages, Google still has a long way to go to achieving its goals.
I think we all should regard the secret report as an indication of where Google wants to go, not where it actually is right now.
We should be figuring out ways to work WITH the search search engines, giving them the sort of good content they want to display.
For long-term success, it will pay to concentrate on looking for more ways to add value to affiliate sites. Things such as unique, original articles, forums and visitor/user comments.
It would probably also help if we created our own unique reports and sold them, too.
Does anyone have some more ideas on ways affiliates can make sites unique? That would a useful direction for this discussion to go. _________________ Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it!
Hi Alan
thnx for responding..
I realize that about GetNetgo... I wasn't worried about that one tho.. I know it's not good in G's book
I am talking about Lifestyle site(No Rss Yet but I m adding in) and there is new one I m building.
It has Martell style with links to merchants Amazon and CJ.com on almost every page with a block of adsense thrown in...
and I was adding RSS feeds on those articles pages to put more content.
It has about 40+ articles.. and I m writing more...
SO I was wondering what strategy would be appropriate for me??
Quote:
From what I've seen on Google search results pages, Google still has a long way to go to achieving its goals.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 6231 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:01 am Post subject:
Judging by what was published in Google's confidential report, I'd say that much of your Lifestyle site would be acceptable to Google. If a sloppy evaluator was asked to rate one of your product pages, he/she might rate you as a "thin affiliate". An educated evaluator would click around, view the whole site and might decide you were OK, I think.
Unfortunately, a lot of this is guesswork, and it's based on a report that is about a year old. Once again, the real test is how Google actually treats you in the rankings. And by the time you find that out, you might have wasted months of work.
If in doubt, err on the cautious side. _________________ Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it!
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1324 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:32 am Post subject:
AllanGardyne wrote:
Does anyone have some more ideas on ways affiliates can make sites unique? That would a useful direction for this discussion to go.
I'm not sure I have anything useful to say, but I agree it's a productive question.
I do think that in the long run being able to brand yourself somehow, create some rememberable trustable identity, is an important net publishing skill. For better or worse, that's probably why I finally decided to dump all my projects in to one domain under my name.
In watching my own net surfing/buying behavior I see I am gravitating towards sites where I have developed some kind of personal connection with the author, whether they know me or not.
Personalizing your publications isn't the only way to be unique I'm sure, but it does tie in to how people have related to each other forever, so I feel like I'm aiming for something fundamental and durable when I personalize, and that's a welcome feeling on the Net, however true it is or isn't.
In a nutshell, I think being unique is about stepping back from calculation a bit, getting in touch with who you are, and letting yourself be whoever that is.
For personalization to work it has to be as authentic as possible, imho. For me at least, reaching for authenticity is more about discovering who you were born to be, accepting the pros and cons of that fate, and running with it, than it is in getting clever about creating an image.
Some editing is probably necessary though.
My sense is that what makes you or your site unique is that you are some where near the edge of the group consensus.
If you're a few steps outside the group consensus, you're interesting, maybe.
If you go too far beyond the group, you lose the group.
Finally, like anything else, I think it's possible to get carried away with all this.
Sometimes I do wonder if those who approach this from a purely mechanical perspective have a more realistic view of Net business.
It's the Walmart vs. little shop on the corner question.
It's not unreasonable to conclude that most people on the Net are here to buy stuff at the cheapest price and could actually not care less about uniqueness, your and my personality, how we word things, our beautiful site design etc.
The little shop on the corner world is dying offlline, sometimes I wonder if trying to keep it alive online is a pipe dream.
Like I said, not sure how useful any of this is, but that's what pops in to my head when you raise the subject of uniqueness. _________________ Free Forum And Ezine Hosting
http://Engage-Engine.com
I dont receive Allans newsletter, so I am probably missing some relevant information to post.
But I thought I would put down some ideas about uniqueness.
When you look at the net holistically, uniqueness is exactly what this old place needs.
So much "me too" here that its almost (but not quite) futile to even look around.
From my own experience, its the promise of finding something of value that keeps me coming back.
From a micro perspective, the webmasters perspective, what matters first is a trickle of income. I think even hobbyists couldnt deny that some income would not be unwelcome.
That being the case, re-inventing the wheel (being too unique), is possibly not helpful if thats what the goal is. Uniqueness is experimental, and therefore may delay the desired passive income.
The problem with this is that we have people like google fighting for the big picture of the internet itself. They have the power to do that, and can directly affect you, if you dont provide whats most needed. Good unique free content.
But even then, its the degree of uniqueness that is the issue. Things evolve, they rarely jump in bounds.
Improvement and enhancement of exisitng properties by marginal percentages is more productive for you, and still good for the big picture of the net.
Its that compromise that has become the linchpin of our philosophy online.
Enhance and improve existing successful properties in an unique and creative way. The world wont beat a path to your door, but you are relevant productive and successful.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 6231 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:09 am Post subject:
Cloak wrote:
I dont receive Allans newsletter, so I am probably missing some relevant information to post.
You sure are, but that's OK, you're forgiven.
Specially for people like you, we publish the newsletters online, usually a few days after subscribers receive them. The archives go back to April 1998.
The latest issue, which discusses what a confidential Google report reveals about Google's attitude to "thin affiliates", is online here:
Refferring to the information in the informative newsletter, I must say, Id find it completely demoralizing, knowing that some college student has the power to determine the worth of a given site.
Ignorance is bliss sometimes.
I try to avoid tangents where ever possible.
Ive mentioned before, I dont care too much about the serps. So this info doesnt really concern me, nor make me feel I should do anything to adjust the site based on those recomendations.
Please dont take offence, but I am also curious about the credibility of the blogger that wrote about this.
If they are a journalist, a commercial site would at least give them some cred.
Bloggers just dont give me the same confidence. (Not that there arent some good blogs out there)
But sorry, Im digressing, this thread was meant to go on to discuss site uniqueness.
"could actually not care less about uniqueness, your and my personality, how we word things, our beautiful site design etc."
We are completely in tune here.
I believe that 100%
They want substance. Whether purchased or not, individuals want concrete relevance.
I take that for granted.
For example site design. I have a fast broad band connection, but I remember using a friends dial up and was disgusted by its speed. Good design is paid for by each dial up user.
If this was not an issue, good site design would be a priority. But a large percentage of possible customers still use dial up.
To make them pay even before they have had a chance to investigate what you have, even before they even got a chance to get interested is appalling business practice.
Another example is uniqueness. Without relevance, without recognising exactly what that potential customer wants first and foremost, uniqueness is superflous.
They want to find properties that resonate with them. I believe its the one thing all successful web sites have in spades.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 6231 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:34 am Post subject:
Cloak wrote:
Please dont take offence, but I am also curious about the credibility of the blogger that wrote about this.
A Google employee who uses the public nickname GoogleGuy has acknowledged that the confidential Google report exists and has commented on the journalist's report without disputing the main facts quoted. GoogleGuy criticized some of the journalist's interpretation of the facts, but didn't dispute anything that was said to be in the confidential Google report.
In short, I think the confidential Google report gives us a very reliable view of what Google's view of "thin affiliates" was a year ago when the Google report was published. _________________ Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it!
If this is all true, I wonder how they would handle sites that take time to be built?
Im sure every site starts out thin. Takes time for it to mature article wise.
Sounds kind of thin to me.
What impetus would individuals have to make worthwhile content, if they cant endeavour to be compensated for their work.
I would wager google understands the need to make money. If its degrees that are the issue, then surely they would make this public and completely transparent.
Seems rediculous that it would be hidden or confidential. If their (Googles) purpose is to have access to lots of good quality content to serve up for surfers. This type of report would surely be common knowledge.
I think 99% of webmasters wish to be compliant for no other reason then to have good standing. Why would google hide any information pertinent to their requirements.
I think, all there is to read about googles requirements is in their information section.
Thin on content? How do we explain the pr of Amazon and Yahoo? Nothing but selling.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 6231 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:38 am Post subject:
My guess is that Google doesn't make all the details of how its search engine algorithms work public because they don't want SEO experts "gaming" the search engines.
Also, the Google report makes it very clear that Google thinks there's a huge difference between a merchant site, such as Amazon, and an affiliate site which is created with the sole purpose of flicking visitors on to Amazon.
It also makes it clear that it approves of affiliate sites which provide unique, useful content, such as a price comparison. _________________ Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it!
My guess is that Google doesn't make all the details of how its search engine algorithms work public because they don't want SEO experts "gaming" the search engines.
Thanks Allan.
However thats my point.
If they (Google) want more content to serve up, then this alledged report would be exactly the type of thing they would make known public, knowing SEO gamers will just have to do some content writing.
However, the blogger serves it up with some confidentiality "spin"
Makes no sense.
Honestly, all there is to know about search engine optimization with google is in their information pages.
I dont believe any of the hype for a minute.
I wont argue any points about what the report has to say, because as I mentioned, I dont think its credible.
Joined: 22 Aug 2003 Posts: 1324 Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject:
Hmm, maybe the lesson here is that we are all way too dependant on Google?
I'm glad to have received this news during a week when I'm coding a tool that helps webmasters generate repeat traffic to their site.
It just dawned on me that what we're seeing here is sort of a merging of a regular search engine and a human edited directory. Maybe as billions of pages on the net becomes trillions of pages web surfers will gravitate more and more to directories?
Is this part of that trend?
Uniqueness. I've been adding video to my sites in a reach for some uniqueness (and video really does deliver some content much more effectively). But that seems to be a short term - mid term strategy as I'm sure video will become very common at some point.
I'm still fond of my "air theory" which states that net content (actually all media content) is becoming increasingly like air.
That is, a critically important aspect of our lives that we all take 100% completely for granted because it's free and ever present. Very high actual value, very low perceived value.
So, by that theory, the fact that I have useful info on my site becomes less and less important because the very same info is also easily available a thousand other places.
If I'm an air salesman I have to put something on the table other than air because nobody cares at all that I have free air on my site. Imagine how laughable it would be if I proudly offered free air on my site, and I wasn't joking? I can almost smell the day when somebody brags about how informative their site is, and we all giggle at how out of date they are.
If you buy all that, then uniqueness, presentation, personality, your own special song and dance etc becomes the whole show.
That's also an escape route from over dependance on Google? Build audience loyalty via their personal connection to you?
I have no idea really, but that's what's bubbling up from the instinct well. _________________ Free Forum And Ezine Hosting
http://Engage-Engine.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Your host: Allan Gardyne. Earning a good living from affiliate
programs since 1998.
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
