Joined: 21 Dec 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Google's "quality rating guideline"
Hi Allan,
Thanks for mentioning Googles quality rating guidelines in your latest newsletter.
What really ANNOYS me is the automatic assumption that an affiliate site offers nothing if it doesn't have content of some sort.
If a merchant's site has a very poor UI, or lacks decent search functionality, or maybe can't be used by colour-blnd people, then an affiliate site that overcomes one of those problems (but to Google is just filled with affiliate links) IS offering something of value.
I'd really love to corner someone form Google at a conference and take to them with a cluebat over this.
One of their degree-holding "quality raters" deemed all my sites to just be "webspam" even though they offer a far better surfing experience than the target merchants site(s), and I've never recovered traffic-wise from that decision.
Yes, it seems that content truly is king in the world of search engines. It has been progressively moving towards this step. Unfortunately, to make things better it will step on many toes to get things perfectly right or close to that. Reading and adhering to guidelines such as these should go a long way to pulling your websites out of range of being "kicked out" by quality raters.
I have heard time and time again that content is the long-term solution. Many people have small websites that just push people to an affiliate and they don't have to provide much but a beautifully written sale pitch. I don't really see a problem with this, but many people have abused such terms with these types of websites. Now search engines are fighting back at them with no regard to the ones that are adhering to guidelines.
I would have liked to try out this style of website, but it just seems like a bad investment of time. I will continue with my content sites and grind my teeth until results start to improve.
Yep. We can either spend our energy trying to change Google, or we can play by Google's rules.
However, perhaps it doesn't have to be a totally either/or decision. Perhaps if we all spent SOME time complaining to Google, and complaining publicly, something would actually be done. Large companies generally hate bad publicity, especially if it's publicity saying that what they're doing is both illogical and unfair, which it is in this case.
What annoyed me most in the Google quality rating guidelines was the gross simplification of "sneaky redirects". Yes, redirects can be used for sneaky purposes, but the CJ affiliate tracking example given to Google's quality raters is just plain ludicrous.
What on earth could be so bad about an affiliate tracking URL that it deserves to be called a "sneaky redirect"? There's NOTHING sneaking about a CJ affiliate tracking URL.
That seems plain ignorant. And yet Google folk are certainly NOT ignorant. They bought affiliate network Performics, so they have people at Google who know all about this stuff. So why Google is playing this very odd game, I have no idea. Why would any company want to pretend its staff are stupid and ignorant? It just doesn't make sense. What's the REAL story?
Such a simplification makes it look as though Google hates the whole multi-billion-dollar affiliate program industry, and yet Google actually likes affiliate marketing - it uses a referral program to promote its own AdSense program. Weird!
Just in case anyone wonders what this is all about, here's the item...
Not following googles guidelines is like trying to break down a brick wall with your head. You keep banging your head and only get a headache. Content is king is the moto and it has proved to be corret all these years _________________ Surveys that pay Cheap lcd Tvs t1 prices Web Hosting paypal
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
