<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What About Ad #201?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:15:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Not Kevin</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-3019</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-3019</guid>
		<description>Looks like they listened to you waffles :) 

Google has increased the number of URLs you can add to the competitive ad filter from 200 to 500
http://www.memwg.com/bigger-adsense-ad-filter/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like they listened to you waffles <img src='http://wafflesatnoon.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>Google has increased the number of URLs you can add to the competitive ad filter from 200 to 500<br />
<a href="http://www.memwg.com/bigger-adsense-ad-filter/" rel="nofollow">http://www.memwg.com/bigger-adsense-ad-filter/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2653</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2653</guid>
		<description>Waffles,

Well said! I agree with you completely. 
The word &quot;scam&quot; is defined as obtaining money by means of deception. That includes fake personalities, fake reviews, and fake testimonials. It seems &quot;Anonymous&quot; is affiliated with one of these companies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Waffles,</p>
<p>Well said! I agree with you completely.<br />
The word &#8220;scam&#8221; is defined as obtaining money by means of deception. That includes fake personalities, fake reviews, and fake testimonials. It seems &#8220;Anonymous&#8221; is affiliated with one of these companies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annoyed</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2650</link>
		<dc:creator>Annoyed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2650</guid>
		<description>Other ad networks allow publishers to approve ads before they go live. There is no reason for Google to deny this power to publishers. The only logical conclusion is that Google wants the spam ads to continue because they are profiting from them. If this is not Google&#039;s intention, then it&#039;s high time Google proves it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Other ad networks allow publishers to approve ads before they go live. There is no reason for Google to deny this power to publishers. The only logical conclusion is that Google wants the spam ads to continue because they are profiting from them. If this is not Google&#8217;s intention, then it&#8217;s high time Google proves it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2615</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2615</guid>
		<description>If Google would lift that 200 line limit, I would put Google back on my site. I run a page dedicated to healthy weight loss, and for us it&#039;s non-negotiable that we keep these ads off our site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Google would lift that 200 line limit, I would put Google back on my site. I run a page dedicated to healthy weight loss, and for us it&#8217;s non-negotiable that we keep these ads off our site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Houle</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2551</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Houle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2551</guid>
		<description>The best way to keep low-grade advertising off your sites is to develop sites about topics that command a decent eCPM.

The vast majority of people can smell &#039;scam&#039; when they see the &quot;Flat Tummy&quot; ads on Facebook.  CTR and conversion rates aren&#039;t great on those ads,  but the affiliates make OK money on them because they&#039;re paying a very low eCPM,  often $0.10 or less.

Sites about topics that people actually spend money on command an eCPM that&#039;s too high for scammers,  and they just don&#039;t show up.

I&#039;ve got two kinds of sites:  (1) sites that get a good eCPM,  and (2) those that don&#039;t.  I put effort into developing sites of type (1) and don&#039;t put effort into type (2)&#039;s.  I don&#039;t run ads if I don&#039;t like the eCPM I get.  My type (2)&#039;s are cheap to run (often just the cost of the domain name and 1/1000 of the capacity of a dedi) and I don&#039;t feel bad if I&#039;m running them as a charity or just using them to support my type (1)&#039;s.

Unfortunately a site about web scams is likely to be a type (2) -- you&#039;ve got all the keywords to attract bad ads.  Your best bet would be to negotiate with specific advertisers,  but you&#039;d spend a lot of time selling your inventory and still wouldn&#039;t get much for it.

Facebook and other big sites tend to be type (2)&#039;s because they (a) grow inventory faster than demand grows for it,  and (b) they&#039;re not about anything people spend money on -- for instance,  imeem is about music:  but anybody who listens to imeem is someone who expects to hear streaming music for free.

Facebook and imeem are both stuck in the corner where bad ads are crowding out good ads.  Bad ads train users to be nonclickers,  poisoning the well for PPC.  If I was concerned about brand building at all,  I&#039;d stay away from the social &#039;notworks&#039; because anything advertised on them looks like a scam by association.

Facebook might make more money if it sold less ad inventory but sold better ad inventory.  There&#039;s an &#039;irish potato famine&#039; phenomenon around web ads where failing sites increase ad inventory when eCPM&#039;s fall:  this lowers the price of ad inventory and damages the brand of the site...  You might think you&#039;ll make more money but it ends in tears.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best way to keep low-grade advertising off your sites is to develop sites about topics that command a decent eCPM.</p>
<p>The vast majority of people can smell &#8217;scam&#8217; when they see the &#8220;Flat Tummy&#8221; ads on Facebook.  CTR and conversion rates aren&#8217;t great on those ads,  but the affiliates make OK money on them because they&#8217;re paying a very low eCPM,  often $0.10 or less.</p>
<p>Sites about topics that people actually spend money on command an eCPM that&#8217;s too high for scammers,  and they just don&#8217;t show up.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve got two kinds of sites:  (1) sites that get a good eCPM,  and (2) those that don&#8217;t.  I put effort into developing sites of type (1) and don&#8217;t put effort into type (2)&#8217;s.  I don&#8217;t run ads if I don&#8217;t like the eCPM I get.  My type (2)&#8217;s are cheap to run (often just the cost of the domain name and 1/1000 of the capacity of a dedi) and I don&#8217;t feel bad if I&#8217;m running them as a charity or just using them to support my type (1)&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Unfortunately a site about web scams is likely to be a type (2) &#8212; you&#8217;ve got all the keywords to attract bad ads.  Your best bet would be to negotiate with specific advertisers,  but you&#8217;d spend a lot of time selling your inventory and still wouldn&#8217;t get much for it.</p>
<p>Facebook and other big sites tend to be type (2)&#8217;s because they (a) grow inventory faster than demand grows for it,  and (b) they&#8217;re not about anything people spend money on &#8212; for instance,  imeem is about music:  but anybody who listens to imeem is someone who expects to hear streaming music for free.</p>
<p>Facebook and imeem are both stuck in the corner where bad ads are crowding out good ads.  Bad ads train users to be nonclickers,  poisoning the well for PPC.  If I was concerned about brand building at all,  I&#8217;d stay away from the social &#8216;notworks&#8217; because anything advertised on them looks like a scam by association.</p>
<p>Facebook might make more money if it sold less ad inventory but sold better ad inventory.  There&#8217;s an &#8216;irish potato famine&#8217; phenomenon around web ads where failing sites increase ad inventory when eCPM&#8217;s fall:  this lowers the price of ad inventory and damages the brand of the site&#8230;  You might think you&#8217;ll make more money but it ends in tears.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: waffles</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2524</link>
		<dc:creator>waffles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2524</guid>
		<description>Anonymous. Thanks for the post. Too bad you&#039;re wrong about everything. I disagree that Acai, Teeth Whitening, and grant sites are not a scams. Consumer Affairs disagrees. The Federal Trade Commission disagrees. The Better Business Bureau disagrees. You can&#039;t photoshop a model and post her picture with a phony story about how a product produced weight loss. That alone is fraudulent. 

Affiliates are heavily promoting these products. They are purchasing advertising and collecting money. They have a responsibility in all of this.

Google does not accept many types of advertising. I&#039;ve read the affiliate forums. When someone&#039;s fake blog gets blacklisted on Google (or by their host, which is also happening more often) - they create a new one and continue bidding until Google kicks them off again. That is bypassing the system. Sure it takes 5 minutes to get a new site on, but when blacklisted, they have to start the process over again. I&#039;m quite familiar with Adsense and Adwords, and I&#039;ve worked with companies who have been blacklisted. 

Hosting? I have a great host, multiple websites, and many domains. You get what you pay for. If I only cared about cost, I&#039;d be over on Godaddy.

Blogs monetize. Or should I just create a fake blog, sell useless products, and advertise on Google instead?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous. Thanks for the post. Too bad you&#8217;re wrong about everything. I disagree that Acai, Teeth Whitening, and grant sites are not a scams. Consumer Affairs disagrees. The Federal Trade Commission disagrees. The Better Business Bureau disagrees. You can&#8217;t photoshop a model and post her picture with a phony story about how a product produced weight loss. That alone is fraudulent. </p>
<p>Affiliates are heavily promoting these products. They are purchasing advertising and collecting money. They have a responsibility in all of this.</p>
<p>Google does not accept many types of advertising. I&#8217;ve read the affiliate forums. When someone&#8217;s fake blog gets blacklisted on Google (or by their host, which is also happening more often) &#8211; they create a new one and continue bidding until Google kicks them off again. That is bypassing the system. Sure it takes 5 minutes to get a new site on, but when blacklisted, they have to start the process over again. I&#8217;m quite familiar with Adsense and Adwords, and I&#8217;ve worked with companies who have been blacklisted. </p>
<p>Hosting? I have a great host, multiple websites, and many domains. You get what you pay for. If I only cared about cost, I&#8217;d be over on Godaddy.</p>
<p>Blogs monetize. Or should I just create a fake blog, sell useless products, and advertise on Google instead?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2482</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2482</guid>
		<description>Hey Waffles,

I really don&#039;t have anything against you, but I&#039;m a bit upset at a few of your comments...

First - Acai, Teeth Whitening and Grant trials are not scams. Scams are fraudulent. Fraudulent people go to jail and pay fines (Which these companies never will). 

They may not clearly state in huge, red bold lettering that they&#039;re going to charge you after the trial, but they do let you know pretty clearly before you even order the trial - as well as in the packaging you get. If you&#039;ve been to the confirmation pages you would know this.

Not only that, you have to agree to their terms of service before you even place your order. So, if you want to stick up for people who like checking the box &quot;I Agree To Terms of Service&quot; without actually reading the TOS, then I guess you could say you&#039;re sticking up for people who lack common sense. 

There&#039;s hundreds of services out there that do exactly what these people are doing. I could go and find 1,000 different types of companies who offer free trials and then charge you when it&#039;s over. So again, not scams - people just are too lazy to read. Probably for the same reason they&#039;re too lazy to hit the gym (They don&#039;t want to work for anything). 

Secondly, you&#039;re completely wrong about &quot;scammers&quot; &quot;getting around Google&#039;s filtering&quot;. First, the people &quot;getting around Google&quot; wouldn&#039;t even be considered scammers. They&#039;re just affiliates of the companies. They don&#039;t actually sell anything. It would be like a gun shop selling a gun to a murderer and then claiming that the gun shop is then in turn a murderer for selling that person the gun. So again, they&#039;re not scammers - they&#039;re affiliates. 

Secondly, they&#039;re not &quot;Getting around Google&quot;. They&#039;re bidding on keywords. You write a post with keywords they bid on and bam - it&#039;s going to show up on your site because they are bidding the most. And who cares if they&#039;re on your site anyways? If your readers actually read what you have to say they wouldn&#039;t be visiting those sites anyways.

So again, when you say &quot;the scammers have a lot invested in trying to figure out how to get around Google’s weak filtering system.&quot; All they invested was about 5 minutes to upload their keywords to a campaign and bid on them. I highly doubt any &quot;affiliate&quot; is going to single out your site to advertise on, as it&#039;s not going to convert for them. And in &quot;their&quot; defense, they aren&#039;t doing anything wrong. 

And I don&#039;t know who you have hosting your site, but you can get a great hosting plan for as low as $9 a month or cheaper at sites like DreamHost, BlueHost or HostGator. I highly doubt you need to be on a dedicated server. That would be a waste of money. That being said, I don&#039;t think you really need any ads on your site to &quot;recoup&quot; the costs of running this blog. It&#039;s as simple as switching ads (AdBrite, Yahoo Ads, MSN ads, ClickSor, and the countless other alternatives you have). 

And not to preach, but you really shouldn&#039;t monetize your site unless you have maybe 2,000 uniques per day. You want people staying here reading, coming back - not leaving your site. 

Just my $0.02</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Waffles,</p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t have anything against you, but I&#8217;m a bit upset at a few of your comments&#8230;</p>
<p>First &#8211; Acai, Teeth Whitening and Grant trials are not scams. Scams are fraudulent. Fraudulent people go to jail and pay fines (Which these companies never will). </p>
<p>They may not clearly state in huge, red bold lettering that they&#8217;re going to charge you after the trial, but they do let you know pretty clearly before you even order the trial &#8211; as well as in the packaging you get. If you&#8217;ve been to the confirmation pages you would know this.</p>
<p>Not only that, you have to agree to their terms of service before you even place your order. So, if you want to stick up for people who like checking the box &#8220;I Agree To Terms of Service&#8221; without actually reading the TOS, then I guess you could say you&#8217;re sticking up for people who lack common sense. </p>
<p>There&#8217;s hundreds of services out there that do exactly what these people are doing. I could go and find 1,000 different types of companies who offer free trials and then charge you when it&#8217;s over. So again, not scams &#8211; people just are too lazy to read. Probably for the same reason they&#8217;re too lazy to hit the gym (They don&#8217;t want to work for anything). </p>
<p>Secondly, you&#8217;re completely wrong about &#8220;scammers&#8221; &#8220;getting around Google&#8217;s filtering&#8221;. First, the people &#8220;getting around Google&#8221; wouldn&#8217;t even be considered scammers. They&#8217;re just affiliates of the companies. They don&#8217;t actually sell anything. It would be like a gun shop selling a gun to a murderer and then claiming that the gun shop is then in turn a murderer for selling that person the gun. So again, they&#8217;re not scammers &#8211; they&#8217;re affiliates. </p>
<p>Secondly, they&#8217;re not &#8220;Getting around Google&#8221;. They&#8217;re bidding on keywords. You write a post with keywords they bid on and bam &#8211; it&#8217;s going to show up on your site because they are bidding the most. And who cares if they&#8217;re on your site anyways? If your readers actually read what you have to say they wouldn&#8217;t be visiting those sites anyways.</p>
<p>So again, when you say &#8220;the scammers have a lot invested in trying to figure out how to get around Google’s weak filtering system.&#8221; All they invested was about 5 minutes to upload their keywords to a campaign and bid on them. I highly doubt any &#8220;affiliate&#8221; is going to single out your site to advertise on, as it&#8217;s not going to convert for them. And in &#8220;their&#8221; defense, they aren&#8217;t doing anything wrong. </p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t know who you have hosting your site, but you can get a great hosting plan for as low as $9 a month or cheaper at sites like DreamHost, BlueHost or HostGator. I highly doubt you need to be on a dedicated server. That would be a waste of money. That being said, I don&#8217;t think you really need any ads on your site to &#8220;recoup&#8221; the costs of running this blog. It&#8217;s as simple as switching ads (AdBrite, Yahoo Ads, MSN ads, ClickSor, and the countless other alternatives you have). </p>
<p>And not to preach, but you really shouldn&#8217;t monetize your site unless you have maybe 2,000 uniques per day. You want people staying here reading, coming back &#8211; not leaving your site. </p>
<p>Just my $0.02</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not Kevin</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2456</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2456</guid>
		<description>Just to add, there is a tip in this blog post which might be helpful: 
http://sockmoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/adsense-tip-removing-placement-targeted.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to add, there is a tip in this blog post which might be helpful:<br />
<a href="http://sockmoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/adsense-tip-removing-placement-targeted.html" rel="nofollow">http://sockmoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/adsense-tip-removing-placement-targeted.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not Kevin</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2455</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2455</guid>
		<description>It can be a full-time job just keeping up with this. Interesting thread here on people trying to block adsense ads for the Acai diet scam blogs / flogs from their sites: 
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1101690</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It can be a full-time job just keeping up with this. Interesting thread here on people trying to block adsense ads for the Acai diet scam blogs / flogs from their sites:<br />
<a href="http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1101690" rel="nofollow">http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1101690</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: waffles</title>
		<link>http://wafflesatnoon.com/2009/03/25/what-about-ad-201/comment-page-1/#comment-2380</link>
		<dc:creator>waffles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wafflesatnoon.com/?p=567#comment-2380</guid>
		<description>Janus, I will probably put that list on here soon, and show where the 200-line cutoff is, just to make a point how many I can&#039;t filter. Thanks for the comment, but it&#039;s too bad the url you included had a free offer for &quot;Movie Star Look&quot; from Hydra. Tsk tsk...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Janus, I will probably put that list on here soon, and show where the 200-line cutoff is, just to make a point how many I can&#8217;t filter. Thanks for the comment, but it&#8217;s too bad the url you included had a free offer for &#8220;Movie Star Look&#8221; from Hydra. Tsk tsk&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
