Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    October 31st, 2007
    Posts
    2
    Google considers CJ links sneaky redirects
    A recently revealed Google document currently circulating on the SEO websites is "Quality Rater Guidelines 2007." The document gives instructions to Google quality raters reviewing websites to look for specific items on the site to determine if it is a quality and relevant site related to the search or "spammy."

    In a list of specific things to look for was a section called "sneaky redirects" where the apparent destination of the link on the page and the final destination is different.

    Though redirects are common and several examples of acceptable redirects were given, one specific example of, what Google terms sneaky, was this:

    http://www.xxxxxx.com/go65biroiq57A8E7A6577BDAA6
    redirects to
    http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/S...xx&PID=xxxxxxx

    (I removed the specific ID numbers but the Google document shows both sides of the actual link)

    That is, of course, a standard CJ link just like you would see from any CJ merchant. The result is that any Google reviewer checking your website to see if it should be considered spam or if the pagerank should be lowered would see that affiliate link as one indicator that your site is spam.

    The document also mentions other affiliate networks but only the CJ link was specifically shown. If you were wondering what Google thinks of affiliate sites in general, this is a pretty good hint.

    There are some positives in the document, Google states that if a site adds a lot of helpful content, reviews, price comparisons or something other than a lot of simple affiliate links, it may not be considered spam, which gets back to the often repeated advice that content is very important.

    If you have an affiliate website, reading this document is highly recommended. Search Google for Quality Rater Guidelines.

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Not really new, from 3 years ago - http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread...google+college

    Plus they've gotten into pay per action themselves since then.

  3. #3
    I like traffic lights
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Southern hemisphere - away from Fukushima
    Posts
    2,936
    One can only hope since they love screwing affiliates that their stock price gets a good rodgering in the recession - karma is our only hope.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador La_Valette's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2005
    Location
    The Pale Blue Dot
    Posts
    841
    Intriguing stuff. They can't possibly be blacklisting all sites which carry advertising where there's a redirect involved when users click on ads. If they did that, pretty much all the net's top sites would be ruled out. Check out the ads on CNN and the NY Times websites for example.

    So are they specifically looking for redirects they know to belong to affiliate networks? One wonders...
    Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer Simpson

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Vrindavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 25th, 2003
    Posts
    1,902
    >> blacklisting all sites which carry advertising where there's a redirect involved

    it is easier to find ad supported sites than find a truly zero ad site now

    hope they are not bias on what affiliate links to penalize

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador simcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,786
    Maybe they should concentrate on the quality of the site vs. who supplies the ads?

    hope they are not bias on what affiliate links to penalize
    Time to stock up on performics merchants?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    April 20th, 2005
    Posts
    112
    Well, just cloak the affiliate links and you got no problems with google.

  8. #8
    I like traffic lights
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Southern hemisphere - away from Fukushima
    Posts
    2,936
    Pretty anti-competitive behaviour, if you ask me.

    If the US Commerce Dept hadn't been turned into a joke, they'd probably do something about it.

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador simcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,786
    Well, just cloak the affiliate links and you got no problems with google.
    Thats fine if google only looks at one page and stops. AFAIK googlebot has the ability to follow links.

    lots of variables can then come into play, javascript, pages blocked to google, etc.

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador La_Valette's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2005
    Location
    The Pale Blue Dot
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by Drewbert
    Pretty anti-competitive behaviour, if you ask me.

    If the US Commerce Dept hadn't been turned into a joke, they'd probably do something about it.
    Intriguing thought. But is 65% of the search market enough to qualify as a monopoly?
    Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer Simpson

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    September 11th, 2007
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by La_Valette
    Intriguing thought. But is 65% of the search market enough to qualify as a monopoly?
    Maybe not in the US, but Google holds a 85-95% market share in almost all of europe and south america. I'd imagine the EU would eventually become concerned.

  12. #12
    I like traffic lights
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Southern hemisphere - away from Fukushima
    Posts
    2,936
    I'm not talking about the search market share, I'm talking about their ability to decide that some sites can be ranked lower just because they have certain (ie CJ) affiliate links on their pages.

    THAT's anti-competitive.

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    September 11th, 2007
    Posts
    28
    Well, Google has the right to do whatever they want with their search results - it's their company. It's only when they start to become a monopoly that they'll potentially be more restricted and forced not to be anti-competitive. (I can't imagine how hard it would be to police search results).

  14. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    403
    I guess if redirects are bad then, we're supposed to start buying and selling text links. Maybe Perfomics redirects are ok and CJ links are not.

    It seems like the algo at the plex is more human that computer.

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador La_Valette's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2005
    Location
    The Pale Blue Dot
    Posts
    841
    Maybe somebody at CJ is reading this and can get the CJ boss to call someone at Google. Blacklisting CJ's links is unfair to CJ, bad for its affiliates, and can't really serve Google's interests in any productive way either.
    Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer Simpson

  16. #16
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Nobody is blacklisting CJ links.

    Here's the link to the thing (Quality Rater Guidelines 2007) that's being talked about, from April of last year.

    http://www.mauriziopetrone.com/blog/...lines-2007.pdf

    There are CJ links galore out there, still are, pages still ranking with CJ links on them along with pages with affiliate links from every other network out there.

    It's good to read, will skim thru it later. Just the mere presence of affiliate links on your sites is not the problem. They just don't want garbage/spam pages out there, regardless if they have affiliates links on them or not. I downloaded the pdf for later.

    Also keep in mind:
    A. Google does CPA now themselves.
    B. They have Performics, an affiliate network, under their wing.
    Last edited by Trust; March 20th, 2008 at 06:49 PM.

  17. #17
    Full Member GoColts's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2nd, 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    380
    A little on topic a little off...

    a) Won't adding a "no follow" tag to the page dismiss the google spiders? Why would you want a spidered redirect anyway unless you were spamming? And then spam to affiliates is not always interpreted the same as spam to spam kings and anti-spam extremists.

    b) I've been using the following code to redirect some recent pages:



    I'm using this to shorten affiliate links posted elsewhere on the web than on my website. However, I haven't seen any traffic from the SID's within. Does anyone know if CJ has any issues tracking with that redirect script??

  18. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. (2006) cloaking or sneaky redirects???? (Google)
    By kse in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2010, 08:16 AM
  2. Redirects & CJ Links
    By Baliman in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: March 7th, 2005, 11:57 PM
  3. Google considers online IPO auction
    By Trust in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2004, 09:12 AM
  4. Redirects to Affiliate Links
    By eggerda in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 20th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •