Now too many Ads get you penalized by Google

[grynge]

According to Search Engine Land the new google update will penalise your site if you have too many adverts on a page lol and to start with I had to check it wasn't april fools day but alas it isn't

it was mentioned on the google blog

I can see their point in one way but it also seems a sure fire easy way to get rid of competition. Too many other adverts and bang your out of the serps.

What do you think?

[Kay]

All change! This is getting very tiresome. In the last year or so, I've found it much more enjoyable to work for other people rather than having to dance attendance to every whim of G. It's more pleasant to get on with a job rather than have to run around like a headless chicken every time G changes its algo. I used to like having my own business, now I wonder if it's worth the effort. At least my employers don't change the goal posts every day.

[benitez17]

As soon as they penalize their own pages, many of which nothing besides ads above the fold on my 17" laptop screen, I'll worry about their opinion on ad placement.

[JJMcClure]

having to dance attendance to every whim of G. .

That's not what's happening, it's not their whim, that's entirely the wrong way to view this. You're being affected by fallout from the spammers and Google's attempt to stay one step ahead of them. If people built 'proper' sites that didn't have a bunch of crap above the fold Google wouldn't have to start penalising those who do. And, if you don't do that, you'll be ok so no worries right? In fact you should be pleased because a bunch of your competition probably just got penalised.

Love or hate Google or have any kind of suspicions about them as a company it doesn't change that what I said above is true. You imagine that they like having to spend millions trying to stop people abusing their precious system and driving away Google users? Of course not, it's not their whim, it's a pain in the ass for them.

"This algorithmic change does not affect sites who place ads above-the-fold to a normal degree"

If you're going to be anti something here, be anti-spammers who are making your life harder.

[Kay]

I'm not anti-G, which is what you seem to be suggesting. I said earlier today on another thread that they are still my preferred SE, because that's what I'm used to and it seems easier somehow. I still rely on AS to pay most of my bills. There's no way I am anti-G. Quite the opposite.

However, I can carry on plodding along doing my own little business in the same way as usual, not trying to lie, cheat, or game anyone, and I have no idea what my reward might be at the end of each month - it could be a tenner or a couple of grand. That's not a good way to live. And I haven't changed. It's G that changes. OK, so they're trying to improve searches by hitting the baddies, but some of the good guys (like me) get hit in the cross-fire with their horribly clumsy attempts to put things right.

Yes, OK, I have some MFAs, I don't deny that - I have to adapt and respond to market forces the same as anyone else, but I'm not talking about them. I'm mostly referring to an authority site which is well-respected. Oxford University Press asked us if they could use some of our content from that one, so it's not just a stupid site with a bunch of crap on it.

Yes, I'm already anti-spammer, anti-self-promoter, anti- a lot of things. I'm not against the hand who feeds me. But if that hand punches me on the nose too often and keeps moving the goal posts, then it's only natural that I'd be looking elsewhere for a better paymaster.

[JJMcClure]

I'm not anti-G, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

There's a big difference between 'dancing attendence to google's whim' and keeping abreast of anti spam measures and I don't see why you'd feel like a headless chicken when they explain as much as they can what they want in the link Grynge provided. They have to be vague in the same way that an airport can only give vague instructions about security measures in an attemptto reduce inconvenience their innocent passengers, but they can't give too much away or the terrorists would be able to circumvent the security.

If you were talking about McDonalds, a company I thoroughly despise, I'd react exactly the same about this. There's a system, greedy spammers mess it up, the company tries to stop them, you figure out what they want and don't want so you don't trip the filters. They're not doing it for fun and it's not a whim, is it...

Whether they apply the same standards to their own pages is irrelevant to the subject of the thread. The question of whether they did it to cause their own pages to have more prominence and remove competiton is worth discussing.

[Kay]

OK. point taken. I understand that they have to take anti-spam measures. I also understand that they want to promote their own stuff to make more money. I still stand by my point that their often clumsy way of going about things often hits the good guys as well as the bad.

We have no comeback. We've been playing nicely for years and then we can get up tomorrow and find all our income has been wiped out because G has made changes to target the bad guys again, and they don't give a toss who gets hit in the process. It's their business, they can do what the heck they like. I'm just saying that they're not a nice boss and I would prefer to find other ways of paying my bills, without some clumsy oaf changing the rules every day or so.

The question of whether they did it to cause their own pages to have more prominence and remove competiton is worth discussing.

Am I off topic? The thread can be split quite easily.

About competition, despite all the laws in various countries so far they seem to be able to get away with doing whatever they like. It doesn't matter what people like us think about it. They rule the Empire and we are occupants of Tatooine.

[JJMcClure]

I still stand by my point that their often clumsy way of going about things often hits the good guys as well as the bad.

I never disagreed with you there.

The issue of removing competiton is one Grynge mentioned in his OP and is certainly worth examining. Would it actually work?

It might surprise a few people that their words haven't fallen on deaf ears and my view of Google has, let's say ....evolved.

[Clinton]

There's only one word from me: Hallelujah!

[grynge]

The issue of removing competiton is one Grynge mentioned in his OP and is certainly worth examining. Would it actually work?

Whose adverts are they going to ban you for? If you have 4 ads on a page 3 google ones above the fold and 1 other below the fold will they ban you?