Maybe Jason Calacanis isn't being totally honest about Mahalo?
smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com
I find all these posts interesting, but it seems Jason is being portrayed as the most at fault. Isn't he just playing the Google 'game' better than most?
When I see SPAM in Google's index that is ranking high I don't get mad at the spammers but rather at Google for allowing and often times making huge money off of SPAM they index.
You can report bad sites and people abusing AdSense but nothing ever happens. I wonder if anyone actually gets the reports at all - I reported a site I came across several weeks ago for perfectly aligning every block of ads with sets of images to disguise them as content, obviously nobody from Google's even clicked the link because they're still doing it and it's an immediately obvious violation.
Most of the content is regurgitated as well. If you have such an issue with Mahalo and/or Mr. Calacanis: STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM.
Nothing dooms a site to the shadows of history like being completely and utterly forgotten.
The idea is great (curated knowledge could be a boon for consumers and producers), but I think the way they're doing it sucks.
[x] Never show me any more results from foo.com I hate that site. Remember my preference.
If not, it should do.
people stay on that page for 20-60 minutes!!! and there are 50 people on that page all the time learning to play guitar chords. sorry it's not how to set up a cassandra cluster, but it is of value to people learning to do something basic.
best jcal
This, of course, doesn't excuse the fake domains and link farming.
Google should just blacklist the entire domain and be done with it. Do they really provide any value to the Internet at all?
I'll admit, I have gotten an answer or two from EE, but at the same time I also wonder where they stole the real content from. These companies that do SEO rarely generate any real content themselves. They all violate copyright in flagrant ways.
We are 100% SEO compliment to best practices and we delete/deindex/build out any community pages that are short every month. Google Knol, Wikipedia, About.com, eHow and Associated Content don't do this!
We are uber agressive about removing short pages, and investing thousands of dollars in top pages. like these two: http://www.mahalo.com/how-to-make-strawberry-shortcake http://www.mahalo.com/how-to-play-guitar-chords
These claims by hater SEOs are basically B.S. They take the last 10,000 pages the community are working on and say "gotcha!!! these pages suck!" Well, they are being worked on! Come back in 60-90 days and they will be built out or they will be deindexed. that simple.
... absurd.
I thought this was Jason's HN account: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jasonmcalacanis
will post under this one going forward.
Something I'm missing? Or is there some special Google deal by which you can add more than 3 and get away with it?
In terms of user experience, I think the ratio of content to adverts on that page (Which you seem to cite as a good page) is way out. Tons of adverts / cross promotion etc, and a little bit of content in the middle.
There's obviously a reverse incentive at play here which stinks (IMHO). If you make the page useful to users, they wouldn't click on any of the ads. So it's in your best interest to create bare minimum pages, or pages that give the users a token amount of value - the bare minimum.
I'm surprised at Google for allowing this sort of thing and specifically allowing you to put even more ads up than is usually allowed.
I just don't care to see the constant beating on any subject over and over again and it's at the point that hearing the name "Mahalo" makes me grind my teeth.
I haven't really seen much quality from what I've used of Mahalo; to me it's mostly adsense spam and skeleton pages. I'm sure there's someone out there finding it useful but it really does seem to be mostly making revenue off of adsense and SEO "best practices". If you can sustain a business off this, great.
I just don't care to see the subject beaten to death constantly. If people don't like Mahalo, then they should create something better to push it out of the way rather than endlessly whining about how much it annoys them.
When you use terms like "Hater SEOs" it just sounds absurd. I say this having been involved in part of that side of the web world in the past: SEOs are the used car salesmen of the Internet. Nobody really needs them yet their crappy late night TV Ads manage to find enough suckers to keep them in Pomade and Leisure Suits year after year.
Superficially (in the sense that I've never really looked carefully), it looks like he's gaming Google and getting away with it, which is a pretty big deal if it's true.
When I go to the "1800Pools Coupons" page that he linked, the main content box has an offer for "$25 off Orders Over $500" . When I click on this, it tells me that the coupon code is "AFF25" and can be added during checkout on the 1800Pools website.
http://www.mahalo.com/1800pools-coupons
Where's the problem? Isn't that exactly what someone who searched on google for "1800pools coupons" is looking for?
It is what is known as a "thin affiliate" site, and it adds a layer of navigation to the user and middleman payouts to the advertiser, lowering user experience and driving up advertiser costs.
The point of an affiliate program is to let other people distribute the coupons, so it's not as if he is doing something shady by "scraping" content from elsewhere as the article implies.
I do agree that he is violating AdSense rules and shouldn't have the AdSense boxes on those pages, but (correct me if I'm wrong) Matt Cutts isn't involved in AdSense and is just focussed on indexing, so that's not the issue at hand when the author is attacking him.
Yes, it is, the searcher doesn't know that though. That's Google's job, to rank the most relevant sites to the query. If those coupons are what the user is looking for then that site is what should come up first.
I also want to add that at this moment Savings.com does indeed outrank Mahalo.com for that query. While this may change (and based on past experience with Mahalo's empty pages many of them will outrank other sites that are higher quality eventually), that is not what the bulk of the issue is. Those Savings.com feeds are not "human powered" anything. They are exactly the kinds of pages that Jason told Matt Cutts he had removed from his site. They are the antithesis of what Jason claimed his site was all about just 4 days ago. That's the main issue.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/savingscom-makes-coupons-mo...
All they're doing is taking advantage of Google's weaknesses. If you use Google on a daily basis, which the majority of us do, but their results are not the high quality you're expecting them to be, why the hell would you be getting mad at the results showing up instead of the site serving up the results?
Everyone needs to lay off and start criticizing Google if anything.
1. Open Angel Forum has gotten a dozen startups funded. 2. Open Angel Forum is now in eight cities, and will be in San Francisco this Thursday. 3. The Launch Conference next winter will be a platform for 30-50 startups to launch AND raise their seed/A-rounds.
These SEO attacks are absurd at this point... I may be outspoken, but this is a slam job done by a group of SEOs who have it out for me. It's sad that they can take over HackerNews so easily.
Finally, it just does not seem like all that plastered excessive AdSense is doing the Internet any good at all. What value are you providing there, exactly? If those are just pages which don't get much traffic, you could just remove the AdSense from there and the world will thank you for it.
The fact that you're trying to completely change the subject with your post about the Open Angel Forum doesn't really help your cause, either.
Pages full of auto-generated content and ads which you have managed to get Google to index?
I'd understand if you were desperate for cash and needed the adsense revenue, but surely it'd be better to create a site that has some sort of quality content that you can be proud of?
Ignore the "SEO Attacks" stuff.
* You automatically create pages with no real content * You plaster them with ads * You get them indexed by Google
That doesn't seem to me to be something good for the web.