Blog Content Based Solely on High Paying Keywords 323
Doug Nelson writes "Michael Buffington chose to build a weblog using highly automated content aggregation tools around a single keyword, asbestos, because of the high click through rate associated with the ad.
'The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance to me. It's not that I don't have opinions on asbestos and asbestos reform, because I do. The whole point of the site is to experiment with an idea. I built a tool that helps me aggregate topical news with the help of Google's Alert system. So far it works wonderfully. But there's a second motive as well. Right now asbestos reform and asbestos related litigation is on fire. Lawyers are paying anywhere from $15-100 per click through on Google ads. The second part of this big experiment is to see if I can capture some of that click through revenue while still providing a somewhat valid service to people who might arrive by search results.'"
advertising traffic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure hope "doug nelson" gets a cut of the clickthroughs for posting the story here and getting "michael bluffington" the traffic.
This is SAD. (Score:3, Insightful)
This site is becoming a long and boring infomercial.
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:3, Funny)
Finally a use for slashdotting.
After this the guy can retire.
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bankrupting the lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bankrupting the lawyers.... (Score:4, Informative)
And so far, my estimates on click through rates are way off. Like, I was smoking crack off. It's too early to tell at this point because Google doesn't give you specific ad stats until three days of data exists, but my guess is that current click through rates are a little over a $1.00. That suggests either two things - my estimates on what advertisers spend is way off, or that Google takes an insane cut. I'm inclined to think the former.
(http://www.michaelbuffington.com/archives/2005/02 /the_grand_expir.html):
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Same as with the Ronald Piquepaille (sp?) blogposts and people complainiong about that :
If you think the dude does not deserve the3 money don't freaking click the add/link!
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:2)
In this case, isn't Slashdot acting as the spammer ? I define 'spamming' as sending out unsolicited emails/mails ; This is just one of the millions trying to 'game the system'.
It's not that I am agreeing with how he is , to say it straight, cheating Adsense/Google out of money : But it's not something that I will be complaining about... Or be contributing to in the form of giving him ad-revenue.
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, this is Slashdot. We never read the articles.
Re:advertising traffic? (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who care, it was generated using typepad [typepad.com] and has a single pixel gif [typepad.com] to track visitors.
Rationalizing?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rationalizing?? (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Advertiserers set budgets The budget of today wil totally be used up. --small profit.
3. Google is vague about actual payouts, a lot of clicks on 1 days and no other days will set off all kind of red flags.. i doubt he will be paid out for this day. -- no profit.
4. hosting. Today his traffic costs will skyrocket. -- bye bye profit.
Re:Rationalizing?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me ask you this: what are you smoking?
Just because he's playing the system doesn't mean google can just not pay him. The can cancel his account, but they have to pay him what he earned.
oldest motive in the book...and good! (Score:5, Insightful)
the only real reason he's doing this is the money
These two things aren't incompatible.
The only reason my super-market provides groceries is to make money, and the result is a valid service.
The only reason the movie theater down the road plays movies is to make money, and the result is a valid service.
Just because this blogger is motivated by money does not mean that the service he provides is a scam. He's aggregating information, and will likely eventually - after he's been covering the topic long enough - provide knowledgeable commentary on it. I wouldn't be suprised if, in a few years, he's doing original research on the issue, iterviewing people, and digging up articles in libraries.
What he's doing is indistinguishable from someone starting up a new magazine because they see a demographic that would read it and an advertising base that would purchase ads (see, for example Make [oreilly.com]). The end result is that all three parties are better off: the readers get something that they choose to read, the advertisers get eyeballs, and the guy who puts it all together gets a slice.
What you're seeing is actually history in the making - the decoupling of demand-driven journalism from media companies.
Narrow worldview. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) He enjoys providing his community with a safe gathering place that meets a common need across all age, race, and gender groups
and
b) He needs to make a living and in exchange for his service, his community provides him with one
I can hear all of the Smithians screaming, "but (b) is just another way of saying 'to make money,' they're the same statement!"
No. The goal of "making money" is significantly different from the goal of "making a living," even if the two employ some of the same means and some of the same ends.
The former is greedy and unindividuated, it is the process of finding an exploitable point in the market economy and sucking wealth out of it for personal use, even if that wealth could help someone else or even if the removal of that wealth isn't good for other people-- see also lottery tickets, etc.
The latter is a matter of personal survival and good intentions-- it is asking a different question: "I have to live, so what can I do that will justify my community's support of me and help me to support them as well?"
I have a lot of respect for living-earners, but not a lot of respect for money-makers. I also don't think that Smith is god; there are centuries' worth of economists (including some very big names) that have basically diluted smith to the point of being to the operation of modern economics what Edison is to the operation of modern technology.
Re:Narrow worldview. (Score:3, Insightful)
Narrow worldview agai
Re:oldest motive in the book...and good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oldest motive in the book...and good! (Score:4, Funny)
When you link to sites about people who hack mini PCs to fit inside a Mac Mini case, it's providing a valuable service.
When you link to sites talking about a substance that causes lung cancer, you're just net pollution.
Re:oldest motive in the book...and good! (Score:2)
just like smokedot.org (Score:2)
screw the govt, down with the retard baby boomers, go to hell, die with cancer, dont smoke pot when u get aids, suffer and die.
Now leave us alone.
Re:oldest motive in the book...and good! (Score:2)
Michael Buffington chose to build a weblog [b]using highly automated content aggregation tools around a single keyword,[/b] asbestos, because of the high click through rate associated with the ad. 'The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance to me. It's not that I don't have opinions on asbestos and asbestos reform, because I do. The whole point of the site is to experiment with an idea. [b]I built a tool that helps me aggregate topical news with the help of Goo
Re:Rationalizing?? (Score:5, Funny)
thank you, i'm here all week. try the veal.
Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's hope this doesn't become so commonplace that the entire medium of blogs becomes suspect in the same way modern television news has.
~Rebecca
Re:Capitalism (Score:2)
"Blogs" (Score:3, Insightful)
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/bones/WhyIHateWebL o gs.html [indstate.edu]
Thanks. Now - what leads anyone to believe that blogs are somehow not suspect? A blog is just some random persons blatherings... why should they be any more trustworthy than the TV? I guess if you have all day, you could read hundreds of blatherings and get an idea of the aggregate opinion. Or maybe just the opinions of people with even more time to waste than you do:-)
Re:"Blogs" (Score:2)
Just interested...
Re:"Blogs" (Score:2)
I don't know exactly what is that people do to screw up with their HTML so it doesn't show well on nonmaximized windows.
Yes, I'm talking about the weblogs link.
Uh oh, here's that EVIL capitalism again (Score:2, Insightful)
And I have more news for you: 'blogs' have ALWAYS been suspect. I don't suppose you can refer me to a time when blogs were an unimpeachable source of unbiased truth.
Re:Capitalism (Score:2)
You're joking, right? At least there is ~some~ sembalance of professionalism in televised journalism, whereas anyone and their dog can open up a blog.
Given the organised spin doctoring from both the Democrats and Republicans in the last election, I would have thought that blogs were already discredited as an effective communications medium. They work in some specific
Re:Capitalism (Score:2)
I know this is /. where we all hate the evil Right Wing News/Liberal Media (delete as appropriate) but really. Blogs, in general, are already way more suspect than TV news, the random writings of random people?
Now specific blogs may be generally considered trustworthy becuase of the writers reputation, but that won't change if we see more commercial blogs like this.
Have you met Roland? (Score:3, Informative)
Not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just a little antithetical, if you know what I mean.
Unethical?! (Score:5, Funny)
After looking up antithetical [m-w.com], I'm afraid I must say I don't know what you mean.
Re:Unethical?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod Parent Down -1: Misuse of Big Word (Score:2, Funny)
"I don't think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Re:Have you met Roland? (Score:3, Insightful)
Piquepaille, though, at least handcrafts his Slashdot submissions and selects particular stories. In general, I don't understand why people bitch about him so much. He submits stories and the editors choose to accept them. I find them (almost all incremental engineering advances) uniformly uninteresting, but such complaints should be directed at the editors.
WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Funny)
Too hard to get the ads (Score:2)
I considered helping, but... I realized that I would need to temporarily disable three layers of protection:
Asbestos on ebay (Score:2)
I certainly clicked that link.
Why is this posted on Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this posted on Slashdot? (Score:2)
You're new here, aren't you?
If you think this is bad, take a look at my journal and see some of the stories that were rejected. Most definitely stories that should have been posted.
Re:Why is this posted on Slashdot? (Score:2)
The system is pretty simple: the editors decide what's "stuff that matters" around here, we don't. we get to decide if we read the site or not...
Re:Why is this posted on Slashdot? (Score:3, Interesting)
using highly automated content aggregation tools
If you could write a couple of Perl scripts and automatically populate the blog, and have it generate (say) $100/day, wouldn't you? Heck, I know I would!
An "experiment"? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a waste of space.
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
Slashdot the lawyers!
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
Slashdot will improve his traffic numbers.
PS. I'm willing to whore myself out to blog on anything too. Woohoo.
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2, Funny)
iii) ?????
iv) Profit!
is.
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2, Funny)
He he he... hang on...
Whaddayamean one week only? This is slashdot. You're forgetting all the dupes we're going to be getting NEXT week...
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
It's an interesting business model, if you ask me. It'll be even more interesting to see if he actually profits from it.
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why was this put up on /.? He even *admits* to being a fraud - "The subject matter, while weighty and all that, is of little importance to me. It's not that I don't have opinions on asbestos and asbestos reform, because I do" so what the hell is his "valid service?"
There's nothing interesting about spamming, nor is there anything interesting about setting up bogus websites that have no content on them. There is S
Re:An "experiment"? (Score:2)
So Slashdot is now "hittorrent"?
--Rob
Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
He chose the wrong word (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He chose the wrong word (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He chose the wrong word (Score:2)
Google's adwords are chosen based on your site's content, and ads with associated adwords are displayed embedded in your page. So you could mention mesothelioma yourself, which would cause a a mesothelioma-related advert to get selected and displayed, then if someone clicks on it, voila! Free money!
Justin.
Is this for real or a brilliant scam? (Score:2)
(2) post link on
(3) wait for the
(4) put offspring through college on the proceeds
Re:Is this for real or a brilliant scam? (Score:3, Funny)
(6) Fail miserably
(7) ???
(8) Profit!!!
Some thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
By offering users nothing, you stand to make very little in the way of ad traffic revenue.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
J.
Googlebomb (Score:5, Funny)
Report him to Google (Score:5, Interesting)
"No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant"
Don't have to report him (Score:2)
Let's follow the money trail... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Companies buy insurance from insurance companies
2. Regular people buy products from company
3. Some people get hurt by company's product
4. Lawyers sue company on behalf of hurt plaintiffs
5. Lawyers win case for plaintiff, Company's insurance company pays $10 gazillion
6. Lawyers for plaintiff take 60% of $10 gazillion
7. Company's insurance rates are raised
8. Company raises prices
9. Regular people pay higher prices to company
So, who pays for such litigation and $100-per-click AdWords? You do.
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
1. Supermarket lowers the price of milk
2. Supermarket must still make profit
3. Supermarket raises prices for something else
Who pays ? You do.
1. People donate money in church for charity
2. People still need to feed their families
3. Workers demand a raise
4. Company needs to raise prices to pay workers
Who pays ? You do.
Just a thought...
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is: You do pay for everything. Once one realizes that, it should be more difficult to subscribe to the belief that companies are a fountain of money that magically bubbles up from the ground. If someone shoplifts in a store, the real customers of that store pay for that person's stealing. If someone commits insurance fraud, the honest customers of the insurance company pay for that fraud. If an attorney wins a $10 billion ju
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
Usually companies raise their prices to the maximum accepted price anyway. So whatever is taken from them reduces the profit and nothing else.
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
2. Supermarket must still make profit
3. Supermarket raises prices for something else
Who pays ? You do.
I think you misunderstand how supermarkets work:
1. Supermarket lowers price of milk
Who pays? The farmers supplying the milk do, because the supermaket gives them the choice of supplying milk at a reduced price, or losing their business.
The only thing keeping the price of milk up is that there are other supermarkets the farmers can sell to.
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
Everybody tries to get sell on max price prossible and what is taken comes out of somebodies profit.
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
And you'd hope that the company wouldn't be insured against people deliberately breaking the law either.
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
Here's one:
1. Company makes product
2. People buy product, and some are hurt when it malfunctions
3. No one sues company because we all hate lawyers, right?
4. Profit!!!
The sad truth is, the corporate entity under US law has *one* mandate: to enrich its stockholders. Therefore, applying financial pressure is the only viable tool for making them behave ethically when ethics and profits diverge.
Did you ever see Figh
Re:Let's follow the money trail... (Score:2)
search engine optimization (Score:2)
The real click through question (Score:5, Insightful)
How much did you pay slashdot for your link?
Built for adsense - google won't like this (Score:5, Funny)
Wanting frontpage coverage on slashdot is great for revenue, but admitting to building the site for adsense, well thats priceless.
Who said he wanted Slashdot covereage (Score:3, Interesting)
Idiotic (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold on a second. (Score:2)
The biggest thing this guy did wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The first rule of adsense is you don't talk about adsense.
If you're making money, keep it to yourself or the next day, a million people will be doing the same thing.
Interesting change (Score:2, Funny)
Keeping in the spirit of slashdot, I haven't actually read the article yet. It's just what it made me think when I read the description.
Paid banners to banner sites?!? (Score:2)
Enter "vioxx" or "malpractice", click the paid ads. What you get is about 2/3 of the pages are no real info, just more google ads, many of them directing the sites to each other.
They must pay for the adwords. They get paid for click through on their ad-worded "banner only" pages. But I find it hard to believe they get paid for clicks on Google ads on their pages, than they pay for their ads on Google and in others' ads. Or is the Google profit margin small enough to finance t
Most Blogs are turning in to Spamblogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Engadget (where slashdot gets a lot of its stories) is a great site, but the ad content has risen significantly over the past few months.
Blogs were originally meant to be diaries and driven by either pseudo journalism for fun or just a way to rant about topics the owner loved to talk about. In some cases, they were meant to be ways to keep in contact with friends.
The mainstream, embracing blogs, has prompted many of the "original bloggers" to become greedy and place ads all over their sites - whoring different products.
I have a blog for my website that is used mainly as a comments forum. It has been very useful for me to get into keyword searches.
I refuse to whore ads from companies to take advantage of some system where I don't merit the money. I advertise on the main site with advertisers that I have contacted and told them the benefit of our synergy.
Another reason I don't use Ads by Google or a shared banner type ad placement is because Google and "Click Ad Companies" don't police spyware and ad ware banners and websites. I don't want anyone reading my website or visiting my commerce site to be associated with any of that.
Slashdot sinks to a new low . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems you can't read slashdot without coming across at least one of these pseudo-advertisements everyday.
with asbestos, its personal (Score:3, Insightful)
Then lets say you aren't sure what the blown-in insulation is...it looks like cellulose, but you know the exterior of the house is done in asbestos (which isn't a problem, since its hard and painted) so you're concerned that the blown-in insulation in your walls might be asbestos.
So, you want to go do a search at google. You find a few government sites that tell you to contact expensive labs, but...you just want a picture. You just want to know what the best course of action is.
To find that, you have to sift through a bazillion crap-pollution sites like the one this guy has made. Where the HELL is the "valid service" in that? I don't have cancer. I've been exposed for minutes, not years. I don't want to be part of a class-action lawsuit (which are, thankfully, going to be smaller now). I just want to know what the best course of action is.
There's a Cottage Industry Built Around This (Score:5, Informative)
Pun intended? (Score:2)
anyone else see the humor in this phrase?
similar thing with my blog(s) (Score:3, Interesting)
Inadvertently I stumbled onto the fact that the stock market and associated terms is a relatively high popularity AdWord in Google, so the rare clicks that I got were fairly high value.
Since I am a sys admin and have to deal with blocking spam both on a personal level and also for our office network, I was seeing that there was a clear trend in spam - I think we could all see it - it was going up and up and up.
So I started a blog in order to discuss spam [spamblogging.com] and ways to stop it, since apparently many people weren't familiar with what was available (especially since so many people actually buy from spam).
But I have to admit, that was only part of the motive - part of it was the curiosity on AdWord revenue from something that was going to be growing so much in popularity (probably the wrong word there).
I have seen some ad clicks on the spam blog go for as much as $10, and on the stock market blog they tend to top out at about $1.50.
Unfortunately, due to starting up my own company on the side, and increasing pressures at work - combined with the fact that there is only so much you can say about a subject, I stopped posting as much to the spam blog.
I also haven't posted to the financial blog in far too long as well, but more because I accidentally (retarded I know) deleted my stock database one bleary-eyed morning and I have yet to rebuild it largely out of laziness. (I had incentive for awhile since I was trading for a friend and making him money, but then stopped doing that so that I could lock in the gains and now have less incentive to care until I can trade more with my own funds)
This is capitalism at is best (Score:4, Funny)
Follow up by Mr. Buff (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not posting the links. I am in no way affiliated with this site, but I do find it interestinig and am curious to read his analysis.
In the comments, Bill, who professes to have an interest in "cash pumps", informs readers that "It looks like Mesothelioma is at about $51. Asbestos at $16 and Asbestosis at $4.
On fire? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, I thought the whole point of asbestos was for it not to be on fire.
Meso Info (Score:5, Informative)
The asbestos mesothelioma bandwagon started a few years ago when the government set aside a multi billion dollar trust fund for victims. In order to dip into the trust fund, a lawyer needs a valid victim of asbestos. The name of the common disease for those that suffer from asbestos exposure is mesothelioma. The average payout is $1M and the attorney commissions are 40%. This explains why attorneys are willing to pay high prices for clicks. Clicks go for as much as $100 on Overture however in practice you never see those high CPC rates. A year ago, $30 clicks were normal; today it's more like $0.25-$5. Even at $100/click, attorneys are taking in huge profits. Paying $10k for a case or 100 clicks at $100/click can be a good investment if you can generate $400k in attorney fees for that case.
Setting up a website to capture these pricey clicks is simple but doing it well can be nearly impossible. The asbestos/meso space is as competitive as it gets. Setting up a blog, creating doorway pages, links and content will only generate a little traffic. Doing well in meso requires aggressive SEO, solid optimization, links and content. Having a lot of traffic makes it easier to monetize. With enough traffic you can lease your site to law firms. AdSense is generally very inefficient so it makes sense to cut out the middle man. Kicking publishers out of Adsense will not stop these sites.
It is an interesting space. The huge settlements that lawyers have been able to generate has fueled a frenzy of SEO activity in the past year. The same activity is seen on TV and print media in Vioxx ads. The most surprising thing here is people are acknowledging online advertising and its ability to sell almost anything.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just disappointed that I didn't think of it first. Good job Michael.
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not enough that lawyers are suing everyone and everything into oblivion, but now we have a segment of the ad business catering to them? that is sad.
Re:Real name? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"gaming"? I think not... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want happy advertisers. I want poor, miserable, broke, pissed off, starving advertisers. I want payback for each and every time an advertiser interrupted my favourite television program, nagged me with an intrusive web popup, or made me wait half an hour in a cinema for the film I paid to see. I want advertisers screwed over badly for each and every time a newspaper or magazine editor altered a story for t