Why is MFA bad?

[wpo1408]

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

I don't mean crappy, scraped or plageristic sites.

What is wrong with providing school-level info, SEO-ing it, putting Google ads on it and launching.?

The surfer finds roughly what he/she wants, they may find a solution to their problem, if not they can click through or back.

If they find what they want, they are happy, if they click through they might be happy, Google is happy and the site owner is happy.

I just do not get it.

Owen

[umairsheikh2002]

Google does not like MFA sites, you must stay away from this.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by wpo1408

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

I don't mean crappy, scraped or plageristic sites.

MFA is typically used to refer to one of those "crappy, scraped or plageristic sites." Additionally, a MFA site typically has poorer content to sort of push people to click an ad after they realize they're probably not going to get good information from the site itself.

If you're talking about a building a quality site with useful information and putting AdSense on it, technically, you could say it's a MFA site, but that's really not what most people mean by a MFA site.

The question is whether the site could survive without AdSense. If you have quality content that readers will find useful, then you can likely find other sources of revenue besides AdSense. So, in that respect, even if AdSense is your initial or primary source of revenue on the site, it isn't so much a MFA site as it is a quality website.

[wpo1408]

That does not say WHY

[BloggingPro]

Originally Posted by wpo1408

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

I don't mean crappy, scraped or plageristic sites.

What is wrong with providing school-level info, SEO-ing it, putting Google ads on it and launching.?

The surfer finds roughly what he/she wants, they may find a solution to their problem, if not they can click through or back.

If they find what they want, they are happy, if they click through they might be happy, Google is happy and the site owner is happy.

I just do not get it.

Owen

MFA sites don't have great content, often they just have copied content. They proliferated the internet a few years ago and Google put a stop to them. Remember, Google is about providing the best search results--they are not in the business of ensuring that internet marketers make money.

In my opinion the new "made for adsense" method involves creating a Google news site and getting loads of traffic from the Google news index--you can make some serious cash with Adsense.

MFA in 2006-2008 was crappy five page sites designed to do one thing... milk the adsense system for all it was worth. Still works to a degree, but you'll need quality content and generally more than five pages if your keyword is competitive.

[wpo1408]

Thanks, Dan.
I try to provide info on my sites, maybe stuff that I have gathered from research.
Putting niche ideas into one small website.
Not copying, but with Adsense.
I find it hard to distinguish between a site that is 'not relying on Asense' for survival and one that is.
Who is a real expert?
How many real 'experts' are there in the world?
Should the rest of us just shut up?

[wpo1408]

That is not an explanation, is it, umairsheikh2002?

[wpo1408]

OK, you can stick a few CB or Amazon links on it.

Are you saying that that is good SEO and transforms a site from MFA to a 'Good Site'?

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by wpo1408

I find it hard to distinguish between a site that is 'not relying on Asense' for survival and one that is.

Well, a site might rely on AdSense but not need to. The truer measure is the quality of the site. If it's junk, it's likely a MFA site. If it's quality, it's not really MFA even if it was designed to make its revenue from AdSense.

MFA isn't a completely accurate description. MFA isn't really used to describe any sort of site built with AdSense in mind, but rather just for the junk sites that were built with AdSense in mind.

The thing is don't get too hung up on the "MFA" label. Just focus on building a quality site with good, useful content and you don't really have to worry about Google considering your site "MFA."

Who is a real expert?
How many real 'experts' are there in the world?
Should the rest of us just shut up?

Let's say I'm an expert on widgets. I know widgets inside and out. I know how to maintain them. I know how to fix them. I could even build one from scratch if necessary.

However, when I talk about widgets to people, they cannot understand what I'm talking about. I use a lot of technical terms that just confuse people further. So, when they read one of my widget books, they just see a bunch of technobabble and they cannot make heads or tails of it.

Now, if only experts like myself published books on widgets, lots of people would be unable to use widgets because they just didn't have the time or inclination to study widgets for a number of years just to understand the jargon so that they can figure out how to use the widget they might only need to use once every six months.

But, you've read up on widgets. Maybe you don't know them in and out like me, but you've got a good grasp of them. And, you know how to explain them in terms other people can understand.

So, if you put out a book on widgets, people will be flocking to buy yours over mine, not because you're more of an expert than me, which you're not, but because you're able to explain how to use widgets in terms they can understand. Instead of technobabble, they see plain English.

So, the bottom line is that it's not really a matter of how much of an expert you are, but how you are able to communicate ideas to your audience such that they can understand them.

People are different. Not everyone learns the exact same way. Some people will want to learn all the technical details. Some want the operational details. Some people will want to read information very straightforward and matter-of-factly. Others might prefer a dose of humor.

So, it comes down to a matter of being able to convey information to a particular audience, which is why there is always room for someone else to come along in any niche and explain things better or explain things to a group of people that may have felt left out before.

[wpo1408]

"MFA sites don't have great content, often they just have copied content".

Sorry if I haven't got this quote thing right.

I am not talking about cheats or copiers.

I research a topic and make a website on it.
I could sell dog collars or silent whistles on it, but I have always chosen to allow Google to determine what ads I had.

Are you saying that I would be better off by giving Google competition and sticking CJ ads on it?

Owen

[mclenhard]

I agree with you WPO, i do not see why Google reacts so harshly when thier earning money from these types of sites. I understand when a site has no content , but the meaning has grown to include even sites with decent content in them.

[Frank Donovan]

Owen,

Originally Posted by wpo1408

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

The MFA business model misunderstands who the customer is, IMO.

If you use AdSense as part of your monetization strategy, your customer isn't your site visitor.

Nor is it Google. They may pay you, but they're simply the conduit.

Your real customers are the advertisers who pay to use the Google content network, in the expectation of having their adverts served to a relevant and targeted audience.

Too many MFA sites cobble together content with the sole, cynical purpose of shuffling away their visitors via the nearest available click as soon as possible. There's usually no real attempt to offer visitor value on the site itself, much less to warm up the visitor for the benefit of their advertisers.

Then they wonder why Google shuts down their account.


Frank

[wpo1408]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

So, it comes down to a matter of being able to convey information to a particular audience, which is why there is always room for someone else to come along in any niche and explain things better or explain things to a group of people that may have felt left out before.

Yes.

And so it comes down to a personal opinion. or a point of view or a suggestion, which may, or may not be contrary,

Or the site may just hold an amalgamation of views an draw a conclusion (or not).

How could a philosophical website support its writer without Adsense (and to a much lesser degree Amazon)?

I find Google's (Panda) approach patronizing.

They are saying that we are too stupid to recognize good from bad.
We are too stupid to click bak if a sit is crap.

Well, sod Google!
I am no stupid and I will not be patronized.

I am not keen on Ms either, but I have changed my default browser to Bing

Owen

[mygadgetreview]

I think the main reason is because MFA sites don't give any value to visitor..That makes google hates MFA sites..that's my opinion..

[Vincent1988]

In my opinion it's all about the quality. MFA are reputed to be bad for their quality

[misterkailo]

most of the people that were in MFA business got banned

[thebitbotdotcom]

Scraper site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by wpo1408

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

I don't mean crappy, scraped or plageristic sites.

What is wrong with providing school-level info, SEO-ing it, putting Google ads on it and launching.?

The surfer finds roughly what he/she wants, they may find a solution to their problem, if not they can click through or back.

If they find what they want, they are happy, if they click through they might be happy, Google is happy and the site owner is happy.

I just do not get it.

Owen

Just offer readable unique content and then google is fine with MFA it's just they hated sites that were scammy MFA sites. They also don't hate 1-5 page sites but there algorithm prefers larger sites so its tougher to rank small sites but you're not gonna be banned or anything. Don't let Matt Cutts scare you, his department has nothing to do with Adsense.

Googles only real money maker is adsense, they want every site to have adsense. The uproar about MFA sites was because they were just awful and it got out of hand. Make your site looks somewhat decent and google will have no problem.

[ahefner33]

But have you guys ever seen there examples for ad placements?

https://www.google.com/adsense/stati...Rectangle.html
https://www.google.com/adsense/stati...kyscraper.html

[bitriot]

Looks MFA as a negative is real simple. Does your site provide anything valuable to anyone? If Yes, then it isn't mfa.

If no, well then it probably is a MFA site that google hates. Crappy outsourced articles can be categorized as not helpful if in fact, they are crappy outsourced articles.

[RichardHK]

The term MFA is a misnomer really. You can follow Goggle's terms and design a nice site with only several pages of really good content, and then monetize with AdSense, so your site in your and Google's eyes is definitely Made For AdSense and all parties, including the visitor, are happy.

Or you can create the same sized site with crap content, designed with little or no navigation, and Made For AdSense to be a convenient click out of an otherwise dull useless site. That's what Google and any half-brained visitor does not like to see in the search results when they are looking for information.

Google may have tripped a little with their Panda update but ultimately they will get there. A mind bogglingly complex task they have to get their software bots and algorithm to extract good results from the mass of Internet noise. Give them credit for what they are doing and if you want to be in Google's top ten, be sympathetic to the the visitors they are trying to please - as well as their own ultimate $$ success. Nought wrong with that and we as IMers are definitely in their loop to benefit too. Don't sweat the small stuff and keep improving.

[Bryan V]

Originally Posted by wpo1408

Can anyone explain to me why an MFA site is bad, please?

I don't mean crappy, scraped or plageristic sites.

What is wrong with providing school-level info, SEO-ing it, putting Google ads on it and launching.?

The surfer finds roughly what he/she wants, they may find a solution to their problem, if not they can click through or back.

The problem with made for AdSense is exactly that--it's made for AdSense and not for the visitor.

Regardless of how true it is, Google has stated their goal is to provide the BEST result for what the user is looking for. So finding "roughly" what they want does not earn a site a #1 spot.

[wpo1408]

Originally Posted by Bryan V

. So finding "roughly" what they want does not earn a site a #1 spot.

Well, if roughly is not good enough, you are suggesting that there is only one truth and that is not true.

There are many points of view on any subject and all you can hope to do is find something on topic, so that you can choose a site that you choose to believe.

[wpo1408]

Originally Posted by RichardHK

The term MFA is a misnomer really. You can follow Goggle's terms and design a nice site with only several pages of really good content, and then monetize with AdSense, so your site in your and Google's eyes is definitely Made For AdSense and all parties, including the visitor, are happy.

Or you can create the same sized site with crap content, designed with little or no navigation, and Made For AdSense to be a convenient click out of an otherwise dull useless site. That's what Google and any half-brained visitor does not like to see in the search results when they are looking for information.

Google may have tripped a little with their Panda update but ultimately they will get there. A mind bogglingly complex task they have to get their software bots and algorithm to extract good results from the mass of Internet noise. Give them credit for what they are doing and if you want to be in Google's top ten, be sympathetic to the the visitors they are trying to please - as well as their own ultimate $$ success. Nought wrong with that and we as IMers are definitely in their loop to benefit too. Don't sweat the small stuff and keep improving.

I agree with you here, Richard, 100%.

If you have a site on say, feeding a hamster, how can you write dozens of pages without repeating yourself?
Hamsters have eaten the same food for millions of years, you can easily cover that niche in one page, why write 20?
A site on hamsters with more than five pages is fluffed up but deemed better than a five page factual site with Adsense.
That seems wrong to me.

Does adding a few books from Amazon and a book from CB make the site better in Google's eyes?

Would adding ads from other sources make it not MFA?

[StudioArtha]

Isn't the real question, "To whom does a particular MFA site constitutes a bad site to?" This is all dependent on your perspective, right? Here goes my try:

Take the example of a very slim site, one designed strictly at getting a set of eyeballs to the look at the page only long enough that the attached hand clicks on one of the ads.

This might be considered a bad site by a user looking for some meaty content.

Google may consider it a bad site because their search users abandons the page immediately.

But if you own the site, and people are clicking ads, you are making money, then it is NOT a bad site. In fact, as an internet marketer, that constitutes a GREAT site.

All a matter of perspective.

[wpo1408]

Originally Posted by StudioArtha

Isn't the real question, "To whom does a particular MFA site constitutes a bad site to?" This is all dependent on your perspective, right? Here goes my try:

Take the example of a very slim site, one designed strictly at getting a set of eyeballs to the look at the page only long enough that the attached hand clicks on one of the ads.

This might be considered a bad site by a user looking for some meaty content.

Google may consider it a bad site because their search users abandons the page immediately.

But if you own the site, and people are clicking ads, you are making money, then it is NOT a bad site. In fact, as an internet marketer, that constitutes a GREAT site.

All a matter of perspective.

Yes, OK, fair point.
But Google wants people to click, that is their only income, isn't it?

And if that is not their main intention, why are they veering away from Website-focused ads to surfer-focused ads?

A few weeks ago, I clicked on an ad about publishing a book, now everywhere I go I am dogged by bloody Dorrance ads about publishing books!

I go to a website looking for info on feeding hamsters - i see an ad by Dorrance.
I go to a site about mountain bikes, ads by Dorrance.

Is that boosting my surfing experience?
No.
Does it help Dorrance?
No, I am sick of the sight of them.
Does it help the guy who has written on hamsters?
No, part of his advertising space has been wasted on off-topic rubbish.

This seems like double standards.
Do as I say, not as I do.

It is Google's firm and they can do what they like with it obviously and all the debate and bitching won't change anything, I know that, but it's nice to get it off my chest.

"..nor all thy piety and wit can change one word of it".

I don't know a single person in the world that I have met face-to-face that I could have this discussion with.

And that is after 16 years of being online and 30 years of computers.

[wpo1408]

Originally Posted by mdabusufian

Your site is so nice. I saw it.Thanks.

Thanks, Mdabusufian.

It's more of a blog than a site - a hybrid, but I love living in Thailand and wanted to say so.

Is it MFA?
I don't know.

[Carl Brown]

People define MFA differently. A few years ago these sites were cluttering the net. I used to run into these all the time. They had ZERO content. This is what I think of when I think of a MFA site. A similar site that came later was based on the misunderstood XFactor model. Those trying to copy his success put up one page content sites with pure gibberish. They had content, but nothing useful to the searcher. The XFactor model doesn't have to be MFA, but a lot of people took the lazy way for quick profits. His sites are "micro niche", but not "micro sites." I think a lot of people lost their accounts building these micro sites with zero useful content.

[Terrybear]

MFA site basically is mean that low quality site specially made for adsense
if you are making high quality site that aim to earn from adsense, that's not called as MFA site

[Dellco]

Why is MFA bad? I think the answer is obvious if a little self honesty is applied.

Let's take a basic model, the parked domain. As owner of a domain, you can register a domain and let it navigate to a blank page or let it not resolve anywhere, or park it with some ad provider and get revenue from any clicks on the domain. This is the most basic MFA model. The parked page is basically 100% ads.

So, have you ever come across such parked sites before? I'm sure many of you have. OK, did any of you like (or even love) such sites? Cmon, be honest.

Well, some years ago, Google/Yahoo and all the search engines decided to (sort of) ban or bury such sites from their results. Hmm, you wonder why?

But then, domain owners hit on the bright idea of adding "content" and voila, they can get their domains back in the search results! The difference is that the domain now has content.

The lazy and not so smart ones used duplicate content. The smarter ones used original content. Yup, original content. 100% original.

But, upon reading the content, did you benefit from it? Or was it something so general that your dog probably also knows it?

Was it just a rearrangement and adding of words, with a lot of general stock statements thrown in for good measure so that the words look a lot? Can the 400-500 word content be summarized in just a few sentences?

Was the content on the site just consisting of only a few pages? And did the ads seem a lot more attractive than the utterly boring content so that you felt like clicking them just to get away from the site?

If you were the owner of the site, would you visit your own site? Do you, yourself, want to come across A LOT more of such sites when you surf?

I think deep down, we ALL know the answers to all the questions above.

[SEO Ltd]

MFA sites are penalized by google due to google panda. MFA site contents are duplicate and its not useful to users.they use These contents only for MFA.

[yukon]

Anyone that says MFA is bad doesn't have any idea what MFA is.

All my Adsense sites are "Made For Adsense". I have never built a site that I add Adsense to that wasn't built for the sole purpose of earning $$ from Adsense.

MFA isn't crappy sites, crappy sites are crappy sites!

My sites include 100s of pages (each) that were all hand built over long periods of time.

I'll scrape my own content for multiple sites any day I want, I'll include Adsense on those same sites. Do I care what anyone else (including Google) thinks, he$$ no!

It's my content I'll do as I please & stream that content over multiple sites.

Keep in mind I do follow the Adsense TOS.

Google is maybe 25% of my sites traffic, the majority of my sites traffic is from multiple niche forums.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by SEO Ltd

MFA sites are penalized by google due to google panda. MFA site contents are duplicate and its not useful to users.they use These contents only for MFA.

Thinking like that will cost you $$.

Good luck...

[wpo1408]

OK, a real example.

Take a look at the site on Thailand in my sigfile.

I went to Google a few weeks ago with a similar kind of site and asked their opinion.

SEO101 and some woman with 'Disney' in her name branded it 'pure MFA'.

My Thai site is worse than that one - or at least shorter.

But who uploads a finished site?
Google wants to see 'under construction' - sites that are being continually added to.
A site may start with three pages and three Google ads this year, but this time next year it may have 30 pages and 30 Google ads.

At which point does it stop being MFA?
And why was it MFA in the first place?
It was only young.

I think Carl's description of MFA above is more realistic.