Newbies experience with FSB

[bondphil]

At the moment I have left it on. I'm currently setting up another site where I'm going to remove the 'Add to cart' button and the checkout and just have the buy from Amazon button.

 

[careybaird]

There are a few comments on here that I can officially answer on.

FSB has been publicly available for 2 years and right from the start people have suggested that the script is "penalised" by Google.

Yet week after week we get new users who make money by creating their stores the right way.

In reality Google will never penalise what is essentially a CMS. Wordpress is often used for spammy sites (probably more than it is used for good sites) but could you imagine Google banning that entire platform? It is the same thing with BANS, AOM and FSB - the script itself will never be penalised by Google, but if you use it in the wrong way your domain will be penalised.

If you are suffering with rankings then you need to look at your store - the speed, the amount of unique content, the link building strategies, your niche, the current Google changes etc.

If you need it we are always here to help and not just on technical issues - we can advise you on SEO for your store, niche research etc. Just contact our help desk (http://helpdesk.freshstorebuilder.com/) or go to the private forum (http://www.freshmarketingforum.com).

In terms of development of the script we are working hard on version 3.0.0 which includes a completely revamped Template system. The current templates will be phased out (although they will be compatible if you want to keep using them) and brand new templates will be released.

We have listened to feedback and know that customisations, templates and design are the number one thing all of our members want.

On top of that we have launched a brand new forum, brand new helpdesk, an SSO (single sign on) to integrate everything fully. All at considerable expense.

We are a successful company and I have reinvested revenue heavily by employing a permanent five man team (Nihad, Austin, Jose, Mike and myself) with other freelance staff. I believe in offering a great service and rewarding my customers, and will continue to build, improve and expand.

We have more scripts and products in the pipeline along with new versions of FSB being released all the time.

Someone on the thread suggested rewarding "good quality" sites and their owners somehow - I am always open to suggestions like this so please make sure you get in touch with them (on the forum or via helpdesk - I don't always check here regularly).

@rodeboy - your helicopter store is not registered with FSB. Please add it to your account and make sure you read the go live checklist, essential reading for everyone! http://www.freshstorebuilder.com/guides/v/golive-checklist/

Everyone else remember I am a real person behind FSB and I always have time to help you out or listen to your suggestions - just get in touch via the helpdesk or forum!

 

[Blossom]

In reality Google will never penalise what is essentially a CMS. Wordpress is often used for spammy sites (probably more than it is used for good sites) but could you imagine Google banning that entire platform? It is the same thing with BANS, AOM and FSB - the script itself will never be penalised by Google, but if you use it in the wrong way your domain will be penalised.

As far as I understand it (correct me if I haven't got it right), but FSB is completely designed for creating affiliate sites. Google hates affiliate sites, so if that's its only purpose (as opposed to something like ShopperPress which can be used both for ecommerce and affiliate sites), then of course penalisation is a risk. Not saying that Google has or will penalise, but it's entirely feasible and not at all comparable to WordPress.

 

[Ashton]

Google has marked amazons astore - I had a wordpress blog on the first page and added it... boom its now 110.

I look forward to 3.0.0 and will give it another try (and review) then.

 

[careybaird]

As far as I understand it (correct me if I haven't got it right), but FSB is completely designed for creating affiliate sites. Google hates affiliate sites, so if that's its only purpose (as opposed to something like ShopperPress which can be used both for ecommerce and affiliate sites), then of course penalisation is a risk. Not saying that Google has or will penalise, but it's entirely feasible and not at all comparable to WordPress.

The majority of websites these days monetise and are therefore affiliate sites. Whether it is PPC ads, private ad deals, Amazon Widgets, EPN, Clickbank etc. it doesn't matter if you use Wordpress, FSB or a static HTML site.

Google doesn't hate affiliate sites - it hates "thin affiliate" sites. In other words, sites created without any genuinely good content or purpose. It all boils down to giving the Google users relevant and useful search results.

FSB is entirely for creating Amazon Affiliate sites but we actively encourage (in some cases force! ) users to create sites that are good quality, and not just a regurgitation of Amazons data. This is because I know the number one factor to ranking in Google is simply to create a good quality site.

There is one cast iron test if you don't agree with the above - if Google penalised FSB (or BANS, AOM etc.) then every site created with FSB would never rank in Google, which of course is not the case.

 

[careybaird]

Google has marked amazons astore - I had a wordpress blog on the first page and added it... boom its now 110.

I look forward to 3.0.0 and will give it another try (and review) then.

The problem with aStores is that it is really difficult to get unique content on them. I think you can do it on the "category" pages and you can create content pages (I think). But of course the majority of people who create aStores just put products in and launch.

That being said I have seen some aStores rank in Google for moderately competitive terms (about 6 to 12 months ago).. they had a lot of unique content stuffed into every place possible

Edit: Also I don't think Google would penalise you for adding an aStore to an existing blog.. they just wouldn't rank the aStore. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about using an aStore to monetise existing traffic - it can be an easy and quick way to do so. If your actual blog is good and has decent content then adding a link to an aStore should have no impact on it.

 

[Ashton]

The astore was on a subpage of a wordpress install, the wordpress install was where the content was planned to be... but google killed it so I will just wait patiently for 3.0 - Any ETA possible?

If the new templating system is good then I will definitely make some themes (free and premium) that should go down well.

 

[careybaird]

The astore was on a subpage of a wordpress install, the wordpress install was where the content was planned to be... but google killed it so I will just wait patiently for 3.0 - Any ETA possible?

If the new templating system is good then I will definitely make some themes (free and premium) that should go down well.

If there was no content on the blog yet then I can see Google penalising it, but it will come back once you get everything on.

I want to get 3.0 out within the next few weeks for Beta testing. I will call for template developers etc. first for feedback so if you are interested check the email when I send it out, and you can get on board with that.

Templates is the next big thing here and your right to get on board with it. We are making it as easy as possible for template developers with standardised CSS classes/ids, template overrides, default CSS and JS libraries etc. so its nice and structured. Upgrades will be super easy and you will be able to create new templates in no time.

Watch this space!

 

[Blossom]

The majority of websites these days monetise and are therefore affiliate sites. Whether it is PPC ads, private ad deals, Amazon Widgets, EPN, Clickbank etc. it doesn't matter if you use Wordpress, FSB or a static HTML site.

That is a pretty sweeping overgeneralisation. In a semantic sense it's close to being true, but in a technical and web perception sense monetisation doesn't equal affiliate.

Google doesn't hate affiliate sites - it hates "thin affiliate" sites. In other words, sites created without any genuinely good content or purpose. It all boils down to giving the Google users relevant and useful search results.

No, Google hates affiliate sites (with the exception of hugely authoritative affiliate sites like moneysavingexpert, and even then it's the authority part rather than the affiliate part that is the reason for its rankings). It just hates thin affiliate sites even more.

There is one cast iron test if you don't agree with the above - if Google penalised FSB (or BANS, AOM etc.) then every site created with FSB would never rank in Google, which of course is not the case.

I definitely agree on that part. But in the long term, these kinds of CMS leave a pretty significant footprint and could be destroyed at any time with the flick of a switch. I don't deal in anything that isn't as future proof as possible.

 

[careybaird]

That is a pretty sweeping overgeneralisation. In a semantic sense it's close to being true, but in a technical and web perception sense monetisation doesn't equal affiliate.

Every website needs to make money, and the majority use ads in some ways, from big news websites to popular social sites. The definition of "Affiliate" is wooly..

No, Google hates affiliate sites (with the exception of hugely authoritative affiliate sites like moneysavingexpert, and even then it's the authority part rather than the affiliate part that is the reason for its rankings). It just hates thin affiliate sites even more.

We will have to agree to disagree, but your right in analysing moneysavingexpert. They offer a great service and fantastic content, so Google ranks them - it is as simple as that. A similar site that offered bad/rehashed/duplicate content wouldn't rank.. not because it is an "affiliate" site but because the site itself is bad.

I definitely agree on that part. But in the long term, these kinds of CMS leave a pretty significant footprint and could be destroyed at any time with the flick of a switch. I don't deal in anything that isn't as future proof as possible.

I honestly don't believe Google would ever do that to FSB or any CMS, for many reasons. I am so sure that I have built my business on it.

 

[expertc]

@careybaird: I honestly don't want to undermine your work, I was a coder myself and know what it takes. Therefore, thumbs-up for your work!

The only problem is: I have good experience with both AOM and DF Studio and actually know the guys behind both systems. When I first used AOM it was going fine, then ... woosh. So what I did was a small experiment. I had exactly the same setup links / content / etc. for several AOM sites but for half of them I did lots of modifications inside the template (encryption permitting) and others left as-is. I have tried to disguise the footprint as much as I could. In few weeks time the modified sites where back in place on G, unmodified stayed far below. I don't have the sites anymore, so can't tell anything now.

Just my 2p...

 

[careybaird]

@careybaird: I honestly don't want to undermine your work, I was a coder myself and know what it takes. Therefore, thumbs-up for your work!

Thank you, I appreciate it It is always nice to have a fellow coder recognise your work!

The only problem is: I have good experience with both AOM and DF Studio and actually know the guys behind both systems. When I first used AOM it was going fine, then ... woosh.

I remember when it went woosh.. I had a few AOM sites myself, and it was when Google first brought in the duplicate content filter. Before then it was a real boom time - you could throw up any site on AOM and make money straight away.

Google quickly realised that the sites offered nothing more than Amazon itself, so took action by filtering sites that just had duplicate content.

It was this that inspired me to start creating Fresh Store Builder (exclusively for my own use to start with!) as there was no good way to get unique content into an AOM store.

So what I did was a small experiment. I had exactly the same setup links / content / etc. for several AOM sites but for half of them I did lots of modifications inside the template (encryption permitting) and others left as-is. I have tried to disguise the footprint as much as I could. In few weeks time the modified sites where back in place on G, unmodified stayed far below. I don't have the sites anymore, so can't tell anything now.

Just my 2p...

That is a good experiment and interesting. I do think if Google wanted to, they could footprint any AOM site (as like you say some of it is encrypted). Even the existence of the admin area, the way the checkout works etc.

I do know that to this day there are successful AOM users so I don't believe the entire system was banned, and it is entirely down to the value of the site.

To look at it another way, if an AOM user created a website about Golf Clubs and listed some genuinely brilliant content about which one to choose, different types etc. They might even add a "golf club chooser" to make it super easy to find the one right for you.

If big websites picked up on this and linked to it, even TV shows mentioned it etc. then it would be safe to say that this is a great site and deserves to be listed in Google.

However if Google banned it purely because it used AOM then it looks bad on Google.. they aren't listing the best sites for the search terms, and that is ultimately their purpose.

This is why I always believe Google will judge your site on it's own merit, and not for which underlying technology you choose.