| 6:26 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just added an image ad and it caused an error within the ad group. So now I can't access that particular group. I'm getting, " We apologize for the inconvenience, but we are unable to process your request at this time...."
I guess they have a few bugs to fix still.
I haven't done any banner advertising in a long time because the pricing models are so goofy. But this makes sense to me and I can't wait to test it out.
| 7:55 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of my campaigns shows the same thing as Robinos, but the other is apparently up just fine, although the ads apparently aren't showing yet.
| 12:28 am on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I haven't been around here much today, so thought I'd jump in now, and offer quick responses to a few posts quoted below.
|...It will only be evil if Google offers them as pop unders, or allows them to blink, play music or if the web page asks me to download Flash V7. to see a stupid 3rd party advertisement... |
You just made my hair stand on end! I'm pretty sure that we don't need to worry about those things! (Although I do really love a good 30 second long flash intro with fake harpsicords playing in the background.)
|Didn't someone earlier in this thread mention that graphics can be as large as 50kb?...Most people are still on dialup. When I use dialup, nothing is more irritating than a page that takes more than 10 seconds to load...A 50kb graphic may look nice if it's designed right, but if it slows down the page hosting the ad sufficiently enough, what's the point? No one can click on something that they never see... |
Such a great point. I will try to get some further details on this subject and post again. I'd be hugely surprised, though, if this had not been thought of and addressed. More later.
|I just added an image ad and it caused an error within the ad group. So now I can't access that particular group. I'm getting, " We apologize for the inconvenience, but we are unable to process your request at this time...." I guess they have a few bugs to fix still. |
Yes, we have had a few issues of this nature, and the posts here on WebmasterWorld served as an excellent early warning system. So thanks! Engineers are working on this, and it should be A-OK soon if it isn't already.
| 9:07 am on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
468x60 of pure text ad in a .GIF - you can get a lot of words in that space. Didn't see anything in the rules against it.
This gives you a semi-proper way of doing only content targetting in a seperate campaign. You have to create a text ad when setting up the campaign - but you can delete it once you have your image ad. With no text ad - you can only show for content targetting - right?
My banner's been in the system for about 16 hours - 4 impressions and zero clicks. I'm just giddy (I think things will pick up a bit after they get things sorted though).
I'll try anything new with a low entry cost. I'm skeptical if it will 'perform' any better for me than regular content targetting has (poorly).
As for the branding value - that's what the marketing guy tells you he's doing when he can't figure out how to actually generate business in a profitable manner.
| 12:16 am on May 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Such a great point. I will try to get some further details on this subject and post again. I'd be hugely surprised, though, if this had not been thought of and addressed. More later. |
Do you mean they may already be considering lowering the size allowed for graphic ads? Or have they simply decided that dial up people buy less so it doesn't matter how slow it would be for them?
| 1:08 am on May 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Do you mean they may already be considering lowering the size allowed for graphic ads? Or have they simply decided that dial up people buy less so it doesn't matter how slow it would be for them? |
I really just meant that I was sure the issue of loading speed had been considered and addressed.
It's been a bit busy here, and I haven't been able to hook up with the right tech folks yet. But I will soon, I'm sure.
| 11:41 am on May 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In regards to the 50k max file size of banners.
Why is it so high? There is no need for a STATIC banner to be more than 15k.
It's is SO easy to create a nice banner at a reasonable file size. I just don't understand why Google would set such a high limit. Even animated and richmedia banners should be no larger than 25k.
[edited by: Glen_Murphy at 11:43 am (utc) on May 15, 2004]
| 11:43 am on May 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Always PR is the last to know these days eh AWA ..
just a thought on the eve of the SE wars ...
Can't you just hear "blackhatgeek" at redmond ..
"Hey boss ..if we released an update/patch of IE ( and later longhorn etc ) with "block by default" of Google "image ads"...think we'd wipe em out before the antitrust guys got a decision on us ...?"...
|What will ad blockers such as Norton do to these image ads? |
they could even get their "friends" ( see above )to help out ...
As someone who sells mainly images I like the idea ...But they may have goofed here ..!
| 10:27 am on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey AWA, maybe the 50Kb is so that you can have animated gifs.... arrrgghhhh!
| 10:13 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google's FAQ states categorically no animated images.
| 1:30 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am sure that the file size is to accomodate lack of experience... Because advertisers are creating their own ads, there will likely be a large number of inexperienced folks creating them.
| 5:38 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Regarding file size, also don't forget that this isn't just banner sized images - the Skyscraper is pretty huge, although I also think 50k is still pretty excessive, even for this format.
I just set up an ad using each of the image formats. Largest one (after optimising) was 17k. I agree with the previous comment though that many users are probably not experienced enough to know how to compress their images down to size. I'm surprised that Google is automagically doing something like this though after you upload the image.
So, any thoughts on which formats will be most readily adopted by publishers? I eagerly await seeing my impression stats.
| 11:08 am on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was looking through the FAQs and couldn't find an answer to something... I hate - more than anything else - those stupid grey "you have one message waiting for you" - "you've won a prize" etc boxes that everyone clicked on their first outing on the net. I know animations are banned - but what about the "grays?"
| 1:58 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From their editorial guidelines:
|Do not mimic system or site warnings. |
Your image ads may not appear as operating system warnings or other messages intended to elicit clicks under false pretenses.
We reserve the right to exercise our discretion with these types of ads.
| 11:44 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Got my first clicks from image ads. They seem to be performing better than text ads. :)
| 8:29 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"We reserve the right to exercise our discretion with these types of ads."
So does that mean if someone offers them enough cash they'll use their discretion and let them in?
| 2:39 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Canard: Usually, "using discretion" means that they'll yank it quickly if they don't like it. It works the other way around most of the time.
Besides, payed inclusion violates Google's "Don't Be Evil" edict. :)
| 4:18 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
briguy... any idea where the click came from? I'd be interested to see a 'banner in action'
| This 78 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 78 ( 1 2  ) |