| 2:27 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It seems to me in reading the posts the simple way for google to do this is to simply scan a proposed ad to see if the destination URL is already being advertised for the key words purposed. If so does the new ad have a higher bid? If yes the new ad shows, and the old one disappears. (That is essentially an auction) That way it is still automated, still based on relevancy (a more relevant ad means it costs less for a top bid) and there would be no favoritism shown to a merchant, agency or affiliate. Not a bad system, and one I could live with if it comes down this way. For those of you purposing to create simple doorway pages it won’t work. You will get slaughtered because of your dramatic decrease in conversions. Take my advice if it happens take you best ads, buy a domain for each ad, and work on creating a value added experience for the end user on your site and you might be surprised that you end making even more money by creating added value. It also gives you more leverage over your merchants if you advertise more than one merchant.
| 5:38 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Any site set up with false WHOIS information could backfire on the domain as savvy customers could see it as a reason to distrust the site and not order…. |
Customers checking WHOIS records? Are you serious? Don’t make us laugh! 99.5% of people on the internet have no idea what the heck a WHOIS record is, let alone how to check it. Are you sure you don’t actually mean so that you can check the WHOIS record? That way you can implement your anti-competitive (and legally questionable) bidding practices as you described here:
I guess the technique you describe is made much more difficult if you don’t know who you are up against eh Multiman? Don't like the ghosts messing with your scheme? Affiliates are not accountable or identifiable by you and that is what you have a problem with.
All anyone needs to do is read your posting history to see right through your self-serving arguments. You are only looking out for your own interests, not the average person. Not that I fault you for that – but give us all a break with the holier-than-thou "light vs dark" BS please.
For the record I believe that relevancy and ad variety are a problem right now with adwords, and I think this should be addressed. Getting rid of affiliates is not the answer.
| 7:31 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
thank you, instinct.
| 8:59 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From the way multiman is now posting in this thread versus that old one, it seems that a successful 'self-publisher' has come along and trumped his ads. Now he is angry that he is being outperformed by an affiliate he cannot contact (and thus no collusionist deals can be struck to cut his losses).
As such, he resorts to trying to blast all affiliates as ghosts and bottom-feeders with no right to adwords, in a vain attempt to regrasp control of the keyword he seeks.
Affliates only desire to make some HONEST $ in areas where the market is suitable, and ultimately I believe G will realize that and stick to an open policy.
Google gains revenue, the surfer gets what they seek in a direct manner, the merchant gets a sale, and the affiliate makes a small profit. Win, Win, Win, Win. Period.
| 10:27 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So far I've seen nothing in this thread that assures me that any changes would not result in a complete mess.
If Google is intending to make changes please could I beg that they wait until after Christmas, which is of course prime "bottom-feeding" time.
| 2:51 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In that other thread, I was simply helping other WebmasterWorld members here with an insight from experience. I received thanks from many for my help there.
Like everyone always says here about webmastering, "Know your market." In that thread, I used an example of knowing MY market. In MY market (meaning the particular keyword of my focus), it is an experiential fact that the self-publishers will not succeed. They never do. That's because searchers in this keyword are not using the SE's for finding books. But even so, that never stops the would-be heroes from trying to self-publish their book. Eventually, they will always leave because the market of this keyword is NOT looking for such books --especially given how such self-published books are also usually filled with mis-information anyway. In that thread, I merely pointed out how annoying they are, and how experience proves that they will eventually leave anyway because they will always fail in this keyword. So, to help others here at WebmasterWorld with an insight, I explained how we help nudge a self-publisher's exit form the AdWords a little faster, while actually also helping G$ make even more $ in the process. They're going to leave anyway -- we just help speed it along. I used that anecdotal example to help others at WebmasterWorld understand how to apply that technique.
That was not anti-competitive. And it even helps G$ get more revenues than it would have otherwise earned.
But not once did I say that G$ should go about banning such self-publishers. That's because such self-publishers are at least attempting to be specificly relevant to the keyword -- notwithstanding their misinformational basis.
And I also made it clear that I do not participate in any collusion. Nor do I contact other advertisers. (Besides, I would have nothing to gain from doing so.)
Clearly, therefore, that thread and that issue are quite different from the issue here of affiliate ghosts not being in the same adspace as real site domains.
At least the self-publishers had their own real domain sites.
It is amazing how truly thin a straw some will grasp at in order to try to attack me in this thread.
| 5:24 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Multiman, in your case people aren't grasping at straws - they're grasping at huge tree trunks of self-interested fallacy, which all involved have all too clearly pointed out.
I'm Switzerland on this issue (I work neither for nor against affiliates), and have just a few things to say:
1)Users determine relevancy, and conversions are the best arbiter of relevancy. Hence, if all the bottom feeders were in fact just that, then they wouldn't be getting conversions - at minimum they'd see diminishing returns, which is not, in fact, the case.
2)Affiliates serve a *vital* role in the internet economy - they increase the efficiency of search engines, and help searchers in their search-->find-->obtain quests. Arguing against them with philosophy is like arguing against all God's other creatures.
3)Any merchant worth his salt will tell you that affiliates (including those who don't run their own websites) serve a valuable purpose = filling the cracks in their always less-than-perfect marketing department. It's simply not reasonable to argue against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of U.S. & international merchants.
| 5:41 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can you hear them? Waaaaaaaaa! The sound is tiresome.
Not every affiliate ad is about getting conversions, but the criers continue to ignore that and repeat their propaganda.
| 7:42 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stick to the topic in question.
| 7:47 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thank you, Shak. I couldn't agree more.
| 5:06 am on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's not that far off topic...
We should expect the level of click attack to increase if AdWords implements Merchant plus One, as other (non showing) affs try to consume the winning aff's budget.
| 5:43 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This series of threads has been hilarious. I kinda know where Multiman is coming from. About 8 months ago my #1 ranked site fell out of the serps. I was sooo mad! I vented left and right about how unfair it was. I posted in all the forums about it. Guess what? Big waste of time.
Instead of ranting on here, MultiMan, maybe you should learn how to be a better AW advertiser?
| 7:40 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It looks like my arguments about limiting the unaccountable affiliates in the AdWords adspace may be coming to pass in some form.
Where I come from, possible success doesn't sound like a waste of time. :)
| 8:02 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It looks like my arguments about limiting the unaccountable affiliates in the AdWords adspace may be coming to pass in some form. |
I seriously doubt it had anything to do with your ranting (yes, ranting. When you post the same thing 400 times, that's ranting). Google has always thrown a deaf ear towards what webmasters think is wrong or right and do what they (Google) think is right. I think Florida is a prime example of that.
No matter what, what you are talking about MM, will not be fixed by this. What you are talking about (others pushing your bids up on purpose) is the same thing as competitor click fraud. If someone is doing it to you, they are obviously small time and not worth the notice of real professionals as the small time frauders will soon be pushed out by those who really know what they are doing. Chances are, it wasn't even an affiliate, as they have the freedom to move on elsewhere, while merchants do not.
| 9:56 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think some one was doing it TO him, I think he is bragging that HE is the one doing it to people that he doesn't believe should be allowed in the same keywords as he is.
I just don't get how some one complaining about "user experience" can then blatantly do the things he is talking about doing to competitors. Even if he does believe that it's in the best user experience for those "self publishers" to not be there, it should not be up to him (i.e. the competition) to decide. If this is truly so then their CTR will be so low that they'll get dropped anyway. I don't think it's in the user's best interest for Multiman to try these "mercy kills"
| 10:58 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok Enough with Multiman….
Lets get back on topic.
I agree that the ad results need to be cleaned up but banning Affiliates is not the way to do it. If it happens that is life and would not be the first time I lost a nice little earner on the internet. There will be another. You never hear the serious players whine here. They move on and adapt.
| 11:22 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You are right, let's stick to the point at hand
If I am correct this is exactly the way overture works right now. Every one is spelling gloom and doom for Google but hasn't Overture been doing this for a while now?
| 12:13 am on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I get the biggest chuckle out of all the silly off-the-wall speculations people make about me. :)
And I find it hilarious that some people actually confuse the help I offered to others here (re: the anecdote I offered about the "self publishers" in my own market) with the issue of the anonymous unaccountable ghost affiliates. These confused ones are similar to comparing light to darkness and thinking they've discredited the light by making the silly comparison. :) So funny.
Anyway, now for a truly accurate statement about the impact of removing affiliates from the AdWords adspace:
|If I am correct this is exactly the way overture works right now. Every one is spelling gloom and doom for Google but hasn't Overture been doing |
| 12:40 am on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You never hear the serious players whine here. They move on and adapt. |
Pay heed: this is one of the most important lessons Webmaster World can teach you!
| 11:26 am on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For those that think along the lines of multiman then how about this for a thought..
|You never hear the serious players whine here. They move on and adapt. |
Us trough feeders, who've been quite happy to leave you seo boys/girls to your quest for ever upward seo listings, whilst we accecpted that "spend x to earn xx" meant not having to worry about seo.
But we will now be looking to generate the same high figure incomes we have been doing with PPC, only now we'll be quite prepared to spend a lot of time and money if needed on getting it right in seo.
So Multiman (and fans) may get what you wanted!.. affiliates removed from the side of google, but dont count on us being at the bottom of the page mate ;)...
We don't like earning peanuts down there, get ready.. as we'll be looking harder at seo now and have a big pot of money to get it in place...
I wonder what tune multiman will be singing if he's on page two instead of one in a few months for all his favoured terms?
| 10:25 pm on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Where are all the Google Conspiracy fanatics when a real Google Conspiracy rears its ugly head?
Clearly, Google wants to force direct-to-merchant affiliates to build their own websites, So
Those new websites don't produce the same high revenues to which the affiliates have become accustomed, So
The affiliates put up Adsense ads on all of their new pages, So
Who owns Adsense? - Google does, of course, So
Google Rules the World!
Just think of it, Thousands and Thousands of new Adsense ads on thousands of new consumer-oriented websites - it's so diabolically simple, it's Pure Evil!
| 12:27 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So let me see if I have this straight.
We have pro-affiliates telling us that the world will end and G$ will fall apart if G$ stops having affiliate ads in the AdWords adspace.
Now we have a pro-affiliate telling us that the world will be even further dominated by G$ and G$ will get richer if G$ stops affiliate ads in the AdWords adspace.
| 7:18 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey, maybe this rumor was started entirely for the purpose of getting advertiser feedback on the situation.
As the argument now stands, I think Google would be insane to implement what Shak outlined in post 1.
| 6:21 pm on Dec 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Jan 1st is the day, so I hear
| 6:29 pm on Dec 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|maybe this rumor was started entirely for the purpose of getting advertiser feedback on the situation |
Interesting. We do know that Google (and a lot of others) value the opinions from here. Maybe they fed Shak the rumour to get some feedback? Very interesting thought :)
| 10:55 pm on Dec 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Jan 1st is the day, so I hear |
Nah, nobody in the IT industry makes changes (or even announces them) on 1st of Jan. More likely 5th Jan.
| 11:29 pm on Dec 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google isn't nobody :) Remember Jan 1st 2003? [webmasterworld.com...]
| 12:03 pm on Dec 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Big merchant in Europe told me they have the document.....waiting on the copy.
| 12:14 pm on Dec 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why are all the rumors coming from europe anyway? That doesn't make any sense.
| 12:13 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This post is not addressed to M & M although it maybe should be.
This post is addressed to AWA or Google Guy.
I have read this thread from beginning to end twice.
I don't often post as you can tell, although I often pass bye and check out what's happening.
I can see we have a problem here that is not going to go away (although I wish it could).
Like everyone else, I get very annoyed with the E-Bay ads which seem so irrelavent to the search terms under which you find them.
So here for what it's worth is my two pence worth..
Let me first just say though that it was the Affiliates who first saw the potential of Adwords as an effective promotional medium, only later did the self centered types of M & M's ilk cotten on, and yet they want to restrict the Aff's after paving the way to better profits for themselves.
Anyway I digress.
I'll get back to the point!
From what I've read a bidding system of some sort is propossed. That is not the way to go from my experience of advertising on Ad words.
My best conversions "as a bottom feeding affiliate" are without a doubt from 2 word phrase match and 3 word search terms. They are ultra qualified people who know what they are looking for and want the most direct route to get it. The most spammy ads are 1 & 2 word broad matched search terms which tend to be on the whole fishing expeditions.
Instead of having a bidding system that will cost Google a great deal of time, effort, and money to put in place; why not just restrict Aff's "me included" to highly relevent Pre-Qualified 2 word phrase match and or 3 word search terms. Let use fill in the niches that most Merchants and Websites can't afford the time, trouble and effort to cover properly.
That way it would be a win, win, win for everyboady including Google's shareholders..
Ps, Now please excuse me whilst I also join the others in the trough.
| 11:38 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[quote[This post is addressed to AWA or Google Guy. [/quote]
Heya Chernelle, and all. Just so you know, for the past few weeks I've been making sure that the right folks here at Google have been seeing the range of opinions on this subject. And I'll continue to do that.
Each week, I've quoted a few of the more well stated posts, verbatim, and then provided links to each of the several threads on the subject.
Bottom line, the whole range of opinions is being heard.
| This 262 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 262 ( 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |