homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.183.169
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
Landing Pages 101
hdpt00



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 7:29 am on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

With the new rule(s) I made a crappy landing page, basically 3 sentences and a giant link and got my ad disapproved because of this.

Can anyone give some advice on how to create good ladning pages?

 

patient2all

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 2:45 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can you paraphrase their reply? Surely, they didn't say disapproval reason "crappy landing page". :)

There has to be a little more to it than that, maybe you were disapproved for one of the more traditional reasons.... I can't see their reviewers suddenly becoming web design judges. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Add this quote to your page:

"Simplicity, carried to an extreme, becomes elegance." -- Jon Franklin

patient2all

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 2:50 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes I had the same issue. At first they said pop up. Nope none. Then they said display URL. Nope, it had the right URL. So then they explained ti did not match what they were looking for. No other explanation given.

PS sorry if my posts are edgy this week but this is really bugging me.

esllou

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 2:55 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

ouch! That's worrying...first shots in the REAL war, I fear!

I just had 200 ad groups rejected because the display URL wasn't exactly the same as real URL. Which is fair enough...it wasn't exactly the same. Another hour of work ahead.

Just changed all my direct links to landing page links and it is proving harder to get ads approved now than it was even only six months ago when I first had the wording approved.

they are not accepting:

- 'B/W' for Black and White
- 'see "city" at its best' due to word best!
- '+' as subsitute for "and"

and many others that were fine only months ago

hdpt00



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:07 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Violation of Affiliate Guidelines: The domains of your Display URL and
Destination URL must agree, you may not simply frame content from
another site and your landing page may not be a bridge page with the
sole purpose of driving traffic to another site.

My display url and destination match, unless I need to put "www." in, which I never have. I don't frame content from another site. The sole purpose is to drive traffic to my merchant, like the 500 million other ads they have that do this.

My landing page was pretty much three sentences, with a banner and text link. What do I have to do, create a masterpiece?

esllou

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:11 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

wow! this could be a bigger story than the "one affiliate link per search" change!

using their ToS wording, they already have the power to stop all affiliate sites NOW! Not only direct, but landing page affiliate sites too...at a stroke.

maybe this has always been their plan....they only intended to be explicit about the "one direct per search" part of it.

thoughts?

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:15 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not sure how your ads are not getting displayed. My Competitors Are Putting Caps On Every Word. Also seeing a fair amount of "!". When did the idea of plain english sentences go out the window?

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:35 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

you may not simply frame content from another site and your landing page may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site.

Google's policy sounds pretty reasonable, and it certainly contributes to a better user experience. It's also in the affiliate's best interest, because a landing page that presells is going to convert better than a "crappy landing page" with three sentences of text and an affiliate link. Think of this as "tough love" that's meant to help you. :-)

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:39 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would be fine with that if they were holding others to the same level.

esllou

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:39 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree but they have opened a pandora's box with the sentence "may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site"

who decides that? very subjective and they could clamp down on 90% of "affiliate" pages out there at a stroke.

has that sentence always been there in their guidelines?

patient2all

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:50 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi everybody,

- 'B/W' for Black and White
- 'see "city" at its best' due to word best!
- '+' as subsitute for "and"

The 3 examples you give above have been disapprovable since I've been using AdWords, so that's nothing new. I've been getting those same rejections for months.

I got rejected for a book called "Best Years of Your Life" or something like that. I've gotten hit with the + sign issue many times until I started using '&' instead.

On the other hand, I've always capitalized all words except articles and prepositions with no rejections.

Up until now, they won't allow! in the title, but within the ad it was okay as long as it was used exactly once.

As far as people using example.com/dvds when that was not part of actual destination URL, I've been seeing people doing that for some time and thought it was a violation of TOS. I asked AWA a question about that in another thread yesterday, but can't find it now among the mess.
(Does the 'site search' function here really work poorly or is just me?).

As with most threads on the topic so far, I'm left with more questions than answers (no fault of the posters here).

So, do we have a real issue of harassment of affiliates suddenly or are these just routine rejections is the question?

Is the new policy in effect?

If so, is it being enforced programmatcially or are reviewers slowly but surely going through each advertiser for every ad (which could take months)?

Where is AWA?

patient2all

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 3:51 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree but they have opened a pandora's box with the sentence "may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site"

who decides that?

Google does.

I doubt if affiliates have anything to worry about if they honestly try to comply with the rule instead of just knocking out what even they admit are "crappy landing pages."

esllou

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:01 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

yes, but that is the difference between a subjective ruling and an objective one.

one-affil-ad-per-search is black and white.

deciding if a landing page is "just a bridge" will come down to 200 individual adwords reviewers sitting in the internet equivalent of a call centre. I know...a friend works in a similar job in the UK.

It's just a huge grey area that will leave more questions than answers. I agree wholeheartedly with G's right to do whatever they want, but this doesn't strike me as a clear policy on landing pages.

mahlon

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:12 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can you paraphrase their reply? Surely, they didn't say disapproval reason "crappy landing page". :)

lol that would be funny!

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:13 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have to agree with europeforvisitors on the fact that is casuing me to clean up my adword comapaign. And lets face it. Google does not care for the affiliate. They will get the click either way.

hdpt00



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:23 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

What the hell does Google think it is doing, protecting the world?

For such a large company the rollout of this no more affiliates is so vague and uncertain, even AWA doesn't know. Are they the CIA now? Give me a break google. You're a billion dollar corporation, get your act together.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:26 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

yes, but that is the difference between a subjective ruling and an objective one.

So? How is that different from reviewing AdWords for acceptability, reviewing publishers for acceptance into the AdSense network, or making human judgments about sites that have flagged for manual reviews in the SERPs?

Do you have kids? If so, have you ever heard one saying something like, "Johnny got to eat dessert last week when he left peas on his plate, so why can't I?" The correct reply is: "If you'd finished your peas, you wouldn't have to worry what Johnny got or didn't get last week."

Make an honest effort to abide by Google's new policy, and you're unlikely to have problems--or to be worrying that Johnny might get treated better than you. :-)

AdWordsAdvisor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member adwordsadvisor us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 4:54 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where is AWA?

Right here. ;) Just to set the right expectations, today is a day of many meetings for me (which has been true all week, actually), and I'll be away from my computer as much as I'm at it.

So I'll be posting as often as I can. And although shak once mentioned that he had heard posting here was my full time job, that is not the case - not by a long shot. Posting at WebmasterWorld is an extremely important part of my work, day-to-day, and also one of my favorite parts. But it is decidedly not the only part.

Is the new policy in effect?

Not yet. When the policy has gone into effect, it will be announced on the News and Updates page, here: https://adwords.google.com/select/news/index.html

And I will certainly post here, as soon as I hear. As I mentioned above, though, I've been away from my desk for many hours recently.

I just wanted to get something posted quickly, so please don't think I've ignored the other questions here. I'll go back an re-read this entire thread (along with the others) shortly, and post again.

I do understand how important this is to you all, and I'm doing my best to keep you informed.

AWA

patient2all

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:14 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

hdpt00,

Great post!

You've said it all in a nutshell and far more concisely than anyone else yet <applause></applause>

patient2all

graywolf

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:16 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I changed to a landing page this morning and now my ads aren't showing.

No meesages in my accounts no explanations, nothing. Worst part is the people who haven't changed anything and going straight to the merchant are still showing.

Whats the deal?

AdWordsAdvisor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member adwordsadvisor us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:29 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

There has to be a little more to it than that, maybe you were disapproved for one of the more traditional reasons.... I can't see their reviewers suddenly becoming web design judges. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Patient2all, it is not so much beauty that is needed, as value to the users who have clicked on the ads. The review team will not be paying any attention at all to the design of the page. It is what the page says that matters.

Just changed all my direct links to landing page links and it is proving harder to get ads approved now than it was even only six months ago when I first had the wording approved.

Esllou, I assure you, the Editorial Guidelines are the same for all advertisers, affiliate or not. When the policy change is implemented, yes, landing pages will be looked at with a keen eye towards making sure they are providing value to the users. But, I kid you not, affiliates will not be subject to special scrutiny on the Editorial Guidelines.

they are not accepting:

- 'B/W' for Black and White
- 'see "city" at its best' due to word best!
- '+' as subsitute for "and"

As mentioned by patient2all, these are not new disapproval reasons.

using their ToS wording, they already have the power to stop all affiliate sites NOW! Not only direct, but landing page affiliate sites too...at a stroke.

maybe this has always been their plan....they only intended to be explicit about the "one direct per search" part of it.

I don't know if anyone will take my word for it, but I hope so. No, there is not a secret plan to stop affiliate advertising. The intent is to improve our user's experience, so that they will continue to trust AdWords ads, and click on them. For a very long time to come. Of course a trusted advertising program is better for Google than one that is ignored. Equally, it is better for advertisers as well.

I would be fine with that if they were holding others to the same level.

I think you will find this to be the case, toddb.

I agree but they have opened a pandora's box with the sentence "may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site"

who decides that? very subjective and they could clamp down on 90% of "affiliate" pages out there at a stroke.

Well, it will be the Editorial Review team, and they will be looking for landing pages that provide value to users. They will not be looking to 'clamp down' - they will be looking to make sure that a good experience is provided for our users.

As far as people using example.com/dvds when that was not part of actual destination URL, I've been seeing people doing that for some time and thought it was a violation of TOS. I asked AWA a question about that in another thread yesterday, but can't find it now among the mess.

Patient2all, in most cases that would have been approvable, and still will be, so long as the domain of the Display Url matched the domain of the landing page. Every single ad is reviewed by an actual human being, and handled on a case-by-case basis. So an informed judgment is made in each case.

So, do we have a real issue of harassment of affiliates suddenly or are these just routine rejections is the question?

Again, I am not sure that everyone will take my word for it, since I work at Google. But I assure you, the answer is routine rejections, and not harassment.

I doubt if affiliates have anything to worry about if they honestly try to comply with the rule instead of just knocking out what even they admit are "crappy landing pages."

Agreed. And europeforvisitors, thank you for your many insightful comments, whether positive or negative, regarding this policy change.

As I mentioned before, I'll do my best to keep my eye on these threads today, and respond as often as I am able.

AWA

IntegraGsrBalla

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:42 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

So landing pages can't contain One or two links such as:
"enter now"

I think im getting the hint that the landing page has to contain valuable information.

Like a detailed review or something of the sort.

Am i right?

Where is a detailed FULL explanation on the new policy?

IntegraGsrBalla

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:51 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

So basically every affiliate's landing pages will be denied unless it has the following:

Valuable information that Google thinks is valuable to them.

It Can't just have 3 sentences, a few graphics, and an Enter Now link

I want to read the policy. The Landing Pages Section.

ugamis1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 5:55 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

The biggest problem it seems with all of the 'google hates affiliate the sky is falling' threads come from sites that have discovered how to monetize PPC Adwords campaigns with minimul work and hassle.

I can understand you are unhappy with changes with Google and the editorial standards they have in place. Heck, it is hitting you in your billfold.

But while I understand the complaints, I really have zero sympathy. If Adwords PPC gets inundated with 'junk' then users will quit responding to ads all together. Works the same in email marketing, send a lot of 'junk' to your house list and people will quit opening your messages.

So someone who is blinded by money may say, who are you to define 'junk.' I do not, Google does. I am glad they do. If your landing page (bridge page, bah humbug page) is autogenerated hogwash or took you 2 minutes to do by hand then it is junk. This is just me.

Again, while I understand the complaints because it is hurting your revenue hopefully you understand why I think many of the half baked affiliate sites are devalueing a very profitable marketing channel for my business (yes there are good affiliate sites - we all know the difference).

This may not have been the right thread to respond to, and it is no way primarily directed to the original poster.

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 6:06 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"minimal hassle" is subjective. We have worked for several years to create our adword campaign system. We have spent a lot of money on what works and doesn't work. I understand you have done the same but to see Google make a sweeping change. Announce when it was going to happen and then just not do it. Well those of us who have families and other responsibilities are going to be upset. Very hard to move forward when we have no idea how the playing field is going to look.

Do I make landing pages? Do I stay the course? My Google rep suggested I change professions. I did not suggest the same for him but it occured to me. ;)

ugamis1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 6:18 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do I make landing pages? Do I stay the course? My Google rep suggested I change professions. I did not suggest the same for him but it occured to me. ;)

----------------------

Hehe

IntegraGsrBalla

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 7:20 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

So what happens if you have about 150 ads running to one landing URL.

Will Google send you a 150 different Adwords Approval Status E-mails.

Then will we have to go through every ad, one by one, and re-submit the new "designed" landing URL.

Widestrides

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 8:23 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

As I feared, Google is reviewing landing pages, like Overture started doing some time ago. That was the end of a lot of affiliates for Overture.

The fact is, we can create a lot of useful content and reviews and comparisons, but Google can still say you are a bridge page. And in fact, EVERY affiliate IS a bridge page if their real purpose is to attract and direct traffic to a merchant site.

Of course there are sites that truly have an informational purpose or function and a unique mission and they just have an affiliate link or two on their high traffic site to make some money. As opposed to an affiliate whose sole purpose is to attract traffic, drive it to a merchant and collect a commission.

How tough is Google going to be on this bridge page definition is what is worth watching.

cagey1

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 10:54 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has always reviewed landing pages.

To get back to the original question, if you want your landing pages to sail through review (with or without affiliate links), make sure they contain these elements:

1) Minimum visual design elements, such as a page title and at least a one or two sentence page description that relates to the keyword/phrase in question. (Hint: Google is extra tough on ads that include the word "free", so if you are using the word "free" whatever in your ad, you better talk about "free" whatever on the landing page).

2) valid navigation links, to show that the landing page is part of a larger website

3) a copyright notice to show that the page is important you

4) a link to a valid privacy notice page

No guarantees, but I have never had one of these type of landing pages rejected by Google (Overture is another thing entirely)

Oh yeah, and optionally

5) an Adsense ad block (it couldn't hurt).

toddb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4295 posted 11:23 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"5) an Adsense ad block (it couldn't hurt)"
The new norm.

More seriously we never need to worry about duplicate content on this stuff that i have seen. So our affiliate programs will start handing these out in short order.

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved