| 2:59 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am so heated...Google's customer service doesn't know their a** from their elbow!
They state that they allow landing pages, but the landing pages must have content (which I have).
The girl says that I don't have enough content, in her opinion, but I point out some competitors who market the same product and she has no clue why they have ads.
She says that I have to have product comparisons or something like that to make it a legit landing page.
I asked how come my account was taken offline for a day to get reviewed by a team and ads were NOT rejected, but today 100+ ads were? (My site went down for about 10 minutes...Could that have triggered mass disaproval? -- The girl said no...)
I asked if google provided an online example of what an acceptable landing page should be...She said no...Then how the hell am I supposed to know what is acceptable?
Google has been steadily pissing me off for it's poor customer service...And I spend plenty of cash with them...
| 3:16 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is an interesting one i was thinking of doing something similar with landing pages.
Could you sticky me with the URL of the landing page that was disapproved?
That way i know what not to do!
| 4:18 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
instead of coming here and being rude with your language, why not spend that time and put some extra content up
deep down you know its just bad luck that you got caught, so move on and keep making the cash.
thats unless you are busy reporting your competitors
| 4:39 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
chill out shak. I have content. at least i thought i did. i have a banner, a few paragraphs explaining the product, text links to related products, and web articles.
but customer service still can't tell me what is acceptable for a content page.
also, i had one person tell me landing pages PERIOD are banned, which i knew was b.s....then when i asked for his supervisor, he mysteriously disconnected.
the second person said my site had to be set up like shopping.com *confused*
i have a shopping mall with plenty of links and plenty of products and services...
i think the whole deal was when my site went down for a few minutes, my ads shut down. I explained this to them, but they said that google has no way of knowing when a site goes down, which I know is b.s.
they need to train those adwords reps better because they are mostly offpoint
| 4:40 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
no offence mate
but you need to learn how adwords/google works for a start.
your site going down is not any of googles concern, in fact, they are happy sending traffic as you are paying :)
| 4:46 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
you sure about that shak?
if someone clicks on an ad and the link is dead, I'm sure that triggers someting in google to shut things down because dead links are verbotten....screws up the browsing experience *shrug*
it actually happened when i was in google adwords clicking on my ads (needed to get the URL to setup overture) and they didn't come up...5 minutes later, all my ads were disaproved...
| 4:56 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've had ads disapproved when I presume one of my hosting servers was down. This has happened on several occasions.
Either a reviewer came by to check out the ad for approval and found it down or there is some automated 'bot spot-checking ads to see that they resolve to something. The disapproval message was "non working URL".
At least, I assume these servers were down. Of course, when I went to check the ad, all is fine. I assume I got the hit during some short outage serverside or their method of checking doesn't work too well. After all, how many times have you visited a site that doesn't come up? ---- and then a second later, there it is!
| 5:22 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Now I'm confused too. What exactly is meant by a "landing page". Back when the affiliate restrictions went into effect, Google new-speak came up with the distinction between one going "direct to merchant" via an affiliate link vs. having having a "landing page" in between.
What exactly is the distinction between a "landing page" and a "web site"?
I find it hard to believe that Google wants pages to look more like those shopping comparison pages. Most of those simply take you to another place to search further for your widget by bidding on the most generic of terms and serving the same page regardless of your search.
Rarely is your specific widget readily apparent on these types of sites. Many large sites on AdWords now don't even bother with the pretense of trying to match up to more than one word in your query.
That is to say, if I'm searching for "a widget with this title by this widgeter", I'm often looking at a site that somewhere on the page announces they sell widgets. It's up to me to try to search within the site for "that widgeter and the title of their widget", if they even offer it at all. It appears the intent is just get people in the door and/or promote branding.
In fact on many of these "shopping" sites, I'm now seeing a list of AdSense ads that purport to be sources you can use for the widget you're searching for. In some cases, it gives me the supposedly forbidden treat of having my ad show up twice for the same search. Once in my stand-alone AdWord ad and again as an AdSense ad on one of the "landing pages" of these shopping sites.
Metakomm, perhaps you had a bad day with a bunch of people at Google who also had bad days. I'm having a hard time imagining what Google is striving for in these AdWords ads of late if what you're describing is offical policy there.
I hope my highly targeted sites and ads can survive what appears to be a trend toward the spammy set of sites dominating the top positions that I've outlined recently in a bunch of posts.
Is the concept that the searcher who visits Adwords looking for "this widget by this widgeter" going out the window?
less and less
| 6:03 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm forgetting an obvious question here!
What precisely was the disapproval reason given under the ads?
| 6:07 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For sure, the person you talked to was uninformed.
All they ask you and sometimes forget to, is to put a little world like "Affiliate" or even "Aff." in your add, and that's all!
Just put them back again, and you'll have them working.
| 6:35 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No man, I don't want to call you "uninformed", so I'll just say you're "out of date" :)
As of Jan 12, the term "aff" or "affiliate" is neither needed or desired in your affiliate ads. It now serves no purpose whatsoever though it was an absolute requirement for an affiliate for many years.
So something else is afoot here, that's why I am real curious as to the actual disapproval reason in red that was underneath the ads.
| 7:11 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Status: editing ads :)
Well, back to the point, I still thimking it was just something triggered to have a human, a very picky one, to look at their ads, then the picky human decided it was too much affiliate for his day :)
| 7:27 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Who isn't an affiliate?
Unless you manufacture your product or provide your service personally, you are an affiliate of someone. Only the payment method may differ.
amazon sells other companies merchandise, for a commission, I might add.
Most every retailer is selling merchandise supplied by some other source and the retailer is merely advertising it.
Hardly any website doesn't contain at least one affiliate ad or banner of some sort.
And why so much hostility here on this board and from AdWords towards affiliates?
Contrary to the advice I'll often give others about this forum, the more I read about AdWords, the more confused I become!
| 2:40 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is weird...When you go to the actual ad, this is the disaproval message:
Inaccurate Display URL
HOWEVER, when you go to the new disapproval tool that shows all disaproved ads, this is what it says(See the last explanation...This is what google claims I'm doing...I'm so damn confused):
***Affiliate URL or bridge page
Per the 'Ad Content' section of our Editorial Guidelines, your ad must reflect all of the following:
- The domains of your Display URL and Destination URL must agree.
- Your website content may not simply be framed within the pages of another site.
- Your landing page may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site. ****
BTW - I will be on the phone with them in 20 minutes...I need to make $$$$!
| 3:19 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google has my blood boiling.
| 4:49 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"The domains of your Display URL and Destination URL must agree."
"Your website content may not simply be framed within the pages of another site."
"Your landing page may not be a bridge page with the sole purpose of driving traffic to another site."
Which of these do you think could be the culprit?
If you don't mind, I'd like to take a look at your site, since Im a little bit on affiliate stuff, I'd like to know if there are new directions on this.
| 6:56 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ok. Here's the deal...I just talked with a supervisor and she will send me a more detailed email...
This is going to effect a lot of people, so be on the lookout:
I was told that the web page that people are landing on CANNOT only contain links that will get you paid by affiliate programs.
You have to have links to useful resources relating to the product, services or whatever.
For example, if I'm selling tires for an affiliate program, to make the page acceptable, I should have external links that are non-affiliate related, such as articles, reviews or something useful to the person looking at the web page.
Google wants users to have more options than buying, in a nutshell.
I have NO PROBLEM with that, I just wish they were clear what is an acceptable page, and what is not, which is not found online.
The girl said that they are combing through accounts now and enacting this new policy.
| 7:35 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is only for affliates, right?
We have multiple landing pages with information about our service with only internal links.
We Taylor the landing pages to each potential kind of customer.
Instutional Widget Buyer
Small Cap Business Wigdet Buyer
Big Cap Company Widget Buyer
Will we be affected by this new rule?
| 7:44 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
nyet - i dunno...
but it may include everyone...
I see what google is doing...making sure we give the prospect more options to make google the best experience...
I will post the email from google with more details once i get it...
| 9:16 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
metakomm, I don't believe you'll be allowed to quote the whole email, but hopefully you can do a detailed summary. :)
| 9:31 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
good deal rachel...still waiting on the email...
| 12:37 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How sad...It's been like 6 hours and the girl who promised me an email explaining outlines on proper landing still hasn't responded.
I even called back to check in with her and she was nowhere to be found...
If a supervisor can't take a few minutes to write an outline so I can write a correct ad, that seems to be a huge internal problem.
How is google gonna disaprove me, but not tell me how to be approved?
| 12:58 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
now NONE of my ads are showing...no explanation...
even though i have active ads and the keyword tool says my ads are being shown...
| 1:14 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to hear that. Keep in mind, they may be showing on partner sites at the moment for whatever reason. That is sometimes the case when the Ad Diagnostic Tool reports a showing, but Google itself doesn't show it (or so they claim).
Thank you for the heads up on this, Metakomm. You are a hero (or a heroine)!
I'm stunned by this latest twist!
Why do they call them AdWords?
People look at things called ads because they want to buy something.
Why do people keep coming to my sites, clicking items and buying them? Is it because of a lack of content? No, it's because people seeking particular widgets want hassle free one-click buying.
Why would advertisers pay to be featured if their main motivation wasn't to sell things?
My content varies from sparse to detailed depending on the theme of the site. For personal reasons, I always feature advertising for worthy charitable causes prominently on my sites. You all should do it too because it's the right thing to do. It may also count as a point in your favor to the no doubt equally confused reviewer confronted with evaluating immensely varying content with vague guidelines at hand.
Affiliates, when left to advertise as proves most profitable, are among the most honest advertisers that you'll find on the Internet. Affiliates are bound by the TOS of their merchant partners. Therefore they cannot engage in dubious practices, make unbelievable claims or engage in anything except the straightforward promotion of their chosen products.
Merchant sites themselves, whether appearing in AdWords or elsewhere, routinely practice bait & switch techniques between front page and actual offer, offer freebies that really come at a price and feature reviews that are actually simply self-serving advertisements. Merchants answer to no one and even when they engage in illegal practices can easily absorb the fines as a cost of doing business.
Once again, Google is adapting yet another self destructive policy that is as unfathomable as the recent changes to keyword deployment, matching options, search partner standards, etc. No explanation will be given except the customary nonsense about "user relevance" whispered in hushed tones as though the concept was as meaningful and beyond debate as a phrase like "for the benefit of humanity".
In fact, the only sensible meaning one can get from continued entrepreneur harassment would be that too many web savvy folks have learned how to make nice profits with minimal expense by taking the time to understand search behavior. This is in spite of the obstacles thrown in our way by Google, armies of clickers and a stalled economy.
Currently there are a bunch of us who can each continually control a few hundred top 4 positions for less than $50.00 a day. That makes valuable ad space unavailable to deep pocketed corporations who will throw millions of dollars at the latest Internet buzzwords like "pay per click" and "internet branding". They will lazily bid on every phrase in sight without serious regard for whether it will provide a tangible ROI. Depending on the long term results, this may be a foolish venture for both sides to pursue.
Who would Google rather have as customers - nit-picking webmasters who demand refunds for every instance of click fraud we can read out of our logs or Internet ignorant companies who think the more it costs them, the more "brand recognition" they are gaining?
Remember one of the primary reasons the so-called dot.com bubble burst in 2000 was an inflated perception of the value of Internet advertising. A similar fate could ensue if those of us who can granularize the difference in ROI between an .11 cent bid and a .21 cent bid are taken out of the equation.
The hardier affiliates will endure though. We may have to include useless pap no one will ever read to continue to be included in Google, but nothing else has defeated us so far! I also predict another major PPC emerging in the next couple of years who will have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors.
| 1:15 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Damn...Just checked in...The rep told me they are getting the policy on landing pages signed off on...I like that...If I officially know what is acceptable, I'm fine.
But how come they haven't spelled this out clearly on the web?
I find it interesting that this request took an entire day and the email has to be signed off on -- lol
| 1:20 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Great post patient2all...and if you are interested, (and if it is allowed) i can fwd you the email from google...
| 1:47 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ok. got the 'official email'
bottom line is those landing pages need to have additional useful content not found on the parent advertisers page...
reviews about products or company, etc.
give the user some education and the opportunity to buy
| 2:02 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just stopped WebmasterWorld by to collect feedback for this weeks Advertiser Feedback Report, and spotted something in this thread that I wanted to clarify. There seems to be quite a misunderstanding.
|...Will we be affected by this new rule? |
|I'm stunned by this latest twist! |
|Once again, Google is adapting yet another self destructive policy that is as unfathomable... |
Please note that there is absolutely not a new rule, or policy, or twist at work here. Nothing at all beyond that which was implemented in early January.
|give the user some education and the opportunity to buy |
I'd agree. ;)
<edit> fixed quote </edit>
[edited by: AdWordsAdvisor at 2:46 am (utc) on Mar. 18, 2005]
| 2:11 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
tell google to post sample landing pages that are acceptable, and sample pages that are unacceptable to help clarify things...that would rock...the email was much more helpful then what i got over the phone...
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |