|Google disabling high traffic keywords|
Google disabling high traffic keywords
| 1:58 am on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a major question/problem for everyone that is using the Google adwords program...
Why is google disabling my keywords that I am getting good traffic through? I am getting sick and tired of adding my disabled keywords back in every morning!
Does anyone have the same problem and if you are have you found a solution for this? I was thinking about adding all my keywords to a text file and all I would have to do is delete all keywords and do a copy/paste from my text file back in every day. Would this work or am I making more work for myself?
Please HELP.. Pulling my hair out
| 2:18 am on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have wondered the same thing. How about this for an idea. Maybe someone at Google is looking out for someone else. Suppose someone at Google has a friend bidding on the same keywords as you. Google disables yours and gives the friend an advantage? Just a thought.
Does anyone know if when Google disables a keyword is it disabled for EVERYONE in the world? If not then how do they pick YOU over HIM? Suppose you both have the same keyword for the same bid price and one is disabled and not for the other? Is that fair? Hell No. Just some more thoughts.
| 8:46 am on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have also the same problem in one ad group.
The 2 main and best keywords were disabled and I dont know why.
And when I search these keywords in goolge I can see many ads showing up at the right side.
| 10:41 am on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That is because Google doesn't like you and they like the other better. I can not think of any other reason.
| 6:37 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yes, this can be true :)
there seems to be no solution for this problem.
I wrote already 3 emails to them but did not receive a reply
| 7:30 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Suppose someone at Google has a friend bidding on the same keywords as you. Google disables yours and gives the friend an advantage? |
|That is because Google doesn't like you and they like the other better. I can not think of any other reason. |
Just the idea that advertisers -- The folks that give Google money! -- are starting to bandy ideas like this around shows that Google has a big, big problem.
Google has yet to answer a very basic question in any cogent fashion: If keywords are making money for the poor schlub paying for them, why are they being disabled?
| 8:15 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why is google disabling my keywords that I am getting good traffic through? I am getting sick and tired of adding my disabled keywords back in every morning! |
Providing a really useful answer to this question will take a while - so I'll have to get back to it later in the evening.
But, briefly, the key is not to keep re-entering the same unsucessful keywords - and instead to work towards finding more targeted ads and keywords.
|Maybe someone at Google is looking out for someone else. Suppose someone at Google has a friend bidding on the same keywords as you. Google disables yours and gives the friend an advantage? |
|That is because Google doesn't like you and they like the other better. I can not think of any other reason. |
|Google has yet to answer a very basic question in any cogent fashion: If keywords are making money for the poor schlub paying for them, why are they being disabled? |
This is a very important question, with what I hope is a very clear-cut answer. To sum it up really briefly:
* It is extremely important to Google to show relevant ads to our users, as judged by those users. So ads must meet a minimal standard of relevance to users, as measured by CTR, in order to continue to run.
* Keywords below the minimum standard are disabled, because Google users have not found the ads that appeared for them to be very relevant to their search. Continuing to show the ads would provide a bad user experience - and so they are not shown - in spite of the fact that both the advertiser and Google could make money by showing them.
* Google loses money on every disabled keyword. However, we'd rather turn down the money in the short term, in order to build a program that users trust in the long term.
* Google users who trust AdWords will continue to click on AdWords ads. This is good for the advertiser, no? And it's good for Google too, of course.
Hope that clears it up, jimbeetle.
| 10:03 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AWA, yeah, I'm familiar with the explanations, we've all read them often enough :). I guess I wasn't as wordy as I should have been in my first post, so going on from yours and to expand a bit here's where I think one of the problems might be:
|It is extremely important to Google to show relevant ads to our users, as judged by those users. So ads must meet a minimal standard of relevance to users, as judged by CTR, in order to continue to run. |
So, an advertiser asks, "Hey, if I was able to make money through these now disabled keywords, how can they not be relevant?"
That's the question I think Google has stopped short of answering and the one that has led to many of the keyword disabled threads [google.com].
(Actually, I'm wrong here. Google has answered the question many times, it just hasn't effectively communicated what the heck the answer means.)
Yeah, that speculation is basically evidence that Google hasn't effectively answered the question. Now that some wild speculation about "inside help" has hit at least one very widely read forum, I think it's fair to say that Google does have a mis-communication, mis-perception or mis-something else problem. It's one that has been smoldering for a while and Google is going to have to find a better way to address this question for once and for all.
Besides everything above, I'd hazard a guess that like most of us you're also a bit tired of those keyword disabled threads ;).
| 10:21 pm on Apr 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If a person is selling "red widgets" and in their ad are the words "red widget" twice, AND the CTR on "red widgets" is 3% and the person is selling "red widgets"
HOW CAN GOOGLE DISABLE THOSE KEYWORDS?
Also Overture reports over 100K searches on "red widget".
It just doesn't make sense, other than an inside deal.
And I am not paying just 5 cents either.
| 1:44 am on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've been burned by this several times, but I must admit I understand Google's logic. Let's say there's a thousand sites, e-commerce and affiliates, selling some type of widgets. Web Site A is selling red widgets and puts together an AdWords campaign using widgets as a keyword. They get a low CTR for it, but enough people searching for widgets see the ads for the red widgets and Web Site A gets constant sales from the keyword. Eventually Google disables the keyword due to low CTR.
Someone puts together web site B selling blue widgets. They put together an AdWords campaign using widgets as a keyword. Like Web Site A, they get steady sales but low CTR, and eventually Google disables the keyword.
Now repeat this scenario many times, often with people bidding against each other with the keyword widget. Every new entrant sees the keyword is available and it's cheap. When it's disabled due to low CTR, they can't figure out why Google disables it. After all, it's making money.
Now if Google didn't disable the kwyword, every one of these sites with an AdWords campaign would be using the keyword and it would no longer would be cheap. The web searcher types in widgets and sees a ton of ads for blue widgets, red widgets, green widgets, orange widgets, dead widgets, frozen widgets, widget repair, widget analysis, etc. The searcher sees all those and thinks they're worthless. So he changes his search to "platinum widgets." Now the web site selling platinum widgets has an ad targetting the keywords "platinum widgets," but the searcher still doesn't see it because all those widget keywords are still running. Maybe his ad is on page 2, maybe it's just lost in the middle of all the other ads.
Now if Google disabled all those ads with the widget keyword disabled due to low CTR, the searcher typing in "platinum widgets" sees the ad for platinum widgets and is a happy Google customer.
If Google serves a bunch of useless ads to their customers doing searches, then those customers will learn to ignore the ads on the right side of the page because they're usually worthless. Then all AdWords advertisers lose.
| 9:32 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No one is going to make me believe that all 1000 natural results shown (or even the first 100) meet the minimum requirement for AdWords advertisers.
| 10:13 am on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If your theory is indeed Google's intent, it surely is not working. Megacompanies bid high $ on "widget" or "buy widget" and show for every search containing "widget", even if no one sets out to simply purchase a "widget".
I've detailed here many times how of 10 results for a "purple widget" search, perhaps two are actually capable of producing the purple variety.
The others are either deceptive in nature or are huge chains attempting branding, reminding the customer that they too are a potential widget vendor. Do they stock purple widgets, well you never know? Not until you click, something the true "purple widget" marketer cannot afford to let happen.
Their big business goals are different from the true seller of purple widgets - the big company wants to put their name out in front as often as possible, cost non-withstanding. The true "purple widget" seller can't afford or absorb errant, non-relevant clicks.
This is going to alienate the rarely discussed consumer searcher. Far from every Google search is for a B2B service.
Perhaps there are small operations who get off on the wrong foot and bid for "widgets" and are quickly disabled, but the big companies that command the top position can absorb the misguided clicks and maintain a high CTR simply because of their brand recognition.
If this keeps up, AdWords will become known as the spam on the right side of the page. Anyone can find those general ads from large merchants, just buy something from them once, neglect the conveniently pre-checked "like to be informed of future offers?" checkbox and your inbox will be full of their fat spam. Or you'll hit their pop-ups the next time you're deeply absorbed in a news story on a major news source's site.
In the abscence of a better explanation, that's the best that this humble advertiser can conclude. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Google prefers the deep pocketed merchant who has long term goals of saturating the market by whatever means necessary over the smaller merchant or a**illiate who uses their wiles to get the most out of AdWords for a few thousand or less a month.
| 6:35 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree, patient. I was showing the theory, and it's obvious that AdWords practice is often divorced from the theory. While the theory is there to protect the quality of the AdWords ads, the sad truth is that AdWords is becoming as full of spam as regular SERPS, and the Google search network is the same.
Fraudulent clicks are a way of life on the content network. If you want to get into the Google search network and have access to quality search partners like AOL, Earthlink, etc., you have to put up with the total crap search partner sites. Add in the low quality AdWords ads that clog most search terms, and the quality of the whole program has suffered. You have to build so many wasted clicks and wasted money spent into your ROI equations with AdWords.
Unfortunately, this is the way of life on the internet. If there's a way to spam, scam, lie, cheat, or steal to make money, someone will figure out how to do it with every program out there.
| 6:50 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was thinking the same thing just 5 minutes ago. Saw today my most relevant keyword phrase for one campaign is being targeted from all over. I thought get out of Search, but remembered how many sales come from AskJeeves. I can't just cut the bid without losing sales.
Until good competition comes along that has a handle on the advertiser's needs, it's a Catch 22 for us.
| 8:26 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But, briefly, the key is not to keep re-entering the same unsuccessful keywords - and instead to work towards finding more targeted ads and keywords. |
I've seen keywords that were above the threshold for over a year be disabled, and have a very difficult time getting them reenabled.
It's not that those keywords weren't successful, they had some brief bout with a low CTR (brief being 3 days - 2 weeks -- often due to a new competitor bidding high in the short term and then going away), and then a keyword does poorly from then out regardless of the year plus of success it's had.
This isn't always the case, but I can point out a few times the above has happened where it really does seem odd that Google has a system that allows these rules.
| 1:19 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It is extremely important to Google to show relevant ads to our users, as judged by those users. So ads must meet a minimal standard of relevance to users, as measured by CTR, in order to continue to run. |
But a well-written ad can decrease CTR, by making it clear to the user whether the ad is relevant. Surely clearly written ads improve the user experience. Yet this criterion actually encourages vague ads which entice the user to click anyway.
Some topics are easier to pinpoint with key words than others, and when it's difficult to do with key words, then it's important that the ad be clear.
I realize that CTR can be determined automatically, while evaluating ad quality is difficult even for a human. But ease of evaluation is not a good argument for using a specific tehnique. Some techniques have to be excluded because their cost makes them infeasible, but that may make the remaining options merely the best of a bad lot.
|If a person is selling "red widgets" [...] HOW CAN GOOGLE DISABLE THOSE KEYWORDS? |
Not all searchers are looking for something to buy. For example, a search on "diabetes" is probably looking for information about the disease. Vendors of supplies for treating diabetes would be highly on topic -- and indeed the ads on such a search are about split between information sites and vendors. But if 95% of searchers are looking for information, then the fact that the ads and products are on topic is irrelevant -- the searchers are not interested. (I don't know how accurate this percentage is, but my guess is that it's pretty close. Searchers looking for products will probably either be more specific or use "diabetic" rather than "diabetes" in the search.)
Now, I agree with you on the other points. In particular, assuming your ad is clear, then a high CTR means the searchers are voting with their clicks to say the ad is relevant to them. It's just this first point that I take issue with.
| 1:21 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AWA, sorry, but your explanation just doesn't match what I see Google doing. I just created a new campaign, and inside it a new ad group, and I now have two keywords there showing "disabled" with zero impressions.
One of the disabled keywords is a two word phrase where the second word is one I've never used in my account ever before.
Google simply does not have enough information to know whether or not this keyword is going to be relevant to user's searches. In fact, zero information. The most that Google might have is that in some other campaign for totally different ads the one half of the phrase didn't perform well, but I'm not even sure that is true.
| 2:54 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|* It is extremely important to Google to show relevant ads to our users, as judged by those users. So ads must meet a minimal standard of relevance to users, as measured by CTR, in order to continue to run. |
AWA, this does not make sense, numerous users have had extremely high CTR ads get pulled/on hold/disabled for no reason at all. (At least the reason was not shared with us)
It seems like if a word does too well (lets say "widget"), and even performs well (high CTR by your statement 9% for my example) you pull it and force us to bid on the more targeted and expensive keyword that has more competition (lets say "red widget removal") and this new term gets a lower CTR for us, converts poorer and costs us more money.
So to me it seems like CTR is not the only metric you are using to determine what is relevant, it seems like related terms and click cost are also part of it. Back in the day any ad would run that had what was it .5% ctr or higher? Please bring back those days. (c:
| 8:23 pm on Apr 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A short note to all posters and AWA...
have any of you ever visited the Overture PPC forum? There the complaints are all 'it takes forever to get ads up', 'ads get rejected for the weirdest reasons', 'they say 'content not found' when there is content right there! (and from the recent newcomer stance i can tell you its a LOT less friendly in there, also they have about half the posts because most people give up, but I digress)
And here, we all complain about the extraneous ads that get put up by huge eGarbage sites that sell everything but the kitchen sink.
Moral of the story: Every site has its problems, every site has its bugs, if they were perfect we wouldn't need forums :)
I myself have gotten the lovely 'edit - content too snippy' or whatever it is notice from moderators. Just try and remember that its not always a conspiracy Mel, and there are customer service reps who theoretically can help you a lot faster with functionality questions than posting here will.
my $0.02, take it or leave it :)