homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.220.160
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 116 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 116 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Campaign Negative Sites
The ability to add sites on which you do not want content ads to show
inasisi

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 8:43 pm on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see a new feature under the Tools section- "Campaign Negative Sites".

It looks like you can add sites in which you do not want your ads to show. Right it seems to be only for Content Networks though.

This had been one of my must top priority features for me.

Thanks Google for listening to us and implementing it.

As usual you hear it first on Webmaster World :)

 

figment88

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:22 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of the biggest surprises to me with the implementation of this program was making the ban list campaign specific. It would be much simpler from the advertisers perspective to make it account specific. Heck, I'd like it to be global to My Client Center and ban sites from all the accounts I manage.

markus007

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:29 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I love it, I just cranked my content total way up. There are several sites on the content network i'm getting 50% conversion on vs a average of 5% on google, but there were a ton that i was getting 0 to 1% on and they are now all banned.

[edited by: markus007 at 2:29 pm (utc) on May 6, 2005]

janethuggard

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:29 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

From a publishers point of view, seems to me there is only one logical way to cull the sites, where your ad appears, conversion rate.

Do you really care if your ad is seen on mickeymouseadsensecontent.com if 80% of those who click the ad, then buy? If you do, maybe your priorities are not completely in order. The purpose of advertising the product, is to sell it. The reason we sell, is to make money. Focus on the root reason you advertise.

I wouldn't cut any site, unless the topic was completely unsuitable (porn), and with the Adsense system, that really isn't an issue in my experience, or if I could document, through the system outlined below, that my conversion rate was nil.

On that point, I want to say that we have been doing a ppc survey on our site, and the results are very interesting. See below.

5. Have you ever clicked on an ad just to see what it was about, with no intention of buying?

Yes: 93% No: 7%

As you can see above, you want to penalize the publisher because 93% of people are simply curious. Maybe it isn't the publisher, or the visitor. Maybe it is your product, too expensive, too complicated to understand, to hard to find information about on your site. Maybe your font is too small, the colors too bright, the return policy too vague or non-existent. Be careful who you blame for weak sales, the problem may be much deeper that the one site that sends you a flood of traffic with visitors who do not buy.

If you tell me that a scraper site, who might have the highest conversion rate of any publisher displaying your ad, would be banned, simply because they are a scraper site, I'm thinking you need to think very heavily about that.

The bottom line in advertising, is put the ad where it is most liklely to perform. If that is a beer commercial at Super Bowl, a billboard ad for designer jeans, at Times Square, or whatever, the purpose is to reach your market.

If your market is not able to figure out that a scraper site is not the best possible search result of all the ones they saw, simply by looking at the listing url, and they end up there, where they then see your ad, and click through to buy, how is that wrong? From a bottom line, and marketing effectiveness point of view, I don't see that it is.

You may be cutting off your nose to spite you face.

The approach you should be taking is much deeper than scanning the logs on the surface, and can't be done in a hour or two. Don't jump so quick young frogs, lest you jump into the fire, with no way back to the pond to cool your blistered feet.

You decide what works, in reverse.... daily sales report, pages in your site that generated those sales, log report that shows who was on those specific pages, log report that shows where that visitor orginated, and adwords stats.

Now wondering how many site owners who jump too quick, and don't look at the big picture, taking the time to really analyze all levels of their marketing plan, will ban my site, and reduce my Adsense earnings?

If they ban me with 15 others today, then ban 2-4 more each day for a month, and then suddenly at the end of the month, the light bulb comes on, and they realized their sales have crashed, their conversion to sales dropped, dramatically, because of their own stupidity, will they then be bright enough to figure out that my site was sending them a high conversion rate, and remove me from this list?

If along the way, they added to me a national banned publisher list, how much damage will that cause my earnings, and most importantly, can I sue the site that originally blacklisted me, and every other one who banned me at Adwords as a result of that blacklist, to recover the millions of dollars I will lose? (and I would lose it, and I would sue)

On the wider scope of things, how do you ban my other, maybe 100 sites, all also in my Adsense account? If you ban one, do all my sites get banned? What is to keep me from builing 100 more sites, and then adding them to Adsense, and you end up back on one of sites anyway? If I am earning 6 figures revenue for Adsense, and for other advertisers, why should I be banned, just because you are not bright enough to figure out that I am a marketing cash cow?

I'm just posing scenarios here, looking at the long term effects of this tool, in the hands of the wrong people, for the sake of posing the risks involved, to Adwords, the advertiser and the publisher.

Adsense, you give tools to people who are trained to use them, lest they poke their eye out, instead of poking a hole in the product material, as originally intended. It is short sighted to figure that all business owners, have the marketing savy, to educate themselves, do proper research, and properly use your tools.

I would like to see 'training' that outlines how easy it is to poke your eye out, while eyeing higher profits, and protects the publisher, who is the bottom line on revenue for Adwords, and the advertisers. He is not the enemy, is the engine that drives it all.

wrgvt

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:30 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

So why don't we have this capability for the Google search network? There's a lot of sites there I'd like to exclude.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:31 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)


One of the biggest surprises to me with the implementation of this program was making the ban list campaign specific. It would be much simpler from the advertisers perspective to make it account specific.

Well, they weren't in any big hurry to offer this feature in the first place, so maybe they don't want to make it too easy to use. :-)

markus007

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:38 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just press a button and it shows me refering adsense domain, number of referals, number of signups/conversion etc. I have yet to find a scrapper site that is even remotely close to earing me a profit. Users are tricked onto clicking on the ad and have no desire to buy anything.

Webwork

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:38 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

A limit of 25 blocks creates a well intentioned and welcome system that is broken from the start unfortunately. The people who find their sites starting to lose revenue by exclusion will simply respond by putting up more sites.

What might be helpful, especially with "bad site networks", is a control that allows you to ban by AdSense member ID. Kill 1 ID and kill 50 or 3,000 dubious networked sites. However, in that scenario, the bad egg will respond by having his 17 cousins sign up for AdSense and use them to spawn sites with new IDs that aren't blocked and it's whack a mole all over again.

Perhaps the advertiser opt-in by domain model will become the high yield channel, and the run of the house (take all comers, with limited exceptions) model will continue to drive down advertiser cost and publisher revenue in the other take-all-comers channel.

Either that, or compel publishers to submit domains for inclusion in a domain bound contextual ad distribution system and set up standards that apply specifically to a domain bound model.

In the end I suspect the domain bound model will be the easiest to control for quality. What I'd like to know is whether it's that much harder to implement domain limited controls/feeds or what, exactly, is the financial consideration set against the model? Is it the issue of readily available (to competitive threats) publisher lists? On that score, I thought search engines were supposed to be good at assembling lists, so why bother worrying about someone finding out about your list? The competitors can simply tune their bot to track down your member list anyway, right?

The answer is out there somewhere.

Psssst. It's buried under the ice of the polar ice cap.

stuartmcdonald

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:41 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Janethuggard, I assume your missive is in defence of scrapers -- I'm not fussed about the conversions I'd lose -- scrapers are a business model I despise, and if only Google would let me ban more than 25 of them I'd ban every single one.

Not all decisions need be made by looking at the bottom line.

I don't buy motorbikes off bike-thieves, I don't buy a cellphone of a guy in the pub, and I don't advertise on scraper sites.

The bottomline has nothing to do with it.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 2:58 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Janethuggard wrote:

From a publishers point of view, seems to me there is only one logical way to cull the sites, where your ad appears, conversion rate.

Do you really care if your ad is seen on mickeymouseadsensecontent.com if 80% of those who click the ad, then buy? If you do, maybe your priorities are not completely in order. The purpose of advertising the product, is to sell it. The reason we sell, is to make money. Focus on the root reason you advertise.

First of all, many advertisers do care where their ads appear. Not long ago, there were news stories about Kraft cancelling its content ads after an ad showed up on a neo-nazi site. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates a point: that advertisers who have a brand name, a reputation, or a boss looking over their shoulder have to think about more than conversion rates.

Second, how many AdWords/AdSense advertisers are desperate for impressions and clicks? If Joe Advertiser is able to spend his budget every day, why shouldn't he spend that money in high-quality media where even the ads that don't generate clicks will promote his message and URL in a favorable way?

The anonymous affiliate who's selling widgets on eBay or hotel rooms in Bombay may not care where his ads appear, as long as he's making money. But Google obviously wants to expand its business beyond the traditional PPC base, and giving more control to advertisers who expect, demand, and are perfectly capable of using such control is a step in that direction.

hunderdown

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:12 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

As an AdSense publisher who has never even used AdWords, I just want to say I was very excited to see this on the WebmasterWorld home page this morning! This is great news for the content sites like mine. Thanks, Google.

AWildman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:17 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Amen, stuart! As I was clicking on those 86 links to these crap sites, I'd say 75% were all the SAME scraper site. 75%! I didn't see a SINGLE content site that I didn't blacklist for one of my campaigns, that is how bad it is. I don't want to spend my (company's) advertising budget on sites with which I take issue.

janethuggard

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:22 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

My point is not directed towards scraper sites, entirely.

My point is directed at the notion that you, or you, or you, should have the power to blacklist any site, just because you despise it. If you have issues, solve them for yourselves. Don't try to dictate to me, whether I should be able to earn my money, in the legal way I see fit.

The problem with blacklisting, is it NEVER ends. Today you blacklist scraper sites, tomorrow directories, the next day educational sites, because people only click to learn, not to buy...where does it end? It doesn't.

If you don't want to have your ads seen on a site, and you are willing to lose whatever revenue that site provides, if any, that is YOUR decision. Blacklisting a site, worldwide, based on your own narrow minded views, can cause you to lose that business, you so dearly love, when you're sued for such an over the edge point of view, as blacklisting. I am not saying I agree with your view of scaper sites, or not. It is not the point. The point is doing something that will ruin another LEGAL business model, by blacklisting, because you do not agree with it.

The second point, was that you can not merely determine what sites have a high conversion rate, based on a hour of research. I have never seen a marketing department in any corporation in the world, who could do that kind of evaluation during lunch. I'm saying, take the time to see what is working, and what is not, to the bottom line, with thorough research.

Saying that buying bikes from thieves is akin to scraper sites, is way off base. Bike theft is illegal, and scraper sites are a business model, that is not illegal, whether you like it, agree with it or not.

It is that very kind of deep ender reactionism that agitates people into carrying torches into the night. The next thing you know witches are burned at the stake. It is illogical, irrational, and is scare mongering.

buckworks

WebmasterWorld Administrator buckworks us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:29 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I didn't see a SINGLE content site that I didn't blacklist

Huh?
Sounds as though your definition of a content site is quite different from mine.

markus007

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:38 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is it possible to ban domainpark?

buckworks

WebmasterWorld Administrator buckworks us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:40 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Saying that buying bikes from thieves is akin to scraper sites, is way off base. Bike theft is illegal, and scraper sites are a business model, that is not illegal, whether you like it, agree with it or not.

Some people base their decisions on a different standard than whether something is merely "not illegal".

vanderbolt

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:40 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

We run a large campaign with tens of thousands of KWs. It would be a huge job to go through the logs, visit the syndicated pages and determine the unwanted domains.

Ideally, it would be great if GG could provide sorted ranking of content sites based on conversions, ctr and impressions. It would make the job much easier in locating content sites that don't work for you.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:42 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

My point is directed at the notion that you, or you, or you, should have the power to blacklist any site, just because you despise it....I am not saying I agree with your view of scaper sites, or not. It is not the point. The point is doing something that will ruin another LEGAL business model, by blacklisting, because you do not agree with it.

Should Tiffany's be required to advertise in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER just because the ENQUIRER thinks it's entitled to the advertiser's money? Should General Motors be required to advertise in bulk-mail shopping supplements just because the direct-mail company feels that its business model will be threatened if GM prefers to spend its money elsewhere?

In the brick-and-mortar world, advertisers get to decide where their ads appear (or don't appear). Why should the online world be any different?

Spudstr

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:52 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

just went through 450k clicks... Approx 7500 uniq domains have sent me traffic.. compiled a list and count of the root domains and totals..

i've noticed a good amount of the ref sites are IP based not TLD's! #*$!.#*$!.xxx.xxx there needs to be a way to filter this out of google adwords in other words only show the ad if its on a fully qualified domain name and not IP's. Lots.. and lots.. of scraper sites.. 25 wont do justice :-/

however blocking the IP only refs will help ALOT!

i would also like to add if you could implment a wild card block on domains that would be awesome too.

for example

*.tripod.com would be just swell :)

fischermx

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:56 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)


if I'd have realized that most were this awful. Largely, they are parked domains and scraper sites.

I'm also going to ban scrapper sites, but I'd think twice about parked domains.
I get very good traffic from some parked domains, specially those parked in Sedo.

ogletree

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



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:57 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now be carefull with this. If you just automaticly get rid of all sites you don't like then that is no differnt than the way things already were. You need to get rid of them slowly and pay attention to your sales. Some site you think is total junk may be bringing you money. Don't just take sites out because you don't like them take them out because you don't get sales.

I have sites that I know would be listed in that list by most people posting here. I make a lot of money on Pay per Lead and not per click and my advertisers are very happy with my junk site. Just a warning.

[edited by: ogletree at 3:59 pm (utc) on May 6, 2005]

Pass the Dutchie

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 3:58 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would love to ban certain ads from google. For certain key phrases our sites rank well enough not to purchase adwords for display in google. For terms that perform well in google's serps I want to be able to show ads purely on google's network where in some cases the first 10 listings are google sponsors. I don't want to display ads for terms on google itself as for cetain terms most people who click on our ad had also clicked on our serp listing. Good for G but not ideal for us or the user.

G if you are listing we would booooost our marketing budget ten fold if we could ban you!

PCInk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:03 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blacklisting a site, worldwide, based on your own narrow minded views, can cause you to lose that business, you so dearly love, when you're sued for such an over the edge point of view, as blacklisting.

An advertiser cannot be sued for terminating any advertising unless a specific contract is made between the two companies and one company breaks that contract. An AdWords advertiser has no contract with an AdSense publisher.

Look at this as a positive: Currently I have had poor conversions on AdSense (I am an AdWords advertiser). Most of my campaigns do not appear on publishers sites - probably because of one or two poor performing (possibly click-fraud) sites - thus penalising genuine sites that are all now losing my advertising.

At least now, I have a choice of blocking the few problem sites.

AdSense advertisers have been able to do the reverse for quite some time: Banning an advertiser from their site. Why not the reverse?

I think it is a good move: Google can now analyse the blacklisted sites and it will be easier for them to review the AdSense accounts which are causing click-fraud problems.

wayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:10 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does this also work for the search network, and
not just the content network, because I have
campaigns where I only use the search network,
and I still have this option to exclude domain
names showing?

Edit: I just came across this page:
https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13248&hl=en_US
where it says it is for the content network only.
But it still shows the option on campaigns where
I only use the search network.

[edited by: wayne at 4:13 pm (utc) on May 6, 2005]

clearvision

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:12 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Saying that buying bikes from thieves is akin to scraper sites, is way off base. Bike theft is illegal, and scraper sites are a business model, that is not illegal, whether you like it, agree with it or not.

Excuse me, but scrapper sites stole my content and content of many others! How is that legal?

They take keyword phrases verbatim, place it on a site and call it a directory that you can't click through. They harvest other peoples hard work and use it for themselves...should I stop here?

javahava

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:17 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I say pull all your ads from scraper sites now. As more advertisers do so, you don't want to be the one left holding the bag - otherwise, you'll be one of the few advertisers left that are willing to advertise on such scummy sites, and your ROI will decrease even further (since Google will still need to feed these parasites ads) as there are less advertisers to distribute across these sites.

ogletree

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



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:21 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can we ad google.com. That is the one that I really don't want my ads on. I have been trying to find a way to get my ads to show up on AOL only.

elsewhen

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:25 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would love to ban certain ads from google. For certain key phrases our sites rank well enough not to purchase adwords for display in google.

dutchie... you can do this right now... just make two identical campaigns with the same keywords - one that is just for the content network, and one that is just for search. then go through the campaign for the search network and delete the keywords that you dont want to appear on the search network.

[edited by: elsewhen at 4:31 pm (utc) on May 6, 2005]

janethuggard

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:26 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Europe... again, the example doesn't fit the blacklisting problem. General Motors gets to decide they don't want to be seen in the National Garbage Scoop Daily. They don't blacklist that rag. It is a personal decision.

Ok. Let's all ban the scaper sits from our ad budgets. Good idea, right?

I'm angry because the scraper sites have out seo'd me (wrong, I have out seo'd them, having done my job correctly so this is not an issue I have) They rank #1 for my keyword, because I have been an seo failure. So, my hatred of them says, don't send me traffic, I don't need sales from visitors you send me.

Reality is.... I am #1 for my keyword. My competitors may be #2 and #3, with scraper sites holding #4 through #100, in worst case scenarios, with other competitors hold #101 and beyond. I might have missed the visitors with my #1 listing, and they see #2 and #3 and also unimpressed. By the time they see #4, they are willing to take a chance,and because I rank #1, I am also likely #1 in the scraper site results. I get my second crack at getting that visitor, from each and every scraper, site below me.

Scraper sites are the electronic version of the oldest marketing form known to man, word of mouth. If you do your job, out seo them, and then use them as opportunities to get additional chances to show your product or service, they are an asset, not a liablity. They are free advertising.

As an asset, if they rank beneath me, my site is shown, the visitors sees it, clicks it, and ultimately comes to me, I have achieved my objective, to sell. If the visitor to the scaper site, sees my ad there, he only saw it, because the scraper site outranked me....

or

maybe, the visitors came to my site main page through my #1 ranking, didn't browse, went back down the search results, found the scraper site, and this time... another page, deeper in my site, that I was doing promo on was featured in an Adwords ad on the scraper site, and that impressed the visitors, who came back and took a second look. You want to ban that? lol. You know... I don't see the logic in that.

Seems to me that making sure your site is seo, and the product and price points are inline with the market, is more important, than banning word of mouth sites.

yowza

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:29 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

So why don't we have this capability for the Google search network? There's a lot of sites there I'd like to exclude.

I've had a problem with the search network for years. I've posted several times on it, but nobody seems to care that Google allows BIG publishers to be considered part of the search network.

I'm sorry, but Amazon is not a search engine and should not be in the search network.

Allowing advertisers the ability to filter out a measly 25 sites is a good start, but not even close to the best solution.

If I want to spend my money on advertising, why can't I dictate where it goes? If Google were concerned with fulfilling advertiser demands, they would give us more tools to work with so that our ads would only appear on high-quality sites. Unfortunately, it appears that they would rather collect the profits from low-quality publisher sites than make their advertisers happy.

zjacob



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:43 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Two words: ban scrapers.

oddsod

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 5284 posted 4:44 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Advertisers would generally block sites in their own country only. I'm assuming very few of them would have the time, inclination or ability to find a way to check what's being displayed elsewhere in the world.

AWA, do you have any plan to show advertisers the list of sites in other countries where their ads are being shown?

This 116 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 116 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
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