| 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?
| 5:12 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.
My understanding is that unclicking the search network doesn't turn off ads in Google itself, only search partners... once the new site-targeting comes into effect though your CPM ads won't show on Google, but also not on search partners.
| 5:36 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"A limit of 25 blocks"
Are advertisers limited to blocking only 25 sites?
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 5:38 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|My understanding is that unclicking the search network doesn't turn off ads in Google itself, only search partners... once the new site-targeting comes into effect though your CPM ads won't show on Google, but also not on search partners. |
Thanks for the feedback
Even if I uncheck both 'search network' and 'content network', adds continue to show up in google. I have also tried to ban google.com but still my adds show up on Google. Unless I can filter Google for set terms the ROI for these terms is not justified.
| 5:49 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In my industry, there aren't many scraper sites, so my dislike (not hatred) comes from the fact that I don't agree with that business model, not that there are scraper sites that are beating me in the SERPS. The only sites that beat me are legit sites, and I respect that. Defend it all you want, but I simply don't like the scraper site mentality and moreover, I'm not a fool for disliking it or blacklisting such sites from my AdWords campaigns.
I don't think anyone is fearmongering. I've read plenty of posts where people wished that their ads wouldn't appear on certain sites, and now they've been given that tool. That the majority of those who are using the tool are saying "Hey, I'm banning scraper sites" isn't an indication that they are trying to create a panic which will cause the downfall of profitable scraper sites. Frankly, I'm very grateful to the person who posted this thread and I would have banned scraper sites any how.
| 6:19 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if anyone at Google has considered how pathetic their system must be if the majority of advertisers responding in this thread feel that the ability to ban only 25 sites is ridiculous.
Rather than wasting time releasing worthless tools whose only purpuse is to make advertisers feel better, maybe they should spend some time evaluating their editorial revue process. (or lack thereof)
The whole system is a joke.
| 6:30 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I wonder if anyone at Google has considered how pathetic their system must be if the majority of advertisers responding in this thread feel that the ability to ban only 25 sites is ridiculous"
This new advertiser tool, while a good step forward, is probably just a panacea/bandaid/lip service/relations move.
I doubt if it is aimed at anyone here. More like the tens of thousands of small advertisers who have never heard the term scraper site, who don't run their own websites, and have never heard of sites like this. 25 really is a joke. Even in small niches like the ones I am aware of, there are many dozens if not hundreds of scrapers for certain keywords. I find them on a near daily basis.
| 7:07 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's a first step. A baby step, maybe, but a step in the right direction. The number is likely to be increased when they're able to handle the demand. (That's what happened with tracking channels on the publisher side.)
| 7:14 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The high volume of scraper crap that makes up a significant chunk of the network exists because Google doesn't have a per domain revue policy. Once you are approved, you can put your code anywhere you want. |
Amen. Many of us on the publisher side have been saying the same thing for some time. I like making money with Adsense and want to continue doing so. Why Google doesn't review each and every site to reinforce the integrity of the network as a whole is just incomprehensible to me.
| 7:37 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"That's what happened with tracking channels on the publisher side."
Good point. And they have so many pots boiling at the moment. And yet nary a word re: YPN
| 7:56 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I like this option, although I'd like it better if:
- I could list sites I want to be shown on
- there wouldn't be a limit
- a list was provided to choose from
- the negative keywords would be seperated for search and content
|I'd like to have removed all 86 sites I found. |
Then why don't you simply switch off the content network?
|I wish I could filter based on a specific word. |
You can, by adding negatives to your campaign keywords. Works for both content and search. Or at least, that's how I read it here: https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=9577&topic=81
AWA, are the account wide keywords also taken into account?
| 9:03 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Excuse me, but scrapper sites stole my content and content of many others! How is that legal? |
As well as any search engine or directory sites.
No, I surely don't defend scrapers, but the logic behind attacking them unconditionally is a bit flawed.
While I fully support the Google's move enabling filtering publishers, I am aligned with janethuggard regarding advertiser's motives for doing so;
Do you really want to block something that makes you money (if so), just because it is generally accepted as unethical?
Just because someone is making easy money, without hard work? Should I care about it?
The "new brave world" will hopefully come, but if you really insist on it, it will come with its price tag. There will be no place for ads in it at all.
Going back to filtering, it is indeed pity that an advertiser have the option of 25 sites only, but as HitProf already noted, there is always the option to turn off the content network completely.
| 9:13 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Rather than wasting time releasing worthless tools whose only purpuse is to make advertisers feel better, maybe they should spend some time evaluating their editorial revue process. (or lack thereof) |
For G to manually review each domain on which Adsense shows would probably be impossible. Once their advertisers review all their sites for themselves, then G has a large database of poorly performing sites.
I would hope that after the "top 25" worst offenders (scraper sites or not) are banned by many advertisers, G will weed out these accounts.
| 10:06 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
G is surely aware of syndication sites that send large volumes of traffic that convert at dismal rates.
Enough people have the G adwords ROI tool installed to give G enough data to extrapalate from.
I think this 'negative sites tool' does more to shut up us moaners at WebmasterWorld than actually make a difference to bottom lines of either Googles as a whole or even on small ad campaigns.
Just doesn't have any teeth... But, at least it is a step in the right direction.
I'd like to see a list of all of the sites sending me traffic through the content network (which BTW I turned off long ago). Go ahead and encrypt the info so that I can't see the actual domain names and contact them for advertising directly (which I would) and let me set filtering by conversion rates.
We know all of this info is available to google. I am sure there are plenty of great publishers I would live to get traffic from, but the bad few ruin it for the many good. I think a move like this is essential for Content Matches long term success.
Good step A - I may consider turning content back on depending on how this develops.
| 10:22 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Quite a few sites listing my ads seem to be parked, which in itself is not a problem as long as the domain names are closely related to my topic and could get related type-in traffic, but these are not and obviously just pointing at high-bidding ads...
So who do I toast? The individual names or the parking service, s***? It would be helpful to kill many birds with just one stone. Someone else mentioned not to be too hasty though, since they have sent some decent traffic - opinions?
Are such parking services on the content or search network?
| 11:59 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ahem, has anyone thought about allowing in ONLY sites that convert?
Can we have a positive filter rather than a negative one? please?
Otherwise, good start, excellent thread. Thanks AWA.
| 1:05 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In most cases, advertisers will not ban "bad sites" but their direct competitors I think.
| 1:36 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So far I'm happy with the new tool.
I blocked about 11 sites many of which I would have reported for click fraud (but it is too much trouble).
I created a tool that shows highest clicks by publisher ID so as to get most bang for my 25 slots.
Ad spending today is down 20%
Visitors down 25%
Revenue on adsense clicks is at all time high.
Customer calls about the same.
| 2:06 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sailor, why do you think you're seeing the increased adsense performance? Do you think it is a direct result of baning the 11 "most evil"?
| 2:32 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm one of the contrary thinkers when it comes to CTR. Some folks believe higher CTR causes lower EPC. For me it seems the higher CTR I get then the higher the EPC - it may be just my imagination.
Does Adsense know the quality of the visitors based on where they came from? Search terms? Site? I'm not sure but could somehow be that by removing obviously poor converting visitors that the remaining clicks are worth more. There isn't much Google doesn't know about people surfing the net.
Across 40 different topics, my EPC is up. CPM is up 40%
| 2:42 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|In most cases, advertisers will not ban "bad sites" but their direct competitors I think. |
Just not true. There is nothing I would like better then to be able to advertise in my competitor's sites and take away their customers :) Unfortunately they have banned my ads through their Adsense interface :(
| 3:05 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Across 40 different topics, my EPC is up. CPM is up 40% |
sailorjwd... congratulations on the improved results... but some or all of the eCPM rise might be attributable to the change mentioned in this thread:
| 3:10 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Else... nope. I only look at page impressions and I only have one ad per page.
(and no ad links)
| 5:45 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
People oughta reread the posts by WebGuerilla and Webwork. Obviously WW has parked domains. Fine. His point is all the more important knowing that. Parked domains, optimzed well and by the right providers, actualy deliver *above average* CT's and ROI. Huh? Yeah, that's right. :)
Then there's WG's comment. Fact is the advertisers, even with this offering, still have abysmally minimal transparency with this tool versus all other media choices. The beta testers (not me) and friends of beta testers (me) were LOL'ing at the triumphant tone of G in light of the difficulty in using the tool just to find out who the h*ll you're actually advertising with. :?
My eyes glaze over when I read the posts about how to go about figuring out which publishers should be excluded. Not that I don't apprecicate the input from the esteemed mods that are making their best efforts to assist those of us remaining in the stone age.
But what the hey. When I buy a TV program or radio program or magazine, guess what? I don't have to beg the seller of ad space to know what properties I'm buying. Nor do I need to use exotic analyitical tools to figure it all out.
The bread is being buttered on too many sides still.
TG for WG and the like.
| 4:54 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How long does it take content ads to show up? I figured I'd give it a try again since we can weed out some of the junk, but my ads aren't showing yet. Is it like search where new ads have to be approved before they go live, meaning it won't be until at least Monday before our new content ads show up?
| 5:09 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
for all those afraid of having their sites added to a blocked list... just be patient, if your site really is delivering such valuable traffic, then advertisers will notice a drop in conversions and reinstate you.
in the end, i think the market will take care of this and if you really are delivering value, then you will get paid.
| 6:11 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just my 2¢, I already like the idea of advertisers being able to ban sites (I am a publisher and not an advertiser, yet). Being able to TARGET sites for their ads would be great for me, I think.
My site is in a collectibles niche, and is a price guide. I get my data from many sources and crunch the numbers add relevant info and up to my site it goes.
Question is, if I have Widget ABC and say it has a high and low price of $4 and $10, respectively, and a user clicks on an ad, goes to a site where Widget ABC is offered for $20, and the user moves on, does that hurt me, re, smart pricing? Probably.
Also, that advertiser might just ban my site because he/she thinks his/her price is right and I am a nutjob, or, just harmful to his profits.
It's a niche with lots of latitude, though I do see some downside risk. Nevertheless, keep banning those scraper sites, as my CPM is much higher today than yesterday and I'm hoping it's a trend.
| 7:37 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've just dropped a site that was eating about 30% of my daily budget. Magically all the one-page-view visitors are gone. I'm seeing referals from a lot of difference places I didn't see before.
The overall quality traffic is UP.
I feel stupid I didn't do nothing before, but frankly I couldn't do other than switch off the content network.
I have to say that I'm new in all webmaster stuff, so I didn't see an alarm sign with that.
I think I can say, that unless you're in a very, very, very specific niche, you should not get, let's say more than 2-3% of your visitors from one single site. If you get more, let's say 20%, that would mean that site is getting about 20% of the traffic for sites running adsense in your niche, but this was not the case.
If for example, I sell "spare keyboard for dell computers", I could expect traffic from specific places, but if I sell "new computers, computers upgrades and printers", then in no way I could get that amount of traffic from a single place.
Well, I learned something.
| 11:50 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I found the same thing... a couple of sites with oddly high clicks from crappy no content sites were blocked and performance is up nicely. I continually had a problem with chinese sites and had several killed from adsense but it takes so much time to do the documentation.
90% of the sites sending visitors are less than 15 a day for me. It is easy to spot the suspect ones and kill them.
| 12:37 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well have spent the last day or so analysing where the traffic was coming from and it took me no time at all to reach the limit of 25 urls.
What I've found most eye-opening is some of the partners on the content network -- I remember reading somewhere that this was a "quality" network, and while there were some very pleasant surprises out there, there were also a lot (in my case anyway) of sites I wouldn't advertise on if I had a choice. I guess quality is in the eye of the beholder though...
I've seen a slight dip in traffic and improvement in Adwords CTR, while my Adsense CTR has improved significantly -- I wouldn't read too much into any of that yet though as I'm waiting for the blue moon to complete it's phase in the western hemisphere and for my weekly tea leaves reading -- both of which have about as much effect on my adsense earnings as anything else ;-)
| 2:49 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bottom line is, IMO, what choice did they have? None.
The biggies were complaining to high holy h*ll about the poor ROI on the content network. Everyone paying attention knew it. Had to change. If G doesn't pay at least some attention to those spending their billions with the Company, they'd be not long for this world.
And the big's will only have more influence going forward as they slowly catch up with the potential of the Web.
The question that remains is, how long will Big G be able to keep their finger in the hole without the dam burstng. Greater transparency and ease of use are coming...only a matter of time.
| This 116 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 116 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |