homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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 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

 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 :)



 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.



 5:07 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I continually had a problem with chinese sites

LOL, don't tell me you didn't ban Chinese since the begining? ;)
I usually add ALL the countries, then remove China, just China. My first experience was with a site which supposedly is just offering smileys, while my site was very techy. I'm sure they were some spyware or weird stuff.


 8:17 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)


>Thought about this: What if one of the content URLs >is sending you people who visit then come back >later to buy...are we deleting a potential profit >center if they send a large amount of traffic our >way, but it converts later :)

Getting off topic, me thinks, but I agree: research I recently read has shown that often people who purchase online do plenty of online research before actually buying products.

My first post, btw. Hi y'all! :-)



 6:48 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now Google needs to allow Campaign Negative Sites for the Search Network.


 5:21 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I spent a couple of hours checking through sites that brought traffic to my site via the AdWords - some of them really do not make sense.

Hope Google will increase the number of sites one is allowed to exclude!



 11:12 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

┬┐Did you think is a goog idea to make a list of all the negative sites? Then you can help us in <link removed>

[edited by: eWhisper at 11:47 am (utc) on May 9, 2005]
[edit reason] Please Don't Drop URLs Tos [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

Marketing Guy

 11:21 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Negative,

I suggested creating a list of negative sites earlier on, but in retrospect a public one is probably a bad idea unless you have a secure and effective review process in place - simply because it's likely to be misused by people adding their competition to.

The only really effective use of a negative list would be:

> Internal only
> Private list shared by large Adwords spenders (or other trusted colleagues)
> A very well moderated public site, but I would suspect that even listing pure spam sites would bring up legal issues.

Given the result of such a list would be to hurt the income of the sites listed, you can bet that you would make a lot of enemies! ;)



 11:25 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can you add a travel category to that please?

Great idea - I was going to do www.scraper-sites-we-all-love.com so that you could argue it was actually a promotion tool when a scraper tries to sue your arse off!

You have my bookmark!


 11:33 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Scott I know always my sites don't like everybody, but I can't design for everybody.

Stuartmcdonald you have your travel category,

Thank you for you colaboration.


 9:49 pm on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't see how a negative sites list could be good. It is so easy to manipulate. Once a competitive webmaster is on it, will she put her competitors on it? And in the end, will a negative sites list become a list of the most competitive sites in the niche?

IMHO it's a disaster in the works, as are most negative things. We need positive tools, and perhaps less energy put into protectionist stuff like this.


 10:26 pm on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now that this thread is back at the top, and has hit 100 posts, I thought I'd jump in and say that I'm still passing feedback on to appropriate teams. Thanks for all of your comments.

And yes, I did hear the 'many more than 25 exclusions' comments, loud and clear. ;)

Also, like paybacksa, I'd tend to approach published lists of 'Sites to Avoid' with a healthy sense of caution, as well as a commitment to do at least a bit of research before excluding.



 11:12 pm on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Paybackusa - its just a list for reference, I wouldn't assume people would automatically block all members of the list - rather it's creating an easily referred to list that would contain a list of sites you may want to cull.

If Google cannot/will not give a list to the advertisers of all publishers, I think something like this is useful and fills an information void.

Having looked at the negative sites website that was mentioned above, perhaps better still if it wasn't "negative" but rather just a list of adsense publishers that has been categorised - you could access the "widget" category for example and run through the list of sites (reviewing where you think required) the sites and decided which you want to opt out of.

AWA thanks for noting the 25 limit issue - if you must have a limit 250 would be a better one.


 12:12 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)


Suggestion on negative sites.

Please Please provide account-wide negative sites. I've excluded 20 sites - all the same on all campaigns.


 12:18 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

AWA why are scraper sites allowed in google adsense? I thought the terms prohibited sites that are built specifically to promote adwords.


 2:08 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

AWA why are scraper sites allowed in google adsense? I thought the terms prohibited sites that are built specifically to promote adwords.

Quite frankly I don't understand ...

What IF scrapper sites where running another kind of advertisments, I know some that does it? what if they were just serving to affiliates, I know some others, too?
Who would you (all) be complaining to?


 4:10 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

So how are people tracking conversions back to individual content sites? Seems like the only way would be to use something like ClickTracks or something that can track the referring URL that contains pagead2.googlesyndication.com. Is there another way?


 4:11 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

What IF scrapper sites where running another kind of advertisments, I know some that does it? what if they were just serving to affiliates, I know some others, too?
Who would you (all) be complaining to?

Then it wouldn't matter because I wouldn't be paying them to click my ads. As it is, I did the primary negative site switch and turned off Adsense ads because 90%+ of the clicks were trash. I had exactly one sale from a content ad and it was $30. I had spent way over $800 to get this before I realized what trash it was and turned it off. I tried again last summer during the rebate period, and got nothing but more junk clicks. I don't want to pay for clicks from people who just view one page and leave. I know the landing pages are acceptable because regular Adwors traffic converts well.


 5:18 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

FYI there seems to be a bug in the negative site system that doesn't allow you to enter certain domains such as .ba, .tk, etc. This is crazy since these are the worst sites of all!


 5:32 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone else think that this whole negative site thing is just Google's way to get us to do their tedious work for them? Let the advertisers find and identify all the crappy sites they've let show their ads, so they can get rid of them and clean up their act, all while saving 1000s of man hours versus having to do it themselves? I mean, if this was really supposed to help empower advertisers they wouldn't limit us to just 25. I came up with my list of 25 in about 3 seconds. I would need to list hundreds if not 1000s of sites in order to weed out all the junk ...


 9:34 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

It would be useful also to block a publisher id number, because some webmasters have thousands of scraper sites, but the same publisher id number.


 10:58 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

What IF scrapper sites where running another kind of advertisments, I know some that does it? what if they were just serving to affiliates, I know some others, too?
Who would you (all) be complaining to?

Google Terms: No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

Most people wouldn't complain if their own ads weren't showing on the sites. The sites in fact are just another form of search engine spam. Search engine spammers make things hard on everyone else. The algo will eventually change to eliminate these sites and good sites will be taken down with them.

People don't want to click on search results in Google and be taken to another list of search results. Scraper sites are created only to make some quick easy money. These people could spend some time and effort to make a site of value. In the long run they will come out better because they won't have to come up with a new way to make money when the scraper sites are dropped from the engines. It's just a matter of time before it happens.


 6:23 pm on May 11, 2005 (gmt 0)


For all advertisers using the conversion tracker add a option that allows you to the following.

Do not advertise on content sites having less then X conversion rate.


 8:49 pm on May 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

I get hundreds of clicks per day from content sites and it always shows 0 conversions. So I can only assume that very few content sites actually allow user tracking in order to allow conversion tracking to work properly? My conversion tracking works fine for all my Google only and search campaigns.


 12:26 am on May 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

007 that's a great idea for us advertisers.

It also benefits GG in that it would give more users the incentive to use conversion tracking. It will also bring in more users to content advertising.


 4:15 am on May 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi all,

In a couple of hours I'll be passing on all the feedback here, from about this same time last week, forward. Thanks again for your instructive comments.



 4:40 am on May 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

AdWordsAdvisor its good to see you are passing on this info in your weekly team meetings. I've sat in on one of those meetings so i know that stuff is heard.

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