| 7:16 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I tried it at $.05 and it took it; I then lowered it down to $.01 and that triggered the minimum click warning that said I had to raise it to $.04 or otherwise improve my quality.
(That was adding it into an existing Ad Group - did you mean I should make a new one just for this word?)
| 7:23 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, interesting. When I made a new Ad Group for it, and put it in at $.01, it told me I had to raise it to ten cents.
What this all means, I have no idea.
| 7:36 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I add "fideladeloopiedoo" into an other adgroup it charges me $ 5.00 instead of $ 0.40! What the...?
The point is "fideladeloopiedoo" is a complete meaningless nonsensical word. It can not have any relation to ad-copy of any campaign, for none of us.
Why on earth should "fideladeloopiedoo" have a different quality score for 2 brand new adgroups in the same campaign, with exactly the same ad-copy except for that group #1 deals with widgets in Orlando, and group #2 with widgets in Miami.
This nonsense keyword is in both cases not related to the ad-copy whatsoever.
If the bidding system is based on quality, the minimum bid should be the same in both groups. Anyone?
| 7:48 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
.04 was required on my end. Granted, this was added into an existing ad group that has been running for almost 2 years with decent CTR. Also, I did not try to lower the bid after it was activated.
| 7:52 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
$0.30 for me
| 7:53 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And in another client account, $0.05 was fine.
| 8:10 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No difference for matching - asked to pay 0.10 in the adgroup with long term CTR about 0.3%.
Asked to pay 0.02 in the adgroup with long term CTR about 8%.
Both adgroups in the same account - this month average CTR about 1.9%
Totaly irrelevant adcopy.
| 8:38 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Asked me for 3 pence (I'm in the UK) where the minimum bid is supposedly 4 pence. Fideladeloopiedoo-tastic.
| 11:59 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For the sheer hell of it, thought I'd give it a go - also (in UK, but bidding globally) seeing £0.03...
|Asked me for 3 pence (I'm in the UK) where the minimum bid is supposedly 4 pence. Fideladeloopiedoo-tastic. |
Lowest I've successfully bid is £0.03 - lowest I'm paying is £0.01 - and that's for legitimate kw's, not such as the wonderful fideladeloopiedoo. By the way, anyone actually got a click out of this? That would be impressive as G shows no results for a word it allegedly values enough to assign a price to. Lol!
| 11:54 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You guys have to stop bidding on this stuff. It's our trademark term. My grandfather started making fideladeloopiedoos in 1893 and the business has been in the family eversince. $9.99 per fideladeloopiedoo plus shipping & handling at www.fideladeloopiedoo.com if anyone's interested. They make great conversation pieces.
| 1:50 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In a Campaign where my maximum bid is only $.04, fideladeloopiedoo requires $.03 to go active.
In a Campaign where my maximum bid is $1.10, fideladeloopiedoo requires $.04 to go active.
| 3:38 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Adwords & Adsense are all "Flapdoodle " anyway ;~)
It would be interesting what Smart Pricing does to the term ;~)
| 5:09 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
With a few more details like those provided by dave741, we may be able to get a handle on the "Quality Score" formula. Clearly the minimum CPC is tied into a bunch of factors, regardless of the usefulness of the term.
| 5:24 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Clearly the minimum CPC is tied into a bunch of factors, regardless of the usefulness of the term."
But as it appears to be, also regardless of their relation to the ad-copy.
"fideladeloopiedoo" can not possibly have any relevant relation to any ad-copy. Yet we all get different minimum bids.
So why should I believe the relation between a keyword and the ad-copy is relevant at all?
| 6:21 pm on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hope none of you folks are actually getting charged for any clicks.
I just did a search at google for "fideladeloopiedoo" and got a "no matching documents" SERP.
You'll all be happy to know there were no adwords displayed. So I guess it's just whatever light a term like this might shine on their pricing algo(s).
| 7:16 pm on Sep 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm TOTALLY NEW to Adwords. I created my account last night. Iíve been trying to learn the program and the fideladeloopiedoo experiment sounds like a good test to see how things work.
I donít know whether my account will be a good measure of results because I havenít fully activated it by entering billing information into it yet, but I am able to create ad groups and get prices on keywords.
In my own campaign I only have 1 keyword at this time. Iím advertising in another language so Iíll have to translate all of my keywords. I just entered one to get the account going. I have a daily budget of $5.00 and my keyword was given a price of $0.10 by Google.
To participate in the fideladeloopiedoo experiment I created a new campaign. I made up an ad that HAS ABSOLUTELY no relevance to the nonsensical keyword.
This ad has NO relevance to the key
It should get the same price
I entered a daily budget of $5.00. At first I tried $0.01, and I thought I had it for that price. Then I used the traffic estimator to determine whether the ad would be active or not. I got the fideladeloopiedoo keyword to go active for $0.03.
As a little further test I tried creating another ad.
Another Ad Test
There is almost nothing the same
between the two ads
I couldnít do anything about the daily budget for this ad. Since they are in the same campaign I guess they are feeding from the same daily budget.
I HAD to bid $0.05 on the second ad to make it active.
WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE? The keyword CANíT have any relevance to the ad.
I guess the fideladeloopiedoo experiment continues without actually finding any clear answers. :(
| 8:07 pm on Sep 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I tried it and got 3, 4, and 10 cent minimums. The amount seemed to be correlated with the adgroups historical CTR.
| 9:33 pm on Sep 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You folks are wonderful to join my experiment, many thanks to all of you! Didn't mean to bother you, was just very curious. So now we know, a completely meaningless keyword with no relation to ad-copy whatsoever can be charged with totally different minimum bids, even in completely new campaigns with the same CTR history (zero).
| 9:55 pm on Sep 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is an interesting thread and should give some mathmatically inclined (or bored) individual an opportunity to work on their differential equations and develop some meaningful information. Let me know if any develops.
| 2:13 am on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do have a little to add to my earlier post.
In the ad I had created before I had done the test I had used one keyword for the ad. That keyword WAS IN the top line of the ad. In fact it was the ONLY thing on the top line of the ad. I got a minimum bid of $0.10. Thatís TWICE what I got for a NONSENSICAL keyword that WASNíT EVEN part of the ad and 3 TIMES what I paid for the least expensive ad THAT WAS TOTAL NONSENSE.
Didnít I see it somewhere that advertisers are REWARDED for having good keywords that are relevant to the ad? So far the results of this experiment make it look like ITíS JUST THE OPPOSITE.
I tried another experiment, but I got stopped by Googleís spell check.
Best fideladeloopiedoo around
Get your fideladeloopiedoo now
I wanted to use the FICTITIOUS keyword in my FICTITIOUS ad as many times as I could. I used the Webmasterworld URL because I made the landing URL the forum page for this thread that has the keyword on it. I thought that Iíd improve my QUALITY SCORE if my keyword was VERY RELEVANT to the ad and the landing page.
I wonder if Google would allow and exception for a test? If I wasnít afraid of making a bad name for myself with Google then I would try to get an exception.
By the way has anyone did a search for fideladeloopiedoo on Google lately? SOMEONE has managed to get the word into their site somehow. I guess itís something dynamic because I searched the page for the word and it didnít come up.
By the way humblebeginnings I actually think this thread is a good idea. Testing things to see whatís going on is the only way weíre going to know whether the system is working right or not.
So far it looks like the minimum bid has problems and it looks like the daily budget has problems too. NO ONE should have to bid 3 TIMES what they are willing to pay just to get their ad to run throughout the day. Again Iíve seen mixed results from people who have discussed it in other threads. One guy said that they CHARGED HIM $100 for 5 clicks at $20 / click and someone else said that they are bidding high and only being charged $0.04 for clicks.
Is ANYONE actually spending ALL of their daily budget in a day?
Iíve heard it said that the helpful Google algorithms are spreading our impressions throughout the day. If IT WAS WORKING the way it was supposed to then NO ONE should have to raise their daily budget into the VERY SCARY amounts Iíve seen posted just to get their ad to show throughout the day.
Software IS ALWAYS a work in progress. Windows XP is building SERVICE PACK 3 right now. I guess Google just redid a lot of things in their Adwords system. I wonder whether Google is considering a SERVICE PACK for all the NEW FEATURES they have implemented into the system?
| 6:29 am on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In one campaign I tried 0.01, AW insisted on 0.05.
In another I tried 0.01, AW demanded 0.04.
Ditto #2 in a 3rd campaign.
| 12:44 pm on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AlienPsychic51 wrote "By the way has anyone did a search for fideladeloopiedoo on Google lately? SOMEONE has managed to get the word into their site somehow. I guess itís something dynamic because I searched the page for the word and it didnít come up."
I had done a search and saw the same item. I believe they have included the word fideladeloopiedoo in their title. I did the google search, clicked on the link and viewed the source, then I typed in the URL and viewed the source, it was still there. I even closed the browser to end the session and typed in the URL, again it was still there. Cookies? Doesn't appear to be. Other spyware. Doesn't appear to be.
If it's dynamic, it's cool.
If it's not, why?
Still think using nonsensical terms like this would be a great way to develop some correlation between campaign CTR and pricing.
| 12:50 pm on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Fideladeloopiedoo - Current Bid £0.01
Increase quality or bid £0.02 to activate
Fideladeloopiedoo-tastic - Current Bid £0.01
Increase quality or bid £0.02 to activate
| 5:03 pm on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This experiment is geting weirder every day.
And all of you are contributing to one curious discovery after an other!
It is indeed a fact now that if one searches on Google for fideladeloopiedoo, several sites have adapted the word! Great observation Alien! This probably means that fideladeloopiedoo is 'stolen' from this thread by scraper sites. Now 3 new questions come to mind, but beware, a lot of speculation from my part here!
1) What if even more scrapers start mentioning fideladeloopiedoo? Would it be possible that Adwords will gradually consider fideladeloopiedoo an 'established' keyword, and thus give it an other quality score, and therefore another minimum bid?
Remember AWA stated that part of the Adwords algo is that every keyword has a certain quality 'in itself'.
I guess Adwords defines the quality 'in itself' not by getting a dictionary out of the closet all the time. Perhaps a keyword is just Googled, and judged on how many times and in what context it is used on the Internet, to determine the quality 'in itself'?
2) If the quality score of fideladeloopiedoo is at least partly defined by the way it appears on the Internet, would it be possible to manipulate the quality score of fideladeloopiedoo? What if one states that one can make fast cash with fideladeloopiedoo, I made a million dollar with fideladeloopiedoo or that fideladeloopiedoo is a mysterious new bidding method that will put an end to internet marketing as we know it? How will Adwords judge fideladeloopiedoo if scraper sites would adapt these sentences?
3) If the above means that one could manipulate the quality of keywords just by writing stuff about it on webpages that are indexed by Google, would it be possible to manipulate the quality score of keywords that are important to competitors? What if one would consistently create thousands of pages that would put a certain keyword in a dubious context, could one make Adwords believe this keyword is 'bad' in a way that a competitor is not able to bid on the keyword anymore?
Perhaps a lot of rubbish, but I wonder what you think of it...
| 10:24 pm on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For me :
I added it for $0.05 and worked.
The lowered to $0.01, it was disabled and asking me to raise it to $0.03.
| 12:29 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Latest fideladeloopiedoo newsflash!
People are putting fideladeloopiedoo in their title tags now, look at <site removed>
<site removed> gives a review of the fideladeloopiedoo experiment!
I will keep you informed about the mysterious new marketing method called fideladeloopiedoo;-])
[edited by: eWhisper at 8:07 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2005]
[edit reason] Please don't drop site names [/edit]
| 2:39 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am reminded of 'nigritude ultramarine', but believe that was a different test. -Larry
| 3:25 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My accountant says I should stop buying the stock. She beleives there is a fideladeloopiedoo bubble and it may burst any day now. ;-)
| 7:03 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not only by a scraper sites but a vacation rental sites too... Check who's actually paying money for it on G right now.
I was asked $0.03 for it but I thought it was too expensive ;)
| This 62 message thread spans 3 pages: 62 (  2 3 ) > > |