| 11:36 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm pretty sure a lot of people on here believe that to be the case but there is no proof.
I've tried that with some of my accounts and its about 50/50 on the effectiveness.
My hunch would lean towards no, b/c this would increase the number of spammish ads you'd see
Buy Widgets Here
We have great widgets
Widgets, Widgets and More widgets..
| 12:41 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Having the keyword in the ad tends to boost the CTR, which is an important part of the Adwords ranking algo. So, there can be indirect benefits, but so far as we know the algo doesn't hand out brownie points just for the presence of keywords.
| 1:10 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So then when it comes right down to it optimization of the ad for the keyword isn't really a 'relevancy factor'? If not, then there is no relevancy and the center cannot hold and the falcon cannot hear the falconer...
| 2:08 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|optimization of the ad for the keyword |
The key concept here is "optimization" ... as in finding the ideal balance point ... and you're optimizing for user response first and foremost.
It's a very rough beast.
| 4:42 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ive experimented with this .. i found that when creating an adgroup google lowers your min bid for that keyword if its in the title and ad text you have the keyword... example lets say your ad text say Discount Shoes and your keyword set contains Nike Footwear.. when you create the adgroup the system sets the min bid to lets say .50 cents... if you have Nike Footwear in your ad text google would set ur min bid lower... i called this and confirmed this with google and they said that the initial minimum bid is predicted based on the relevancy of your kw set and the a text... really the key now on google is to make sure your keywords to the ad's are as relevant as possible. Broad keywords give you more traffic but end up costing more in the long run...because the system will keep jacking up the min bid if the CTR is low... google wants to ensure that their inventory is getting the most amount of click thru's thereby increasing there rev...
| 1:05 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know where you've been, but if you skim around here in the forums, you'll see that this is not what has been happening. It may be what they told you but I've found them to be less than honest about that (or they just don't know). Some of my most relevant ads are the highest priced. I have tested by making irrelevant ads and kw, and gotten low min cost per click. It's like the opposite of what I was expecting. When looking at all my ads, it seems there are more of these examples than can be explained by random anomalies.
That does not mean that putting the kw in the ad text is a bad thing. It's not. I've also tested this. While G does not appear to care one way or the other that a kw is in the ad, users still click the ad more. This will increase ctr and maybe that is what G is looking for? I don't know 'cuz even my high ctr in conjunction with high relevance has a high min cpc. GRRR!
| 4:15 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hey Dr. X, Yea I've experienced this too but I think of course there are many other factors such as compeitors on the term. i also think google ups the min bid if the search volume is high and even if there is no compeition on a keyword. i think they do this to monetize their inventory as much as possible.
so either way.. low relevancy... low compeition high volume they will find a way to make the most money... i think the smartest move for google should be to based the quality score on just bid amount and get rid of this quality score thing all together. its sorta becoming like the googlebot , unpredictable ;)
| 4:36 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think this is the biggest factor we're having to deal with lately.
|i think they do this to monetize their inventory as much as possible. |
They won't do that. With a sooper seekret quality score, they can make their own adjustments without justification. Any change can be blamed on us not knowing what is involved with that quality score.
|i think the smartest move for google should be to based the quality score on just bid amount and get rid of this quality score thing all together. |
They like it like that. :-D
| 12:31 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If they just told us what they wanted for quality. Most of us would work night and day changing ads to meet that.
This is kind of like the old Sam Kennison act, "Just tell us what it is!"
| 12:59 am on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wrote them about relevance, QS and ad position and judging from the reply basically the only thing you should be working night and day to change is your bid.
Here's the email and reply -
Not much relevance mentioned there, just a whole load of QS. That goes against this though https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=21388&topic=29 which mentions ad relevance as a factor in QS -
This is the basis for measuring the quality of your keyword and determining your minimum bid. Quality Score is determined by your keyword's clickthrough rate (CTR), relevance of your ad text, historical keyword performance, and other relevancy factors.
But judging by the last paragraph of the Googler's email Quality Score means CTR to us and CPC to them both of which means $$$ to them.
(For a fun trip try reading the quality score definition and the Googler's reply over and over. After a while space and time will run together and you'll find yourself hurtling towards a colorful event horizon in the Horse Nebula. Try it. It's fun. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who's taken acid though.)
[edited by: eWhisper at 1:02 pm (utc) on Oct. 4, 2005]
[edit reason] Please don't post emails. See TOS. [/edit]