homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.174.90
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 208 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 208 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 > >     
Adwords Quality Score now includes rating of Landing Page
"looks at the content and layout of the pages linked from your ads"
whoisgregg

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



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 11:16 pm on Dec 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

From Inside Adwords [adwords.blogspot.com]:
In August, we introduced the Quality Score along with the launch of quality-based minimum bids, letting you know that we evaluate many factors, such as your ad text and clickthrough rate (CTR) to determine the minimum bid for your keyword. Today, we started incorporating a new factor into the Quality Score -- the landing page -- which will look at the content and layout of the pages linked from your ads.

Guidelines for landing pages [adwords.google.com]

 

arinick

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 4:32 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't see this as any surprise. Google is a business, a public one at that. Therefore, every decision that they make has to be a financial decision. If you look at this change in that light-- I think things become crystal clear.

As the searching public becomes more and more mature, there is no question that the quality of advertisements has to improve. If not, users will simply stop clicking ads as often. Plain and simple, Google had to make this change to improve the quality of the ads that display and the sites they lead to (particularly in premium positions) to ensure that their user base remains as profitable as possible.

I for one can't see this change adversely affecting legitimate businesses advertising themselves through Adwords. Those likely to be at the greatest risk are affiliates and arbitrage sites. From Google's updated Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines [adwords.google.com] it appears that these sites are going to have to make some real changes if they want to survive this:

If your business doesnít actually provide a service but refers clients to another business, say so in both your ad and on your site.

Time to look at your page titles, descriptive paragraphs, etc... right?

elsewhen

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 4:55 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

does adwords dount that a highly relevant ad for jokes will pull 10 or 20 times better than some ad for insurance?

based on my understanding, this is already factored into the equation. if the insurance advertiser is bidding 4 times what you are, and you are only getting 3 times the CTR - he is going to win out.

analyzing landing pages, however, could potentially help you. in the field of jokes however, the only automated way google could determine landing page quality/relevancy is page stickyness from users who click ads.

ipohopper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 4:59 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't think Google really cares about quality. They are just coming up with roundabout ways to increase bid prices. They are trying to blame you for the reason why the bid price is higher.

Hey. It's not my fault you have to pay $10 for a keyword. Its Yours!

iPo

Manga

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 5:07 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What if you have a landing page that rocks on conversions and they don't like it? You have to then pay more to keep it at the same level or lose rank. I am so sick of Google thinking they know what everybody is thinking. They are so arrogant. They are trying to dictate to us the way are sites need to look. They already do it in organic and now PPC. If I want to buy a TV there is a list of things I canít do but other than that I can make the stupidest commercial I want and as long as I pay the fee my ad runs when and where I want it.

You took the words right out of my mouth Ogletree. This is pure arrogance on Google's part.

BTW, for all the people who like this joke of a change, none of my ads were affected so this change actually benefits me by eliminating some of my competition. Nonetheless, this change is still a joke.

If the surfer doesn't like my site then he doesn't have to buy from me. Simple. The market will dictate how long I run my ad. If I am losing money then I will eventually run out of money and stop running ads. Simple.

At the same time if my site is making great sales from my campaigns then who the &%#@ is Google to come in and tell me that my landing page is unworthy? The market will dictate whether my landing page is worthy, not Google.

Moreover, with all the ridiculous secrecy about how they rate landing pages and everything else, how do I know that this is not just some underhanded tactic used to squeeze more money out of advertisers? Why should I believe in the gospel of Google? Why should I believe in their "do no evil" statement? Because they have nice colours in their logo? I don't think so!

kpaul

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 5:12 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Example:
If you advertise an offer for a free product or service, users shouldn't have to pass through excessive obstacles or make a purchase in order to receive the offer.

woohoo!

if true, this would be cool - at least on the other (adsense) side...

ddogg

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 5:33 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I believe Google is in fact trying to increase the quality of their ads with their many changes to the system. I think the problem is they release these changes in beta form and let many advertisers suffer while they tweak things. They need to test stuff out a lot longer before releasing it.

johnser

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 5:47 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>>>Google has 65% of the global search market ***because it continues to out-monetize anything else out there***

I like your posts Shorebreak but with respect, this is rubbish imho.

It has 65% of the global search market because of it's first mover advantage on inbound link analysis and their corresponding decent SERPs. Ads (& revenue) came much later.

People have got used Google now and it will be extremely hard to switch them to Yahoo/MSN

ddogg put his finger on it with:
"they release these changes in beta form and let many advertisers suffer while they tweak things"

As usual little guys gets hammered while "we continuously improve the user experience".

Improve the user experience all you like Google but use your own money to do it. This is a very poorly thought-through decision. As you can tell, I'm their biggest fan at the moment....

HughMungus

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:07 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

What does it matter if keywords like weather, jokes, mapquest and dictionary can only command low bids (on relevant ads) What does it matter if they are bid at even a penny - two - three - or four. We all know the end user and the advertisers will be served better by relavant ads / landing pages and i suspect the higher ctr produced by relavant ads will make up for the difference in bid prices

Just a theory here: maintenance cost. What gives Google a better profit margin, 10 advertisers bidding for a slot on a search result at $1 each or 100 advertisers bidding on a search result for $.10 each? The former because the cost to maintain 10 accounts is less than to maintain 100 accounts. Bonus questions: by what factor?

I'm thinking Google wants to move towards having fewer big advertisers who can afford to manage their own large, detailed and complex campaigns than a lot of smaller ones.

Again, just a theory.

DamonHD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:12 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi HM,

Interesting theory, but I think that AS/AW's strength is precisely that it chases the "long tail" of the market, eg the people who DoubleClick et al would not touch with a bargepole.

So I think that G tries to control costs, but accepts that they will be different and *possibly* higher (no corporate junkets for mom&pops though) for the smaller players than the big ones.

And *big* need not mean ethical, nor profitable.

Rgds

Damob

cubfan

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:14 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't think Google really cares about quality. They are just coming up with roundabout ways to increase bid prices. They are trying to blame you for the reason why the bid price is higher.

Hey. It's not my fault you have to pay $10 for a keyword. Its Yours!

iPo

I totally disagree with this iPo. Arinick is right that this is a business first. Their entire business is based on relevant results for their users. That includes AdWords ads. Google cares about nothing more than relevant results. SEM's are always trying to push the limits, especially in PPC. Google is forced to start including landing pages in their quality score because of the thousands of spammy arbitrage sites serving nothing but adsense. That is mostly what this is about. I have no problem with them doing this. I would do the same thing.

shorebreak

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:21 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Johnser,

I'll concur that Google won a big part of its marketshare by being a better search engine, but it's clear to me that getting AOL, InfoSpace, Ask Jeeves, Amazon and dozens of large international search engines to carry AdWords had everything to do with achieving higher monetization rates. Those huge distribution wins (not the least of which is AdSense) have growtn both non-Google.com *and* Google.com traffic immensely.

-Shorebreak

arinick

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:27 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm thinking Google wants to move towards having fewer big advertisers who can afford to manage their own large, detailed and complex campaigns than a lot of smaller ones.

Hugh, this is an interesting thought. But, while more than the lion's share of clicks are coming from the few at top positions-- it seems obvious that these ads should be where Google focuses their energies-- and I think it is likely that the impact of this new factor (while indeed benefiting 'the big guy' more times than not) will be felt anywhere ad relevance is lacking. IMO, by improving the quality of the sites that occupy these positions (mostly by penalizing those that aren't of 'obvious' relevance) Google will indeed be able to stabilize and even grow their ad revenues by improving user experience.

TomWaits

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:33 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is stupid.

ipohopper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:35 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

What Google cares about most is making shareholders happy. They owe 100% loyalty to their shareholders and not the users. They need to make sure that money is flowing in higher every quarter and the only way to do this is to raise bid prices. Don't forget they also have to worry about income generating partners like AOL switching to MSN adCenter.

Don't you think it's a coincidence that every time they increase the "user experience" it costs the advertisers more money?

Well. Last year I recieved a cool Google Mood Light radio as a Christmas Gift and this year it's the Quality Score on Landing Pages. Merry Xmas!

hunderdown

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:40 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't you think it's a coincidence that every time they increase the "user experience" it costs the advertisers more money?

It's funny, but on the AdSense side (my usual home--I'm just visiting), people have the opposite opinion--that improving the user experience leads to less money for publishers.

On the whole, I think Google is getting it about right. There will certainly be winners and losers with this change, but in the long term it should improve the quality of the program, bring more advertisers into it, and help the quality publishers too.

jtara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jtara us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:42 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am seeing a very interesting effect in my own campaigns today.

I go up against the big generic keyword-substitutors who write a generic ad and plug in, say, a book title, and just say "free shipping", etc. Nothing specific about the book.

I write targeted ads that specifically market a book, and land people on a product detail page at a big book retailer. (The generic guys often land you on a search page.)

The change had absolutely no effect on my campaigns, except to lower CPC. I'm not getting more or fewer exposures or clicks.

MOST of the ads I normally see on my keywords in lower positions are gone today, though.

The generic keyword-substitutors still dominate, as they did before. I get thrown-in only now and then. I might get displayed once for every ten times the knuckleheads do. But I get enough clicks to make it worth my while.

I do have some mature adgroups where the opposite is true. My ad is about all you will get, and the generic ads can't slip in.

I guess I should considered myself lucky that I am still in the game. I'm sure a lot of people woke-up to zeros this morning.

I know that the ranking works on a moving average, and it takes time to displace an established affiliate advertiser. So, perhaps I just need to be more patient.

elsewhen

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 6:44 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

At the same time if my site is making great sales from my campaigns then who the &%#@ is Google to come in and tell me that my landing page is unworthy? The market will dictate whether my landing page is worthy, not Google.

i think you are missing the point. there is a new weed appearing on the SERPs... there are adsense publishers who are advertising on huge numbers of keywords. whats on their pages? either nothing or scraped content. they are paying low amounts because they are unscrupulous and write anything on their ads to get high CTR.

a certain percentage of users who click on their ads, come to a worthless landing page with little more than adsense. there are only ads to click on and the only competition is the back button.

so these guys are getting fantastic "conversions" - and this is good for who?

i think google is trying to clean up their sponsored listings; of course in some cases the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, but this heppens with each change.

i think this is a move in the right direction because, it will protect adwords as a whole. if users get used to getting duped whenever they click on an ad, they will be less likely to click on ads in the future.

in short, it seems clear to me, that google is trying to protect its legitimate advertisers by weeding out the ones that arent contributing anything to the internet.

Essex_boy

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



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:14 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wonder if this is going to become the Florida of Adwords scene?

jim2003

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:15 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does anybody know if the "relevence" of a landing page is compared to the ad text, or if it is relevent to the keyword/phrase searched for. For example in an earlier post someone mentioned searching for jokes and arriving having an ad for credit cards on that page. It seems to me there are two distinct and separate questions. First if the credit card ad says "click here for the joke of the day" and when you click you get a credit card ad, that is a pretty bogus user experience.

But if the ad says "0% interest credit card for the first 100 joke lovers that signup today" that wouldn't seem to me to be misleading or a bad user experience to the clicker. But if the robot is comparing the landing page to the keyword "joke" it probably will not match. But if it compares the landing page to the text of the ad, it will be very relevent.

It seems to me that as long as the ad isn't misleading, then the only factors relevent to quality score should be CTR and Bid price. To continue my example if 10% of the people who search for Jokes decide to click on the hypothetical non-misleading credit card ad, then the ad is clearly relevent to the search term, and shouldn't be roboticly penalized.

Edited to add: I am assuming that the relevency comparison is to the keyphrase, since that would be the mentality consistent with comparing ads to organic search. But I haven't seen anything that proves that positively to me. Secondly, I think from a wisdom standpoint, comparing the relevency to the ad itself, is the more important point of relevency, that analyzing the landing page will provide. CTR is the best measure of whether or not the keyword is appropriate for the ad in question.

jtara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jtara us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:30 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, there does seem to be an unintended consequence of putting up more of these stupid generic keyword-substitution ads.

One has to assume that the small-fry with product-feed storefronts had to be getting enough traffic to make it worth their while. Unless they were just stupid with deep pockets. Can't imagine they were doing really great, but had to be doing SOME clickthrough, right?

Now, if my impressions/clicks are staying the same (I think now they may be down a bit, but not much - though the week in general has slacked a bit since Monday), that traffic has to be going somewhere. It had to go either to my type of ad or the generic type of ad.

I think the generic direct-affiliate ads are getting all the clicks that used to go to the cookie-cutter product-feed storefront affiliate sites. I'm not sure that's what Google intended. In a lot of cases, I just can't nudge them with a more targeted ad.

I get the sense that maybe some statistics got reset in this.

A Google rep confirmed to me the other day that account history IS a factor in quality score. But a well-known guru claims that as of September, quality score no longer factors-in account history. BTW, I got two different answers from two different Google reps, but they double-checked and said that, yes, it is a factor, "but don't assume it is a big factor."

So, the generic advertisers that have been doing this for some time and are spending 100,000's of thousands or millions on ads, are going to get a nudge if, say, ad statistics got reset.

But the stochastic process should fix that over time.

Right now, though, I'm not sure I like what I see as much as I did at first.

What you are going to see if you search for, for instance, a book title, are two affiliate ads for the top two online book sellers, which will land you directly at the bookseller's site. MAYBE one or two more ads from price-comparison services. And they are all going to be generic ads with {keyword} Free shipping, blah, blah.

Some of the ads for the product-feed storefronts WERE more creative than free shipping, blah, blah, though their landing page quality may not have been great.

Google fixed one problem. Now they have to fix the other. It doesn't appear to pay that well to write a relevant ad.

Richard Overvold

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:47 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Cloaking for Adwords anyone?

;)
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

jimh009

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:55 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> i think you are missing the point. there is a new weed appearing on the SERPs... there are adsense publishers who are advertising on huge numbers of keywords.

I'm still amazed that Google hasn't fixed this problem permanently yet by getting rid of the Adsense scraper sites to begin with. If they fixed this problem by getting rid of adsense on scraper sites, so many of their other problems - in both Organic Search and PPC - would disappear or be greatly minimized.

stevenmusumeche

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:56 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

We spend a lot of money on AdWords. As of last night, I don't really see a noticeable change in our traffic or CPC. I am in ecommerce, not affiliate marketing.

Richard Overvold

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 7:59 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Considering that these scrapers make Google alot of money, I do not think they are in the biggest of hurries to get rid of them, but in the public eye, they have to make it seem as though they are.

cubfan

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 9:12 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't you think it's a coincidence that every time they increase the "user experience" it costs the advertisers more money?

It only costs you more money if you're delivering a bunch of garbage to the users...if your ad is good and your site is good, it doesn't matter.

ipohopper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 9:28 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It only costs you more money if you're delivering a bunch of garbage to the users...

If someone was serving garbage to users they would have a horrible conversion rate and would be wasting money on each click causing them to remove the ad themselves. It's a self correcting system.

if your ad is good and your site is good, it doesn't matter.

According to who? If the site is good then it will have a good ROI. If it's bad then it will not and the advertiser will lose money causing them to remove it themselves.

werty

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 10:08 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with ipohopper. Conversion rate/ROAS of your landing page should be the only determining factor of its quality. If you are not making money from AdWords, you will automatically stop using their system, unless you like to lose money.

I am looking forward to figuring out what factors are included in the quality of a landing page.

So far what are the known factors?
CTR
Bid Price
Ad Text
Age of Campaign
where the keyword fits

What are some of the many factors that could be on page?
Title
Unique content
domain name
file name
volume of traffic
age of domain
keyword density
-points for affiliate links?

I am wondering how Google will handle/choke on all graphical landing pages. And how often they will re-spider a page to check quality.

NetPro

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 10:28 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

If someone was serving garbage to users they would have a horrible conversion rate and would be wasting money on each click causing them to remove the ad themselves. It's a self correcting system.

Okay, now lets say it takes the average advertiser 1 week to come to the decision that his ad isn't working on the chosen keywords. Now there are 10 other advertisers PER DAY trying to break into the same keywords to test to see if their ad/website results in conversions.

Somehow Google has to give these advertisers a chance of exposure. Leaving the system to 'correct itself' just won't work, it will soon be over crowded and similar to Yahoo's 'the max CPC wins' system. Google therefore comes up with their 'Quality Score' to determine which of these 100's of advertisers should be given the limited exposure. Remember that if Google picks the right advertiser, they will make the most money they possibly can, due to a good CTR and hopefully, conversion rate, which will result in further investment in Adwords.

So the quality score is now factoring in page content as well as ad text, overall account performance, etc, etc and lots of other things we don't know.

Lots of people are saying they don't see a change. I don't think anyone will until they try adding new keywords. Quality score is used to determine initial ranking, not continued ranking. If your quality score is lowered because your page content is a little off topic, the most you'll see is a rise in the minimum bid for that keyword, not an effect on the positioning of your ad for that keyword, as it's already running off it's ACTUAL CTR. If you stay above the minimum bid, the ad will continue to show much as it has before.

So my guess is that this addition will effect those who already struggle to get low minimum bids. Or those after the 'low hanging fruit'. Those with established campaigns probably won't miss a beat.

Its funny how Google effectively removed the quality factor a few months back with the introduction of minimum bids and the removal of the 0.5% CTR threashold. And now they're factoring it in again by looking at landing page content.

One things for sure, it's another 'invisible' factor to their algorithm.

whoisgregg

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



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 10:29 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It only costs you more money if you're delivering a bunch of garbage to the users...

If someone was serving garbage to users they would have a horrible conversion rate and would be wasting money on each click causing them to remove the ad themselves. It's a self correcting system.

Sorry, but a very poor landing page with attractive ads does convert well. The users will consider that page to be garbage, so they click whatever ad looks like it will give them what they want.

If you read the landing page guidelines, Google seems to be concerned that users are reducing their trust in adwords ads.

If the metrics show that users who continue to land on junky pages (according to the landing page quality algo) are less likely to click ads over time, then it's in Google's and the advertisers' interest to make this change. At least, the advertisers' who aren't just arbitraging adwords. You know who you are. ;)

ipohopper

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 10:30 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a cute little "please wait" graphic page in between the click and my landing page. I wonder if that counts against me.

I would have never thought that we would have to do SEO on pages for PPC sites!

iPo

hannamyluv

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 7048 posted 11:08 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can understand G's desire to do this, but I have to say that they lost just a little of my respect on this. Earlier this year, when they changed the arbitrage rules, they did so after the holiday rush. Lots of people got hit but they had a nice christmas. It's a sign of class when a company does that. And maybe it was an accident on their part that the timing was that way, but I kind of hoped that it was a concious desision on someone's part.

To do this two weeks before the holiday seems just a bit crass. What would it have hurt to wait till the 26th? And they can't claim it was to improve the results for the holiday shopping traffic, that started three weeks ago and is a week from being over. This smacks of a "look what we can do" attitude and not in a positive way.

And for the record, I was not affected. Maybe I will be in the future, who knows. Such is the nature of this business. But I like to think that I do a good job and don't create garbage. But I certainly don't see that as a reason to more crulely than nessecery "stick it" to someone who does.

This 208 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 208 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 > >
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