| 5:17 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
these new minimum bids seemed designed to throw a person into #1 spot - but if you were just as happy being in #5 or 6 or 7 or even #10 what do you do? I mean I'd sooner be in #6 spot with .51 then #1 at $6.40, ya know.....
| 5:22 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am not buying into quality score being behind this. If it is true then it is severly flawed. I have small campaigns that consist of a few keywords that are as relevant to the landing page as you could be and every keyword is disabled. I was very careful to bid on keywords that were sure to bring only traffic interested in the few keywords I bid on.
Not only that but the niche is very small and specific and now that I have disconinued advertising there are no ads at all.
I did see that someone from Google visited my site recently and they went no further than my homepage and must have missed all the quality content and never visited a landing page. If this is how the quality check works then the system is doomed to failure.
| 5:24 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is that Quality Score something automatically calculated?
or is it human reviewed?
Any opinion is welcome on this questions.
| 5:26 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
my favorite inactive for search keyword is one that appeared on a handful of times but had a 100% CTR.
| 5:27 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Does it make sense to ask $10.00 for a keyword nobody is bidding regardless the quality score?
What's the explanation for this? Google could be earning a few cents, but with such high biddins it seems like it prefers earns nothing instead: not good for stock holders, I think.
| 5:28 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Add us to the list of severely affected in the last day... Inactive kws increased nearly 10 fold it looks like, and volume cut in half.
I'm failing to see how this is good for anyone, end user included.
| 5:31 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would like to think that Google has automated this, but some colleagues think it's manual. I really don't know. Trawling through our logs, we can't see anything unusual to suggest that a quality bot has taken a look at the site lately. The site has a few thousand landing pages. I guess that begs the question as to how a humna can check all those pages. I mean if we had a really bad landing page and ten really top pages would Google penalise all eleven of them. I doubt it.
I just can't see how we had been paying ten cents and now have to pay ten bucks. That can't be down to quality or can it?
| 5:45 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just can't see how we had been paying ten cents and now have to pay ten bucks.
That's the best point. I could understand if they ask me $0.10 for a currently $0.05, or $0.20 for a current $0.10, eventhough that's a huge 100% increase.
But what about jumping from $0.20 to $10.00?, that's totally unreasonable.
| 5:52 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Whoa guys .. I just checked 3 ads that had loads of "Increase to $1.00 or $5.00" to reactivate. They are now acceptable at the old rate between .20 and .50. They will never admit it, but they backed off of something.
[edited by: Quantam_Goose at 5:57 pm (utc) on April 6, 2006]
| 5:55 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I noticed that keywords are regaining their Active status, too. How about that.
| 5:58 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No change for us here at the moment. Anyone else?
| 6:07 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was exactly to post about that, but I wasn't sure.
One of those crazy adgroups with 100 keywords and 100% full of $10.00 bids now shows like 40-50 keywords with bids ranging from $0.20 to $0.50, a little more reasonable (though they were $0.05 to $0.20 before).
Still I'm wating the explanation why a keywords with absolutely no advertisers in any country is asking a min bid of $10.00.
| 6:51 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I did see that someone from Google visited my site recently and they went no further than my homepage and must have missed all the quality content and never visited a landing page. If this is how the quality check works then the system is doomed to failure. |
You've hit the nail on the head, I believe. I have many domains. One domain Adwords hates, no matter what I advertise. Another similar looking site rarely gets the wild min CPCs.
Just realized on the hated domain, since I use it for so many diverse products, the homepage has no sitemap, no links to anything else. I've been using it only for Adwords so I figured who'd ever go to the homepage.
The other domains tend to have sitemaps and links to quality content. In fact I don't always keep them updated so oftentimes the landing pages won't be located from the sitemaps. Nonetheless Adwords doesn't overcharge on those.
Therefore, I'd say this answers Fischermx's question too. The so-called "quality check" is automated and starts at your home page, not the landing page in the ad. I'd venture to guess it arrives at a general "site" score based on the full range of the site.
Otherwise, how come when I'd put up an ad in a new folder on the "hated domain", Adwords knew right away to overcharge by 1000 percent? The landing pages weren't being checked. I think the assessments are done based on what can be found from the homepage. It would tie up Google's servers tremendously to visit your landing page every time you added a keyword, etc.
A one-time or ideally a periodic visit is made to the site and you are judged based on that forever after.
I could never figure out why that domain always fared so badly no matter what the content. In fact, over time I've moved a lot of content to other domains and away went the $10.00 CPCs.
Of course, this was after making sure I had no HTML errors, every image had a descriptive ALT tag, keywords and variants were included, etc. on the "hated domain". All in a vain attempt to improve my "quality score".
Atomic, does your home page link to all your quality landing pages?
| 7:21 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just so you guys know, this is not a bug or a glitch. Google is purposely raising your minimum bids to extremely high levels so that you stop bidding on those keywords. This is Google basically stopping you from advertising on certain keywords without flatout disapproving your ads. It is somewhat sneaky. It is sort of how the minimum overall bid is now technically 1 cent, but realistically you aren't going to be able to bid 1 cent on most keywords and show up in the results.
Those of us that have seen campaigns basically die yesterday have unacceptable landing pages in the eyes of Google. Most likely due to too high of an ad-to-content ratio (i.e. more AdSense or affiliate ads on the page than content, or more than Google wants to see). I am going to try to increase my content to ad ratio and see if I can get un-marked for death. Of course then I will probably become unprofitable and have to stop bidding anyway...
| 7:26 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can confirm that Google doesn´t check the landing page, but the main page/the whole domain. Pages with poor content on the main page have no these big problems.
| 7:28 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, I hope they adjust all of us soon. They're not making much money from me today.
There is certainly a random or at least misguided algo governing the bid requirements.
I've been going through some adgroups to do a "damage assessment" and found one where by accident, I had included the most irrelevant, vague keywords possible. They had no bearing on the product advertised. Their low bids were untouched and the keywords were showing in high positions.
Now this was all due to a poor copy/paste job. If these keywords were truly being judged on "quality" with regard to where they land you, I should have been charged $10.00 apiece for these. Any human evaluator would have said "You want to use these keywords to advertise that?" and charged accordingly.
In fact, they were so general in nature, they surely deserved a $10.00 bid, but Google is showing them in the top 5 positions for 25 cents. Something is out of whack there!
At least searchers had the sense not to click on them....
| 7:33 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
made a new ad today to my domains homepage. the keyword i put in was [my domain.com] . It wants $10 per click.
| 8:11 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Atomic, does your home page link to all your quality landing pages? |
Every page on my site has navigation and an easy, easy way out. Each page has a link back home and to my old school, hand crafted site map. Each page is rich with original content.
But while my homepage may not go directly to each landing page, my second-level category pages which are in my navigation all link to my landing pages. There is no funny business here.
Oh yeah, and bidding on my own domain is now going to cost me a freaking dollar when no one else is bidding on it? I can't stand it when the Google information ministers come out to tell us everything is fine while missles and bombs are falling.
Do we look that stupid?
| 9:30 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm presuming many of you have submitted your frustrations to the AdWords team. Have any of you received replies yet? I too, am experiencing this issue on a huge scale.
If you accept their minimum bid, does anyone know if the actual CPC comes out that high?
I can't imagine Google would purposefully make such a drastic change overnight - it would seem an inopportune time for them considering the concurrent ramp-up of MSN's competitive product (which has substantial traffic on the same keywords at minimum CPCs similar to what levels were at Google before the hike in price). I would gather MSN is loving this - if these prices stick, everyone is going to leave Google and move over to MSN.
Some of us are discussing the same issue in a thread over here: [tinyurl.com...]
| 10:56 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"If you accept their minimum bid, does anyone know if the actual CPC comes out that high?"
And that would be a big YES, at least in my case.
| 11:00 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I'm presuming many of you have submitted your
frustrations to the AdWords team. Have any of you
received replies yet? I too, am experiencing this
issue on a huge scale."
I sent 2 not very polite emails yesterday and got a
"canned" response on how to raise my quality score.
And, (from what I understand) if you accept the bid,
That is the price you pay Even if the price directly
below you is .02.
| 11:17 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|it would seem an inopportune time for them considering the concurrent ramp-up of MSN's competitive product |
Until very recently very little attention was paid to Google. People on the MS campus have been frantic in their efforts to catch up but they have a long, long way to go. MS may be "ramping up" and that certainly sounds good doesn't it? PR and rumors aren't going to be much competition.
| 11:36 pm on Apr 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now, one would expect to see a corresponding increase in the adsense payot - but, this is what I have experienced
3 days ago .29 for a particular webpage set, 2 days ago .27 for the same page, .15 yesterday for the same page, and lo and behold .05 for todays. So much for the big increase in adwords cost - it ain't goin' to the adsense people!
| 12:02 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Seeing the same thing here - big dropoff yesterday due to a high percentage of keywords being disabled, and now asking for $1 to $10 bids. Many of these are keywords we have advertised on successfully for well over a year, with very high click-through rates on our text ads. The keywords we bid on are very well targeted to the landing page we use for each ad group. Contacted our AW rep here today to have them look into it - still waiting to hear back.
I suspect also this has something to do with Google not actually spidering the landing page, but just the site in general (home page). Our site covers a wide variety of topics, so I am sure Google has trouble determining what it is about if it is trying to look at the site as a whole, and not the individual RELEVANT page.
| 12:29 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I suspect also this has something to do with Google not actually spidering the landing page, but just the site in general (home page). Our site covers a wide variety of topics, so I am sure Google has trouble determining what it is about if it is trying to look at the site as a whole, and not the individual RELEVANT page. |
I think you may be onto something here. I hope it's something like this and that it's temporary.
| 1:07 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My campaigns that have run for years with bids in the 20 cent to dollar range are now seeing about 5% of its normal impressions and click throughs. Most of my keywords are now inactive with minimum bids now being $5 or $10. This is nuts. The bottom line is my AdWords account is now toast. It's pointless. Now I have to redirect my $70K-$100K I spend on AdWords to Yahoo, if I can figure out the Yahoo stuff.
Great business plan, Google.
| 1:14 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The new definition of Google means greed.
| 3:20 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I too, received a generic response about periodic scanning of sites, and thereby changing my Quality Score.
My pages have been performing consistently and well for over 9 months. The content on my landing pages has been updated over time to stay fresh, but AMOUNT, GENRE, and FORMAT of content haven't changed in 9 months. So if their response was indeed accurate, then they're saying that they haven't looked at my page in about 9 months to evaluate the Quality Score. I find that hard to believe. I have to imagine that they look at their advertisers more than once in 9 months to evaluate their landing pages for Quality Score.
But pretending that is true - that they didn't in fact look at my page to evaluate the QC for over 9 months - then what? I understand the market shifts, QS is adjusted, and min cpc may rise or fall based upon numerous factors. As a business person and long term Google client, I have no problem with that; in fact, I welcome it. But those changes happen GRADUALLY, not 5,000% overnight. Normal market changes happen at a pace that we can cope with - at a pace we can adjust our business model to accommodate.
If Google doesn't address this issue soon, they'll be putting me, and I'd venture to say a number of companies who's online marketing plan for lead generation is dependent on AdWords traffic, out of business.
Google AdWords people reading these posts - are you listening?
| 3:52 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSN Adcenter here we come!
| 4:00 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Did I understand well? It sounded like they were talking about a manual screening of the sites to determine quality score? Is that correct?
| 4:15 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
fischermx - no the email sounded as if it was "their system" that did the scanning. There was no indication that the changes were made after any sort of manual interaction with my site.
I'd post the reply here, but I think Google prohibits us from doing that in the T's and C's.
| This 229 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 229 ( 1  3 4 5 6 7 8 ) > > |