|blocking mfa---giving up money?|
| 3:43 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems like a lot of members prefer to block mfa sites.
My question is based on the money factor and not that the mfa makes your site advertise cheesy ads.
If you only have 1 ad block showing 4 ads on your page and one of the ads showing is a relevant mfa ad doesn't that mean the mfa site is bidding high dollar to get in that ad block? By blocking it wouldn't it be replaced with the next ad down the list that obviously has bid less?
| 3:57 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
well thats true....it would be replaced with the next ad down the list that has a lower bid but that site might not be a MFA site rite....
| 4:36 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There is a good discussion going on in this thread : If Adsense is Based on Price [webmasterworld.com]
| 5:05 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A thread a few months ago discussed how shockingly many website visitors believe that an AdSense publisher is responsible for, and directly affiliated with, his advertisers. MFA ads may generate clicks and short-term revenue, but they may also alienate your visitors, and discourage them from returning and clicking on other ads. On this view, blocking MFAs would be seen as a goodwill gesture, improve the reputation of your site, and generate more traffic and revenue in the long run.
Of course, if incrediBILL is right [webmasterworld.com], the effort may be futile.
| 5:54 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If you only have 1 ad block showing 4 ads on your page and one of the ads showing is a relevant mfa ad doesn't that mean the mfa site is bidding high dollar to get in that ad block? By blocking it wouldn't it be replaced with the next ad down the list that obviously has bid less? |
Google say that the ads are placed on what they think the best paying ads are going to be based on a combination of factors. Bid price does not determine ad placement.
Say an ad has a ctr of 10% overall on the Google network and pays 5c per click, to Google that seems to be a better bet than an ad that has an overall 1% ctr and gets 49c per click. Therefore it's going to place the high CTR click every time. What Google seems to take no account of whatsoever when placing ads is what ads are known to work well on your site! So it may be that the 49c ad works really well on your site, as it's targeted precisely to your niche. No matter - you get the other ads (MFA) placed in preference. Bizarre but true.
I've been blocking MFA's since last July. I took the decision to block them on the grounds that since they appeared my earnings were going downwards at an alarming rate. I couldn't see how the MFA's were able to pay more than real ads, but believed Google's assurances that they had picked the best ads for a while. At the time, many here were skeptical about blocking, but the tide has since turned and it's accepted that it raises income.
I recently conducted an experiment in removing the block list. The MFA's came back very quickly, and replaced the ads that have been paying me well for some months now.
In some cases removing an MFA might mean another popping up in it's place, but generally that's not been my experience. Most of the time they get replaced by proper ads that pay well. There is a current theory that by having minimum ad blocks on a page, and blocking MFA's smart pricing will (over time) raise the value of your site to the point where it prices many of the MFA's off of your site. I don't know if there is any truth in that theory, but certainly having a minimum of blocks and blocking MFA's has kept my average EPC very stable the last few months.
| 6:51 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I block MFAs as obvious scams such as the advertiser I just rejected on another ad network trying to push "jobs that pay in cash so no taxes". Yeuch!
I do not want my site to be associated with such evasion and sociopathic thinking. In this case I was able to reject the ad explicitly, but with G you need to think about filtering if you see such scumware.
*** ASA ***: an "automatically reject all future ads from this advertiser" filter as other ad networks have would really help, even if these are the folks that try to open multiple accounts etc: the better your multiple-account-screening, the less work we AS publishers have to do.
| 6:53 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|What Google seems to take no account of whatsoever when placing ads is what ads are known to work well on your site! |
Actually, David, in my version of the theory I think they do take account of that: the googlebot compares the eCPM that individual ads have historically achieved on your site with the eCPM that other ads achieve on other sites. If another ad performs better elsewhere for the same keyword, it will try it on your site, but only if it has a higher eCPM.
The problem is that if we have too many ads on the page then we artificially dilute the apparent performance of each ad on our own site, which means it is much more likely that the google bot will try new ads that seem to perform on other sites.
As I write this, I also wonder whether, therefore, having too many ad blocks can result in poorer targeting (because the googlebot is prepared to try better-eCPM ads even if they are less relevant).
| 5:16 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree that logically they should take ad history into account, and in a conversation I had with support they said that thay did. If that was just to get me to leave the issue alone or not, or it's true I can't say. ;) However, seeing is believing and when I see the contrary happening all the time on my site I can't take the claim seriously.
I make the statement about them not taking previous history into account based on a certain amount of experimentation, and a certain amount of knowledge.
My site has a regular group of advertisers that fill the few blocks I have the vast majority of the time. I use a tracker some of the time, so as well as knowing who is showing on the site, I know whose ads are getting clicked. I have set the tracker up with the same channels as adsense, so I have a reasonable idea of how much this group of advertisers pays, the approximate ctr their ads gets, the approximate ecpm etc. I honestly can't see any MFA being able to pay anywhere near this.
I understand that the bot is going to be shuffling ads around and trying different ads to see how they perform. There may be ads that work better than the regulars do. So if there are ads that according to Google's data perform on the network in general, then it's logical that they should be trying it on my site if it meets the targeting criteria. But if an ad doesn't work on one of these trials as they predicted it might, if they used historical data then it's logical that they would put a known good performer back again. That's what doesn't seem to happen, and that's why I make this claim.
| 6:36 pm on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't explicitly block MFAs but do check out advertisers from time to time (not by clicking on the ads I hasten to add). I imagine myself as a visitor and ask myself if this is a site that I would expect to be taken to. If not I block it.
It hasn't made any difference to the click through rate but I feel that I am improving the quality of the site for my visitors.