| 2:51 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If only we could tell!
I would quite like to try the 468x80, but ideally I would be able to run some banners on some pages and skyscrapers on others. But due to the lack of detailed reporting, I can't tell!
Also, my site fluctuates a lot every day in visitors, so I can't put the banners one day and skyscrapers the next day because that won't be an accurate test.
The only way to know for sure is if google had seperate stats for skyscrapers and banners.
| 4:26 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am only using the 468x60. Haven't tried the 120x600.
My sites are more geared toward the 468x60 since I have content in a <div class=s> RHS table column (where most skyscrapers usually go).
IMHO the 468x60 can be more "in your face" above the fold as opposed to 120x600 skyscraper ad which is usually on the RHS of the page below the header (logo, etc..) on most sites I see.
I guess if you put the skyscraper so it started at the top of the browser window on the RHS, as opposed to starting it under the top part of the page (header, logo, etc..) this would be more "in your face" and all 4 ads would likely be above the fold.
Now whether having 2 more adsense ads in the skyscraper than in the 468x60 means more clickthroughs is another story. Impossible to tell from the stats at G. I would guess that most users will not click on more than 1 or 2. Maybe on a comparison shopping site or similar the skyscraper might draw more clicks, but who knows. With the stats at G being so sparce, it's anyones guess.
| 7:22 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have been experimenting rigorously, and for me the skyscraper is working better than the 468x60. Tried both, and the CTR for skyscraper is double of that of the 468x60. Advantages of having a skyscraper (for me) are
- Having upto 4 ads, as opposed to only 2 ads on the 468x60, thus more meat for the users.
- My site is a non-commercial content oriented and when the user is reading the main content, the skyscrapers are more easily noticeable as opposed to the 468x60.
Well, things might be different for others, but this is what is working best for me.
| 7:51 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Imaster, the skyscraper should work the best. I switched to the sky after the first day and I am very happy with the CTR.
| 8:58 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It would be nice to be able to share CTR with one another (against the TOS). At least then we could gauge the different sizes and locations and their respective CTR.
Me saying I have a good CTR, or the other guy saying "the skyscraper did twice the CTR of the 468x60" doesn't mean squat w/o the numbers.
The bad thing is, if we exchanged CTR, etc... Since the ads are page targeted it would all be irrelevant anyways because the ads would be different on everyones site. The CTR of adsense has more to do with the targeting than anything else, so even exchanging stats would be somewhat worthless.
| 9:39 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Makes me wanna set up an adsense-info site where folks can post CTR and income nummbers annonymously, immune from TOS persecution ;)
| 11:58 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How can exchanging CTRs possibly help? My site and my users aren't anything like any other random site and its users. So I don't see how any comparison would be at all meaningful.
| 12:09 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is all on the averages :D But you are right, the CTR is all over the place according to some people that have mentioned numbers.
| 9:10 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The wonders of statistics, put enough numbers together and meaning and trends will magically appear ;)
It IS wonderfull to watch the hidden trends emerge as you add more and more numbers. It isn't called quantitative analysis for nothing.
| 9:50 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Who all are having more success with the 468x60 rather than the skyscraper? If so, what format or design does your site have?