| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) || |
|NYTimes Article about AdSense|
Overture Takes Potshots at AdSense Program
| 2:31 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|"Technology will never do the job of a human in making sure this ad makes sense in this news story," said Bill Demas, Overture's senior vice president and general manager of the partner business and solutions group. |
[edited by: martinibuster at 2:45 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2003]
| 2:40 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google is alreading doing screening for "negative" words, as chiyo points out, and running PSAs on pages with too many. Quite a few of my detective fiction reviews suffer this fate - one "murder" or "kill" too many, I'm guessing.
I've started turning AdSense off on pages that consistently get PSAs - I'd be happy to leave them if they served a decent range of charities, with appropriate geolocation, but ads for US charities are no use for readers in the rest of the world.
| 2:46 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think suppression with keyword lists by the advertiser might do the trick. Someone selling cruises might well avoid stories that contain words like sink, bacteria, flu-like, terrorist, pollution, etc. It would take some work and even some experimenting, but it could be done. |
I can't help thinking that trying to assure properly targeted ads (and trying to avoid inappropriate ads) on news and other general-interest sites may be more trouble than it's worth. How many clickthroughs (especially clickthroughs by serious prospects) are likely to be generated by articles about a bombing in Jakarta or a body in a suitcase?
It would make a lot more sense for a site like the WASHINGTON POST to use targeted text ads in sections like travel, autos, home & garden, or business and use traditional run-of-network ads in its news and general feature sections. That would be a more effective use of AdSense/AdWords, and it would avoid the expense of trying to set filters to prevent embarrassing matches between news and ad topics.
| 3:07 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
depends on the news items. our news items for example are more analytical and tend to draw ads from research or intelligence companies. Its not only news pages too. Beyond the nicey-nicey domain of commercial sites, many magazines etc can have quite critical articles (though not necessarily negative or against the TOS) on an industry, country, practice, film review, travel review etc, not to mention blogs.
Its impossible to know for sure, but by loading up adsense by sections, we can get an idea of what areas get clicks, and our news items go get a fair number of clicks. For news items appropriate items could be books or mags, other news sources, websites about the news item etc etc.
| 3:28 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Overture, meanwhile, argues that a fully automated program like the one Google offers is unreliable. |
Does this mean that OV is not going to roll out a program competing directly with adsense? for publishers
|Anyone else liked Susan Wojcicki's picture? |
Finally someone happen to mention this ..! :)
| 3:49 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Does this mean that OV is not going to roll out a program competing directly with adsense? for publishers |
Probably OV would implement a very "high" requirement for the publishers/webmasters and keep the sites' volume at their desirable level to provide "interactive/customizable premium" service.
The timing could be "bad" (behind Adsense) and "good" (know more from Adsense's experience) for OV.
| 4:12 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>The timing could be "bad" (behind Adsense) and "good" (know more from Adsense's experience) for OV. <<
Google went into adsense with their eyes wide open. I doubt any problems they may be experiencing in delivering relevant ads and controlling spam were not anticipated, nor the degree of them.
Basically google decided to go for a system that is scalable enough that advertisers could get the benefit of being in ad space in some very highly targeted, reputable, enthusiast, specialist, and niche sites, rather than depending on just mainstream sites like MSN/Y!/Knight Ridder sites/AOL/TW? etc. Google not only believes that is the smaller sites that provide the best exposure for advertisers naturally, but is willing to develop a system that will deliver it, and reduce the potential problems enough to make it work.
OV say they dont think robot spidering is suitable for ad delivery. But what do they exactly mean my "human"? someone checking categories? or classifying all ads into some sort of database? Human methods have problems of their own (e.g. y! odp). And im still not convinced that one reason OV does not like the spidering method, is simply, that they cant do it anyway!
| 4:40 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I doubt any problems they may be experiencing in delivering relevant ads and controlling spam were not anticipated, nor the degree of them. |
Google purchased Applied Semantics and rolled out AdSense fairly quickly. The purchase to rollout time frame was awfully quick. You gotta hand it to the eggheads for assimilating the technology so quickly.
That said, they are definitely having some minor issues. It's a bit frustrating to not have an AdSense Advisor here. When AdWords Advisor popped it's head in (I have a gut feeling it's a she), I asked if it would handle AdSense issues but alas, it said no.
Regarding the ContentMatch technology, Overture said,
|A staff of nearly a dozen editors... helps screen inappropriate ads or those that may violate exclusive agreements that a publisher has made with existing advertisers. |
That's fine when you only have six publishers, like Overture does. I'm not sure if that scale of presence is going to add much to the bottom line. Not compared to something with the ubiquity of Google's AdSense. AdSense is the advertising vehicle with the broadest shoulders.
I turned off content match on my campaigns and guess what? I couldn't tell the difference.
Meanwhile, small companies like In******Br****.com are stealing Overture's PPC customers at prestigious web sites like PC********.com.
Overture's foray into context matching isn't as impressive as Google's, despite the hiccups Google has been experiencing. Google has a history of being inventive and clever enough to move forward. So it's easy to believe that Google will work this out.
Overture does not have such a history. It only has one good product (somewhat like Microsoft). Whether it can innovate and progress or remain a one hit wonder we will have to wait and see.
| 7:58 am on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chiyo- I agree with you regarding the relevancy of ads. Google seems to be struggling a bit in that issue.
Well, as couple of you mentioned, i somehow feel, OV just can't do something similiar to Adsense ( Maybe? ) with their ContentMatch, b'cos of what it lacks as martinibuster said.
|Probably OV would implement a very "high" requirement for the publishers/webmasters and keep the sites' volume at their desirable level to provide "interactive/customizable premium" service. |
In that case, w.r.t publishers, it may not much at all. they may just gain a few more publishers with this. So, in a sense, OV May not compete with Adsense to the FULLEST!? Bad ( for OV and small publishers ), Good ( for Google to an extent ).
| 10:38 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chiyo said: "And im still not convinced that one reason OV does not like the spidering method, is simply, that they cant do it anyway! "
I think that pretty much sums things up for Overture. The reason they aren't going to do something like AdSense is because they can't - so they try to put a brave face on things and pan Google AdSense.
| 10:49 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Overture doesn't have much in the way of scalability if their technology relies on "A staff of nearly a dozen editors... "
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |