Ok. I will chime in on this one.
TARGETING OF ADS:
1.) Allow webmasters to insert say 1-3 keywords or themes about the content of a page. These "AdSense Helpers" could be placed on the page with the rest of the script. Google could then take these helper words and see if it's algo agrees with the publisher. I am sure the engineers could come up with a way to "fine" tune these searches with the helper words. Providing "agreement scores" between what the publisher thinks the page is about and what Google's algo thinks the page is about. I would also impose a strict TOS for this. For sites that consistently do not have a good "agreement" score there would be warnings or ramifications by Google. So the algo would have to agree "in some form" with the helper words before they were used to refine the search.
Example Code: (Global, Category, Specific - or whatever 1, 2, 3)
Another option would be to create a specific AdSense meta tag:
<meta http-equiv="AdSenseTargeting" name="AdSense" content="Germany, Munich, Hotels">
<meta http-equiv="AdSenseTargeting" name="AdSense" content="Digital Cameras, Kodak, DC240">
"AdSense Helpers" ©2003 nealw (contact me for licensing) :-)
1.) Allow for reporting by domain name for companies managing multiple domains. This has a major impact for "medium vs. small" publishers who have employees that can be paid on the performance of a site (content producers, writers, site managers etc.). Very important.
2.) How about showing us the effective CPM. One less thing to do. Time is money.
3.) I know Google has legitimate reasons for limiting access to some types of reports. That being said more reporting features the better. Anyone who actually makes money / a living from there web business lives or dies by stats. I will leave it to others to recommend there reporting needs.
4.) Direct Deposit: I will lump this request in here.
MULTIPE ADS ON PAGE (TOS Related):
1.) I know many sites that could easily include two ads on the page (468x60 and a 120x600) and not have it be intrusive. Many content sites have information published that easily scrolls for a couple of pages. I would think it would be in Googles, the advertisers and publishers interest to have targeted ads where the eyeballs are. I know there would be room for abuse here so I could even recommend implementing some restrictions or qualifications before a publisher could do this. Qualifications might include: Minimum number of impressions (usually quality attracts quantity), Minimum CTR, must be in AdSense program for xxx time frame with no TOS violations etc.
2.) Report by ad type.
1.) Fraudulent Clicks: I have no doubt fraud occurs and Google should have the right to kick anyone out. However, it's pretty scary from a small publishers point of view to receive a "You've Got Fraudulent Clicks Mail". When 'europeforvisitors' got the email I thought, "I sure hope they don't kick him out because he has got a great site". There should be a formal process for publishers to petion getting kicked out, once they are out. Or, to work with Google if Google believes fraud has occurred.
2.) IP Alert: Should Googles algo discover something resembling fraud from an IP address, set up "fraud alert" area in the account system. Display the IP address from the offending party and allow publishers to take action: like banning the IP or a Class address. Help us help you and the advertisers.
These next two (3 & 4) are from europeforvisitors which I like as well:
"In addition to detecting and punishing fraud, Google might want to make it harder to commit fraud in the first place. For example:
3) Google could limit AdSense participation to sites that have been in Google's main index for a certain period (say, three months or even six months). This would make it harder to create disposable "click farm" sites, and it would make AdSense fraud less appealing to get-rich-quick types who haven't the patience to wait months for a payoff.
4) Google could require that publishers supply a tax identification number (e.g., a Social Security number) and the number of a major credit card at the time of enrollment. This would at least slow down small-time scam artists who try to open multiple accounts so they'll have an account to fall back on if their main account is cancelled."
DISPLAY OF ADS:
1.) When Google only has 1 or 2 ads to display (skyscraper) it would be nice of the "Ad Box" would fit the size of say the 2 ads. Thus removing the "blank space" where the other 2 ads are not showing.
2.) Allow publishers to choose how many ads to show in the skyscraper. I would venture a guess that some sites, due to design, would like to simply display only 2 or 3 ads.
3.) Allow ads to be displayed on search result pages....? For what's it worth GoobleBot already index's most of my internal searches anyway. Many of my internal searches are already hard coded into content so users can simply click the link and find additional information more quickly.
1.) Make it optional.
2.) Even if it's optional, pay webmasters a revenue share for clicks generated from the referred "related links" click. Right is Right. Why should we as webmasters offer our hard work/visitors to Google for free? No way!
3.) Get rid of the blank ad boxes. Show nothing at all not even the place holder (good), PSA's (ok), allow a webmaster to insert some default code (best).
REQUESTS THAT WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN:
1.) Give AdSense publishers a bump in PR! Hey come on now ... let's do some business here. I think all AdSense publishers should have minimum PR of 7.
2.) How about some Health and Dental plans?
3.) How about some nice give-a-ways based on performance? Earn $5,000 in a month and get a Google: Hat, T-Shirt or whatever. I have really had my eye on the Google Lava Lamp and the Bean Bag Chair! Even better turn it into a game. On the first of the month publishers can login to there account and make a guess at there predicted total revenue for the upcoming month. Whoever predicts closest to the end of the month revenues wins something cool from Google.
[edited by: nealw at 9:01 pm (utc) on Aug. 8, 2003]
[edited by: Laisha at 8:52 pm (utc) on Aug. 9, 2003]
[edit reason] Comments to specific people should be addressed in StickyMail. No solicitation please [/edit]