| 10:31 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is horrible. It looks like an error. I just hope it disappears fast. *off to send some feedback*
| 10:40 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I thought i am having an agreement with Google and who or what is Goooooogle anyway...
I also send them my feedback, it does not look professional at all. The least they can do is that i have the option to switch them off.
| 11:14 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|it's new and will make people look at the ads. |
Higher CTR = MORE DOLLARS OR EVERYBODY
Not really, it makes more people look at "Ads by Goooooooooooogle" and click on it.. So in other words you are actually sending more free traffic to your website, cuz remember, you don't get paid when people click on "Ads by Goooooooooooogle"
If google actually knows that publishers are their valuable assets then I am sure that they will take off this "Ads by Goooooooooooogle"
| 11:25 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Maybe because they didn't secure the trademark Google at the beginning, they are contemplating a name change to Goooooooooooogle (or some shorter series of stretched O's) to avoid confusion with the established Googler.
|King of Bling|
| 11:30 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not a fan. Looks like a typo (and out of place on my business sites).
| 11:59 am on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It would also be very interesting to see earning drops. Cuz it has been there on our site for only 1 day now and earning for yesterday has cut by little less than half. :(
bad google bad..
| 12:14 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know this is a bit early but my CTR has gone up by a third since yesterday and earnings are in line with the increased CTR.
| 1:09 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Since the motive has not been outlined, it kinda comes off as cheap branding stunt.
Sorry - but unless I understand the reason, I give it a double thumbs down as it makes my site look unprofessional.
| 2:23 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wish they would consider getting rid of it all together the way it is for premium publishers. It makes it more difficult to integrated the ads with your content. When visitors spot it, they know instantly that these are google ads.
| 2:43 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I posted this before, but no one replied. What do you think of this 'theory'?
Because of the new name accompanying the ads, Adsense ads are more easily identified as being ads by visitors. Because of this, only visitors that are looking to buy something will click them. Well, not only, but the balance between 'junk clicks' and clicks from people that will actually buy something from the advertiser will shift towards the 'buying visitor'.
This would mean a better ROI for advertisers because they are rid of a lot of clicks from non-buyers.
| 3:30 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our content driven sites refer people to advertisers. If Adwords Advertisers make an "ad text" sound like a "general information" text link, they are taking a risk that the visitors that click the ads are just there to looksee and not buy.
If goooooooogle wanted to increase "buyers" to the Adwords partners I was thinking they should educate the Adwords advertiser in writing text that attracts the type of visitors they want, not change their brand name so it screams...LOOK AT ME I AM AN ADVERTISEMENT.
Our job as publishers is to make the Adsense ads blend with our site and make it appealing for people to click...not trick them to click mind you...just to present a professional site that gives credibility to the ads placed there.
Phew! My 2 cents!
| 3:43 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a typo, unprofessional and confusing (Is the company Gooooooogle or Google?) When you click on the link it goes at a page that says Ads by Google (not Gooooooogle).
One of the great things about adsense was that we could configure it to look very professional and it didn't detract from our site. Hopefully this will be temporary, but I kind of doubt it.
| 3:50 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It was in beta long before they released it to the masses yesterday. I would say they saw a jump in CTR in comparison to ads that didn't have the Goooooooooogle. It is an eye catcher, it draws the eye because it is noticeable. If it draws they eye and results in someone looking and clicking on the ads when they otherwise wouldn't have, I am all for it to continue.
If Gooooooooooogle = higher CTR and Google = lower CTR, not many people would rather have the Google.
| 4:07 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If Gooooooooooogle = higher CTR and Google = lower CTR, not many people would rather have the Google. |
I wonder if it led to higher CTR on the ads or higher CTR on the Ads by Goooooogle link? I guess it would probably be both.
Also, I wonder if the drawing the eye effect will wear off as internet users constantly see the new Gooooogle link on countless sites on the web (now three times on one page), and it is no longer so effective.
Hey! I've got a great idea, why not revive blinking text for the Ads by Goooooogle link!
Just kidding, I think adsense is great but I hope Google keeps this under control somewhat, or at least gives publishers a way to opt out of certain features.
| 5:09 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If Gooooooooooogle = higher CTR and Google = lower CTR, not many people would rather have the Google. |
Good point Jenstar.
I don't know if I "like" the extra o's but if it generates more revenue I don't care. Now if it made me less money Google would certainly hear from me. If revenue stays the same then I would prefer the shorter version. However I doubt I will see any "measurable" change at all. Google may have seen a slight change upwards in click rates with the extra o's. And with G serving hundreds of millions of ads, an extra .07% increase in the click rate adds to there bottom line more than the individual small publisher, who would not be able to measure this kind of increase.
| 5:20 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CTR was just fine before the "oooooooooooo" please change it Google, as it just looks plain silly...
| 6:15 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Wow , lots of negative replies!
I wouldnt judge so fast.
It definitely doesnt stink, suck, bite, blow, or whatever adjective you prefer.
Is it because of this or that or the other?
They said they were experimenting ,obviously to benefit the program which includes the publishers and the advertisers.
To many of us, they are the main source of income from our websites.
The more trade secrets they give out the better chance the program has of being abused and or ripped off.You should be glad they experiment and glad they are a bit(okay more than a bit) secretive.
| 6:26 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So in essence they are experimenting with your income :)
Side note: Click-thru rates have gone down significantly. The more you have to loose with a test, the more you want to have the option to choose if you want to participate :)
Has anyone been able to see changes with this? We want to test with additional ad units, but won't be able to tell if people would click/or not click because of location or because of the new ooooo.
| 6:33 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It was in beta long before they released it to the masses yesterday. I would say they saw a jump in CTR in comparison to ads that didn't have the Goooooooooogle. It is an eye catcher, it draws the eye because it is noticeable. If it draws they eye and results in someone looking and clicking on the ads when they otherwise wouldn't have, I am all for it to continue. |
This is exactly what I'm seeing as my CTR is definitely up over the past 24 hours. EPC is holding steady too. It sure caught my eye!
| 7:40 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've seen just the opposite trend. My CTR and earnings are way down. One regular user wrote and asked me why I'd switched to a "cheap-looking Google imitator" ad network.
Popularity will obviously depend on sector and type of site.
| 7:49 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
todays earning seems littler higher than yesterday, but it sucks and looks cheap.
Hope google will remove this ASAP.
| 8:04 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I thought Smeagol perished in Mordor?...It appears the tenacious little chap survived the fiery lava of mount doom and landed a lucrative job in google's marketing department :)
Ads by Gooooooogle....Much increaseesss clickthrussss......My precioussssss
| 8:11 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CTR cut in half from what it's been for the last few weeks.
Definetly a distraction, looks unprofessional and should go ASAP.
| 8:50 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I thinnk it's a bit too early to draw any conclusions from your stats right now. CTR en EPC is down for me, but it's hard if not impossible to say whether this is caused by the new ooooo.
| 8:57 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It is dumb and just increases my feeling that Goooooo(etc)gle is rerunning all the old dot-com bomb nonsense. But, that said, I don't much care.
| 9:15 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ha- AdSense sites complaining that something looks "tacky".
Now I've heard it all!
| 9:18 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why would any company want to dilute their brand with this sort of thing?
Imagine if a TV station sometimes decided their logo would be "NBBBBBBBBBBBBC" (or just BBBBBBBBBBBBBC) - how would you know what you're watching?
Or would you choose a Noooooooookia phone or Soooooooooooooony (with the logo sideways of course, to fit).
It's not clever marketing, or showing they are a "fun" company or anything like that. It's just plain daft.
| 9:23 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It has been like that for a while on the small 1 ad unit.
| 9:43 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As I wrote above my CTR is cut in half today. I initially attributed this to the bad looking Goooogle thing.
Investigating further, I see that Google is serving a large percentage of PSAs, at least for visitors from certain geographical areas.
I suspect that Google allowing up to three ad units per page may have resulted in some form of overload at one or more of their datacenters.
And I still want the Gooooogle thing off my pages.
| 9:48 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Clicks may also be up if they added extra ad units.
Okay...I'll admit, it is too soon to know the impact of this...all I know is it just looks so "spammy" ;)
| 10:00 pm on Sep 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So in essence they are experimenting with your income |
And their income also. They make fewer $$$ too if people stop clicking on ads. Perhaps they found something when they were running the beta.
| This 167 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 167 ( 1  3 4 5 6 ) > > |