| 11:17 pm on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've seen traffic skyrocket but CTR cut in half. Please, let's end the test. Less "0"s, more "$"s! I really think people don't trust "Ads by Goooooooooooogle".
| 11:46 pm on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
my ctr is down approx 50% since the ads by Gooooogle started. I've made no changes that have been picked up since he beginning of this month so can only assume (bad thing to do I know) that the sudden drop is due to this - seems strange that this should happen but it seems to fit.
If any google employees are reading this - I am definitely not impressed. How many other people have noticed a drop in CTR since this change?
| 12:09 am on Sep 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I haven't really gotten a lower click through. It only went higher the last 2 days.
| 12:30 am on Sep 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, in the email that I got about the new changes GG asked for my feedback about this 'new branding' idea :-S .. so I tolde them I don't like it.
Here is part of the answer to my feed back:
|Google ads with an 'Ads by Goooooogle' label will appear on a limited number of pages, and you may or may not see them on your site. |
Well as for far I can see now 'everybody' is getting them .. and I DO see it ALL the time in my site.
|Please note that it is not possible for us to control which pages or sites will display the 'Ads by Goooooogle' branding |
Ok, you can control the Ads, the clicks, kick me out with no reason, the money, the smart pricing, opt me in for Ads on search pages, etc, etc, etc ... but you can not control the *&*^#$ branding? You HAVE to be kidding me GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE
| 12:38 am on Sep 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My click through rate when higher, i like it, it catches the eye :)
| 4:24 pm on Sep 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
seems to be all over the web now, maybe they decided to make a permanent switch
| 12:38 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
next time you will see yahoooooooooooo, aoooooooooool, hoooooootboooooooot, lycooooooooooos and many more. I think they are just abusing the "O" because it is free just like what they are doing with our publishers.
| 12:31 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know it was briefly mentioned in other posts about G's new TOS, but the "ooooooooooo" thing is really bugging me.
#1 - (and most importantly to me), the long string of O's gives a childish appearance. I have ads on some sites that the "funky" feel of G is o.k., but on others (a Legal site and a Real Estate site), it looks just plain childish.
#2 - the 'ooooooooooo' draws the eye to that link excessivly, and since there is nothing in it for the site owner (me), I don't want visitors eye drawn there... the "branding" should be as invivible as possible.
#3 - Why should I deliver customers to G (either publishers of advertisers) when, again, there is nothing in it for me.
On a side note -- I've cut my ads from a (4) ad "skyscraper" to a 240x120 (2) ad block.. and will be phasing out G more quickly if the quality of the service continues to drop.
| 12:54 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very unprofessional, I'm sure Goooooooooooogle will lose quite a lot of business if they keep this going.
| 1:19 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It may draw attention to the ads for a while, but soon people will become used to it and it will achieve nothing. To me it looks like someone fell asleep on the keyboard when I see it.
The Gooooooogle thing was a clever idea for search, there is a reason for it from a design standpoint since you can click on each letter to go to a new page, but seems out of place on the adsense ads.
Nothing wrong with trying out new approaches to marketing, and Google has certainly come up with some highly innovative ideas in the past, but this one really makes no sense to me.
| 1:50 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If it's a branding thing, I wonder why they only went as far as registering the domain with three 0's, (gooogle.com)....
Four O's (goooogle.com) redirects to hitbox.
| 2:32 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't like it.
| 4:14 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Take this oooooooooff. It is unprofessional and childish. It looks like someone has taken over the page. I don't want to spend time explaining it to my users why Google )or is it Goooooogle now?) is goofy and or to tell them that the whacky Goooooooogle is not spyware or an imitation site.
I expect this will result in a distrust of adsense for readers and loss of income for publishers. If Google treats ads like a joke, we can expect the same from end-users.
If you are going to screw with our sites, at least send us a warning email (you've got our address, right?) and give us the option to opt-out.
Come on overture, get your context ad system ready.
| 6:25 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just a thought but perhaps it's that 1) google hopes that people will like the quality of the sites they are taken to through AdSense (AdWords). Thus, 2) They hope that they remember who helped them get to those sites; so 3) All those stupid O's are something that stands out and is memorable. Perhaps memorable enough to get them to start going straight to google for similar shopping/searching.
| 7:26 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It could have been something like Sponsors by Google which makes more sense and which looks better if the purpose is to point that those links are advertisers' links.
| 8:05 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I too have registered my dislike for the new and moronic Ads by Goooooooooooogle. It may fit in fine on some sites but on all of mine which are of a professional nature this new scrawl looks pathetic.
Please give us the option to revert to the original if you are listening Google.
| 9:03 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
FWIW, my CTR went down by 2/3 at first, then down by another 50% and then away. Yes, zero clicks. None at all for the past two days.
Traffic is perfectly normal, and SERPS are too, of course.
| 9:21 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CTR way down, more people seems to be clicking on "OOOOOOO"'s than ads!
Looks like this is another way google found to milk publishers.
| 10:49 am on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This should be a topic on the WW front page...
| 3:52 pm on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Finally saw this on my site today - I'm in the club. Yay.
| 4:51 pm on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If G's intent is branding, they blew it. I must say out front that I detest the extra "0"s and think it detracts from CTs.
That said, maybe G's Phds need to get out more often. Look at the logo's of any major corporation. Branding is useless if it changes the brand. It's counter-intuitive. You'll never see a logo on a car that says "fooooooord" or on a box of tissues that says "kleeeeeeeeenex".
My vote (which of course carries no weight) is to say "OK, we tried our experiment. It looks silly. Most publishers seem to hate it. Let's end the experiment and get back to work making sure that half the ads on page one of the SERPs point to spammy sites with no content and no page rank."
| 5:01 pm on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree completely, but I'd like to add that I never even noticed the extra o's until the topic was mentioned here. That "Ads by Google" line is pretty small, and I wonder how often users pay any attention to it?
| 5:20 pm on Sep 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have found that playing with color combos, especially one where the border is the same as the background, (ie- AquaDoodle, Green Taffy, etc..) are less annoying --- anything that gets rid of the border makes the 'oooooooooooooooo's less "framed" and less obvious.
...just my $0.000000000000002
| 3:28 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just tried to add a second add unit to a page, one within an article and one on the side border. The ads by goooooooogle ended up right in line with each other...looks really obvious....and really funny! :) NO I am not going to keep it, just thought I would let you know!
| 3:41 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This needs to go. Not only is it spammy but goooooooooooogle with 12 o's redirects to a site which appears to be advertising porn. I've got adsense ads on a forum which caters for people of all ages including many younger people. I certainly don't want them typing goooooooooooogle into their address bar or thinking I'm partnering with a porn site.
| 5:12 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Up to this point I found this thread to be mainly whining about a relatively trivial issue.
But I have to strongly agree with futuresky's post.
Somebody is asleep @ G!?
| 5:59 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I sent a "feedback" email about this "confusion & other site, without referring to its content, but commenting on the possible confusion:--
Sent:-- Just thought that I would give some opinion to the “Ads by Goooooogle” feature: The problem that I see is that there is a site called:-- goooooooooooogle.com This may cause some confusion if visitors take note of the extended / extra ooooo’s in Google. My opinion would be to keep to the “Ads by Google” It looks much more professional & there is no room for confusion.
Reply:-- We appreciate your feedback about this test, and encourage you to continue to let us know how we can improve AdSense for you. As AdSense is still a young program, new features are under consideration and your feedback is very helpful.
The opinions expressed here are mixed, so Google should at least be getting some important feedback to consider.
| 6:15 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You know what is the most annoying aspect of this test? The fact that they didn't get our permission first before running it.
I know there are thousands of websites who will jump at the chance to beta test new features for Google, (and yet Google limits which sites they allow testing of new features). And yet here is an incredibly annoying new feature and they force the test on us.
This lack of interaction/communication with partner sites is an extremely odd way of doing business. If Google has decided that it no longer wants its Google brand on its ads, then it should simply put "Advertise with AdWords" on the ad and be done with it.
AdsenseAdviser, can you please give us any feedback at all as to a) whether this is only a temporary thing and b) why Google did it.
| 10:23 am on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I must be the only webmaster who couldn't care less. Let Google experiment.
At some point, one of their experiments will end up making everyone big money. Listening to you folks crying is quite amazing. One guy says it looks "spammy". LOL. Better turn an abuse report in quick.
| 3:21 pm on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had the same opinion as you JuniorOptimizer until I saw Futuresky's post.
That is bad, I sincerely hope that google do something about this very soon. Our adsense is also on a forum with members from all age groups.... including kids. :(
|This needs to go. Not only is it spammy but goooooooooooogle with 12 o's redirects to a site which appears to be advertising porn. I've got adsense ads on a forum which caters for people of all ages including many younger people. I certainly don't want them typing goooooooooooogle into their address bar or thinking I'm partnering with a porn site. |
| 4:24 pm on Sep 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
G is now a "public" company, ie one whose stock may be owned by outsiders. How quickly and how well the company responds to business issues will be a factor in how large investors view the value of the stock, IMHO.
If the experiment has met with an overwhelmingly negative response...end it.
If the gooooooooooooogle with 13 "o"s leads to porn, pull them all, before spammers find a way to "monetize" the stupidity.
If best practices in branding dictate that you not alter or vary your logo without extensive consideration, don't do it.
I wish G nothing but the best. I am not the only one here whose fortunes are tied to Google's. What's good for them is usually good for me. Assuming that G watches this board (and I'm confident that they do) I humbly suggest that they go back to square one, back to just two "o"s and do it sooner, rather than later. I really do think there have been enough negative elements identified here on WW to warrent pulling the plug. Best of luck to ya, G.
| This 167 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 167 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |