| 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.
| 10:26 pm on Sep 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yah, I thought I got hacked at first, then saw it everywhere. It already clearly said "Ads by Google" before. So, if it draws more attention to the ads, fine, goooooooooooogle away!
| 10:56 pm on Sep 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I do not think google really cares about publishers, afterall they know that they do not have any real competition in market and so why not suck more blood/money :( (cuz goooooooooooogle gets more atten to their name and clicks on gooooooooooogle does not count towards $$$ for publishers)
I would love to see google stop this stupid joke.
| 8:44 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes. Gooooogle really is bad and looks very unprofessional.
| 10:07 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anyone have any speculation on why they did this?
| 10:42 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just trying new things I guess?
Im sure they done testing before went large? Maybe they saw higher click rate and decided to go large...
| 11:03 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When we search something at google the result page has the similar design (goooooooooole) at the bottom. They may want to associate the site search environment or something like that.
| 2:23 pm on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It may be a little unprofessional for some, but for others, I think it work great. I run a humor site, and my revenue is up significantly since the extra 10 o's where added. I think seeing 'goooooooooooogle' makes my visitors more amused and likely to click the ads. I can see how this creates a less professional look for others though. Maybe if G made a setting for how many o's are displayed, people could experiment to see if it improves their revenue.
| 2:29 pm on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I can see how it works for a humour site, as viewers may think you are taking the mickey.
| 2:31 pm on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if they would approve an Adwords listing titled "MYYYYYYSITE.COM"?
| 1:41 am on Sep 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I wonder if they would approve an Adwords listing titled "MYYYYYYSITE.COM"? |
No they might not, as it would make their website look bad and unprofessional.
| 5:04 am on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing varying lengths for the ooo's now.
| 8:42 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm seeing varying lengths for the ooo's now. |
Maybe it's a new type of Page Rank... a guage of the "oo" factor of the ad, as in "Oooo! look at those new jeans from XYZ Jean Co."
| 2:57 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oaktown, JuniorOptimizer etc., I know it's a long thread but AdsenseAdvisor did pop in and comment (msg 70):
|As many of you are already aware, we're testing out new branding features, which includes this 'Ads By Goooooogle' phenomenon. One of the things we're looking at is what impact 'Ads By Gooooogle' will have on the performance of the Google ads. Repeat: this is a test. :) |
The team is definitely all ears to publishers' feedback, particularly all of you at WebmasterWorld. I'll be sure to pass your comments along.
| 9:24 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Horrid. Get rid of the ooooooooo's. Please.
| 6:54 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
...makinng us louk lyike we carn't spel.
| 9:52 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If G's intent is branding, they blew it. |
better than that - I think there might be a dilution of trademark issue here...
clearly Google doesn't have a trademark on Gooooooooooooooooogle - but that's how they're identifying the company...
this just seems incredibly stupid from a branding standpoint - it might get the a little attention at first - but only for a little while.
I don't think google is that stupid. I think they're up to something.
| 10:05 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's stopped on my site now, thank God (or should I say thank Goooooooood).
Clickthrough rates are continuing to drop on my site though. People are getting too used to the ads :(
| 11:03 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm thinking that a number of AdWords advertisers are not at the moment because of this ooo situation.
| 11:38 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hmm I still have gooooooogle under my ads.
| 11:58 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Bluepixel, you are in the privileged position that you have one more 'O' than I do. For some time now my sites have returned just 6 'O's. (Half the 'O's', half the displeasure? I doubt it.)
Even with 6 it still looks unprofessional and makes me think that those Google-brains are just like the politicians we have at home. They're all so-called academics - full of theory, but little real-world experience.
| 7:27 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think Google should leave artistic impression up to the publisher of the site. Get rid of the "oooooooo"
| 7:56 am on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"It may be a little unprofessional for some, but for others, I think it work great. I run a humor site, and my revenue is up significantly since the extra 10 o's where added. I think seeing 'goooooooooooogle' makes my visitors more amused and likely to click the ads. I can see how this creates a less professional look for others though. Maybe if G made a setting for how many o's are displayed, people could experiment to see if it improves their revenue..."
My Google related site is more on the entertaining side of things as well and I don't think I am seing any change in CTR behavior. Nice for that site but I am pretty darn sure I am losing a lot of clicks on my other 20 sites where users might prevent this introoooooduction of a commercial section of the page.
I wish they'd drop that again. Using their SE with AS at every page gives them the exposure they need already.
| 8:02 am on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I run a humor site, and my revenue is up significantly since the extra 10 o's where added. |
I think that just about sums it up right there!
OK Google joke over now let's get back to business....
| 11:50 am on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The better click through rate may just better targeting and/or more advertisers rather than more ooo's stimulating visitors to click.
| 1:29 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From the opinion of someone who doesn't use adsense... (yet)
This change is giving me doubts for the sites we were contemplating adding to the adsense program. Now I think we'll wait and see.
When I saw this for the 1st time I thought the site I was visiting had been hacked - or was just fooling around - Not goooooood, not even close!
| 2:48 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Oh no! It's back again, but shorter now: "Ads by Goooooogle". Feel free to modify my complaint and send it to
RE: Ads by Goooooooogle
Please stop playing with with my site's content without my permission. My staff and I have spent thousands of hours working on our site's pages to give a professional impression and we resent your arrogance in thinking you can conduct a live experiment on our site without our permission.
I also find it incredible that you would implement this program in such a widespread way without communicating any potential benefit of your policy to either publishers or readers.
The implementation of your new policy is unprofessional and the look-and-feel disturbs me, my staff, and my readers. It makes your otherwise useful AdWords program look like a joke. Given the difficulties in finding and maintaining advertising revenue, publishers need Google to implement policies that will enhance the relationship with between advertisers and readers, not devalue them.
Please revert back to the original "Ads by Google" which was simple and easy to understand and caused no complaints. And if you want to do something like this in future, please be so kind as to give us the option to opt out. It's just polite.
| 4:27 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 6:00 pm on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing this every time now.
| 8:00 pm on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
lol, Junior is very perceptive.
| 8:41 pm on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
fwiw, the CTR of 0 that i reported in msg #107 quickly returned to normal levels and even had a few days above average, so i think the users got used to it eventaually.
| This 167 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 167 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |