homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.130.202
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

    
Image galleries
paulroberts3000




msg:1403168
 11:04 am on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

How does adsense/adwords work with image galleries.

Can it display ads based on alt text and titles and image meta data or do you just get public service ads?

 

jetteroheller




msg:1403169
 12:01 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

You have only to tell Google about the contents of the page.

Most people creating galleries are to lazy for writing about the page.

DamonHD




msg:1403170
 7:58 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I run AdSense on an image Gallery (see my profile) and it works reasonably well. CTRs lower than some other people quote, but earnings just about paying for hosting, etc.

The more (relevant) information that you put AS TEXT on each page, the better AdSense will be able to match ads to your images. More or less the only significant change I made to help AdSense earnings was to tighten the relevance of off-page links a little to avoid confusing the Mediabot; this may not may not help real humans!

Rgds

Damon

david_uk




msg:1403171
 9:45 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I run AdSense on an image Gallery (see my profile) and it works reasonably well. CTRs lower than some other people quote, but earnings just about paying for hosting, etc.

I know this isn't the forum for site critique, but I would like to make one comment. I looked at your profile, and went to your website. I was LOOKING for the ads, but failed to see them! I had to look twice, knowing that there were ads to look at. Maybe you have done too good a job at blending them in! I would consider making them stand out a bit more.

jomaxx




msg:1403172
 10:58 pm on Apr 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Huh? This is not intended to be a criticism of Damon's site, but when each image is surrounded by 2 AdSense blocks, a skyscraper banner, an affiliate link, followed by an AdSense search box, that site seems to be pretty fully tricked out with ads.

mblair




msg:1403173
 2:32 am on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

While there are a good number of ads, I think for me the Google AdSense feels a bit camoflauged in the header. I am wondering how these would perform if they were brought into tighter proximity to the images, which provide the focal point. That would really be an interesting A/B test.

Damon, congratulations on a nice gallery site btw -- I think you have illustrated a great approach of integrating text content with gallery images.

david_uk




msg:1403174
 6:33 am on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Huh? This is not intended to be a criticism of Damon's site, but when each image is surrounded by 2 AdSense blocks, a skyscraper banner, an affiliate link, followed by an AdSense search box, that site seems to be pretty fully tricked out with ads.

I was referring to the ads buried in the yellow banners. At that point I hadn't clicked on any of the galleries.

DamonHD




msg:1403175
 12:12 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey guys!

Thanks for the feedback, good and bad, always good to have!

The "blended" AdSense top banner gives by far the best revenue but there is a rotation (size and content) that goes on in that slot with which I try to reduce ad blindness. Non-blended ads *do* give a better CTR, but only (according to my limited tests) up to a certain percentage (~10%) of page impressions, beyond which I suspect that they become annoying, but what do I know?

Also I'm just in the process of rotating some of the slots with new TribalFusion ads, so the whole schmole was probably more ugly than usual when you looked.

Thanks again for the comments.

Rgds

DHD

DamonHD




msg:1403176
 9:01 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi guys (again),

I have implemented one of your suggestions already, but I still have a bug or three to work out of the new ad handling code in my template! Hopefully all will be pretty in a day or so!

Rgds

Damon

mblair




msg:1403177
 9:47 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Looks good! Please let us know if it improves the bottom line :-) I don't have any galleries myself yet but have galleries on my mind as I have one the agenda for the summer.

DamonHD




msg:1403178
 3:39 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Superficially, this change may have helped CTR significantly in that slot (maybe nearly x2), but of course I had other significant changes happening at the same times such as dropping TribalFusion into some slots and adding new data to a large number of pages, and a seemingly conincidental rise in visits.

So, no A/B test there, and only a few days' data, but not negative so far anyway.

Rgds

Damon

europeforvisitors




msg:1403179
 6:24 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

The main problem with image galleries isn't poor ad targeting (good captions should take care of that), but the fact that people looking at photos probably aren't researching ways to spend their money.

birdstuff




msg:1403180
 8:12 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

The main problem with image galleries isn't poor ad targeting (good captions should take care of that), but the fact that people looking at photos probably aren't researching ways to spend their money.

A logical analysis, and one that I agree with.

That being said, my 2nd best performing site is an image gallery with 1,200+ photos covering a ton of different themes. It has a very healthy CTR and the EPC remains strong month in and month out. In short, "smart pricing" seems to love it.

Compare that to my "best" site, a site with several thousand original articles with detailed how-to guides and reviews. Smart pricing drove the EPC so far into the ground that I took AdSense off the site completely.

But I was able to quickly fill the space with directs ads for the same AdWords advertisers who were supposedly getting such poor conversion rates from my site (according to "smart pricing"). And at a premium price as well. (They contacted me, I didn't contact them.)

What does this mean? One of two things:

1 - Our logic about the value of AdWords ads on photo gallery pages is faulty and Google knows which pages convert better than the advertisers themselves.

or...

2 - Smart pricing doesn't work as intended (or hyped).

I'm sure you can guess which one I believe to be the case.

DamonHD




msg:1403181
 6:52 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Well, several days' more data suggests that moving the banner closer to the images has helped with CTR.

Thanks!

DHD

rapidcars




msg:1403182
 7:19 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I run a site with many image galleries and the ads are pretty well targeted with the small amount of text I have the page.

mblair




msg:1403183
 8:25 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Damon -- thanks for the updates! Your feedback has helped me plan my future design a bit :-) I had a gut feeling that would help some and it is nice to hear that it did improve for you.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved