| 2:19 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am also impressed with the creative that is displayed on my sites.
Google QAC's are doing a very good job.
| 2:40 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess it depends on who's making the ad. Your posts inspired me to add an image skyscraper to my site just now.
What I got was exactly this on a white background:
My dog could've made a better ad and I don't even have a dog.
[edited by: flobaby at 2:51 am (utc) on May 5, 2005]
| 2:47 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have also seen some excellent image ad creatives as well - one prompted me to visit her site (no, I didn't click my own ad, incase you were wondering ;) )
| 3:44 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't see too many image ads on my site, but the ones that I do see always look professional.
I suspect that most image ads come from ad agencies and corporate advertisers who wouldn't be caught dead buying text ads that look like classified ads in newspapers.
| 3:49 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I checked out the properties of my aforementioned butt-ugly ad, it was a CJ link. So I've not given up, just put the url in the filter and hopefully I'll get those gorgeous ads you guys and gals are seeing.
| 3:50 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Flobaby; Was that an image ad, or CPM expanded text ad?
From your post it kinda looks like it could be the "expanded text" version.
| 3:53 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, it was actually a truly crappy image ad, done in plain Arial, like a third grader made it as a spelling project.
| 3:56 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hey, I put the page in my Profile, check it out.
Edited: I took the url down.
Nothing to see here, move away from the post...
[edited by: flobaby at 4:28 am (utc) on May 5, 2005]
| 4:01 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see what ya mean.
| 4:04 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, it's an insult to my fine taste. But it gives me a great way to waste time #*$!ing and moaning while our stats are down. :-)
| 4:23 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Odd, Iím seeing a grey box with seven ad units in it. I used (google_ad_type = "image";) only, doesnít look much like an image ad to me.
| 4:27 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That does sound weird. Post the page in your profile, give us something else to gawk at.
| 4:39 am on May 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Image ads are not supposed to mimic text ads:
|Your image ads may not contain screenshots of text ads or otherwise simulate a text ad in any way. |
A few must have gotten through, or one of the approval checkers didn't know that this was a criteria for image ads.
| 7:33 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The image ads do look nice, although as of today I was still getting a 120 X 600 skyscraper image ad for an internet meeting that was occuring on the 29th April.
Maybe Adsense needs to a bit of "housekeeping" on the image ads if they're date related? :)
| 9:04 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks to the comments about the quality of the creatives in this thread, I'm giving the image ads a go on a couple of pages that the conventional ads don't work on. I'll report back with the results when available.
| 6:20 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I also tried the small horizontal adsense "image & text" banner for ashort time.
Although it did appear, it didn't seem to be as visually effective as the skyscaper ad. The horizontal ad looked just like that - "a horizontal ad", whereas the skyscraper ad made you want to look at it and wonder "what on earth is is?!" - which is exactly the "clickable effect" you desire ;)