homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.130.203
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
New Feature...Section Targeting
Better ad targeting.
ken_b




msg:1400135
 7:21 pm on Aug 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

This apparently lets a publisher specify which sections of the content on a page that they would like Adsense to focus on for ad targeting purposes.

This should be very helpfull on pages that cover several topics, like a home page might.

Haven't tried this yet because I just spotted the notice while checking my stats. Sounds interesting though.

[edit note] edited to remove a quote[/edit]

 

aeiouy




msg:1400195
 4:18 am on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yeah all I did in my phpbb forums was put in an ignore for my overallheader.tpl file (basically starting from <body> until end of file>
and then I also excluded the entire overallfooter.tpl file.

Finally I went into the viewtopic.tpl and put the target around the <--post_row section

Sorry.. don't have the specifics in front of me, but if someone wants a precise breack down I can get the actual changes I made tomorrow.

seems to work very well for me. I have other pages that are displayed by pulling posts and displaying them and I also use the targeting code to just focus on the text of the article/post itself.

icedowl




msg:1400196
 5:40 am on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anybody here using Mambo? I'm hoping that simply hacking this into the site template will be sufficient. Editing every content item would be a real bear. Something I'd rather not have to do.

shafaki




msg:1400197
 8:02 am on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

sailorjwd
Now maybe I can put back the side bar navigation that was throwing off the targeting.

- Yeh, I have a huge navigation that has affected ad targeting in many pages, specially the ones with fewer content. I was thinking of cutting down on my navigation to enhance ad targeting. Now that the new feature is here, no need to alter my navigation any more.

- My navigation was placed at the top of the HTML code too, before the content itself. I use CSS to make the navigation "float left" but it did not display properly when I put the navigation code after the content code in the HTML. So I had to keep the navigation at the top of the HTML code even though I use CSS! I wonder how others, who repeatedly mention using CSS to place content anywhere, do it.

- I have put one of the AdSense ads inside the <div> tag of the main content of my page. This has helped such ads be targeted on that content. Maybe using the new AdSense feature will enhance this even more. But sure for those who have not been putting AdSense inside the <div> section of their main content will experience even a greater difference when implementing the new AdSense feature. (The other ad unit I have elswhere on the page does not show ads as well targeted as the ones inside the div tag of the main content area).

- My idea of this new feature and what triggered it for Google is this: They have been trying to figure out automatically which parts of the page have the main content and which parts are not important. Now this new feature will help them decide this more easily. (It may even help their bots 'learn' patterns from the many publishers who will implement this new feature and then use what it learnt to enhance its heuristics that try to guess which parts of the site are important and which are not (in sites that have not implemented this feature yet)). I guess this feature follows the same reasoning of their Sitemap, coolaborative crawling thing, which gives the ability to webmasters to suggest things for their bots, this may help the bot do a better job by being guided, but at the end, the bot has the final decision and may or may not take the advice or guidance it is being given.

- Finally, I would like to say that this new feature is launched and works in a specific way that will probably change after a while when Google learns more about its effects. That is, if you are seeing a great difference in ad targeting after implementing this feature right now, maybe in the future this feature will work a bit differently after Google has tested it more, learnt from the rusults and updated the way their bots deal with this feature, perhaps then it will have an effect not quite the same as the one it might have today when they've just launched it in a specific manner.

The End.

ronin




msg:1400198
 5:10 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wonder how others, who repeatedly mention using CSS to place content anywhere, do it.

Absolute positioning.

NoLimits




msg:1400199
 5:34 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay - over the couse of the last 24 hours I had this added to my article content only.

The results initially were more targeted ads - however, now I am noticing that a lesser variety of ads gets served, and often NONE are served.

My number of ad impressions has dropped by a large percentage, and revenue has dropped accordingly.

I'm a little turned off by it at the moment. I am going to stop putting positive weight on things, and only use the ignore option for things that are problematic.

aeiouy




msg:1400200
 5:51 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think if you read the information provided by google they pretty clearly said it could lead to fewer ads depending on the amount of content targetted and the rest of the site.

berto




msg:1400201
 6:00 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

So far, I am using these hints cautiously, applying the downplay hint to boilerplate stuff identical (or nearly so) on every page (menu, footer) and/or irrelevant (commercial sidebars), and using the emphasize hint only sparingly. It would be foolish, IMHO, using these hints too aggressively, especially the emphasize hint, without first going through a period of experimentation and careful observation of their aftereffects.

EricGiguere




msg:1400202
 6:31 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, overuse can definitely lead to more PSAs. This isn't necessarily bad if you have a good set of alternate ads to show. You have to experiment, what works for you may not work for someone else.

Eric

razinkane




msg:1400203
 2:02 am on Aug 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay at first section targeting worked great! 5X earnings plus.., now I'm seeing PSA ads where none were ever seen before, I'll give it a week, see what it does, and if it's still bad, than I'll pull it.

lorendata




msg:1400204
 3:01 am on Aug 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I took a 20% hit in CTR and 18% hit in eCPM after adding these tags. I only cut out the headers and footers, leaving the vast bulk of the info within the tags.

I get a very statistically significant amount of traffic on my site, so it is unlikely a coincidence.

Hereís my thought, and it has a lot to do with what I perceive to be the paradox of AdSense in general.

Most regular traffic does not click on ads; they are on my site for the content. Most of my click traffic is from search engines. What is most likely to click on an ad is:

1) someone who put in a search term and ended up on my site
2) my site is not really what they were looking for
3) however, the ads are match to the search term and are actually better targeted to their original search

So, by telling AdSense how to better target my site actually works to my disadvantage. The best visitor is one who found my site by search engine, finds my site off topic, but finds the ads on topic to their original search.

It seems that close is not only good in horseshoes and hand grenades, but AdSense, too.

Iíve dropped the tags and my CTR and eCPM are right back to where they belong.

beggers




msg:1400205
 5:14 am on Aug 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yeah all I did in my phpbb forums was put in an ignore for my overallheader.tpl file (basically starting from <body> until end of file> and then I also excluded the entire overallfooter.tpl file.

I for one would really appreciate the specifics of this technique since I also use phpBB forums. Thanks in advance!

dutch_dude




msg:1400206
 5:32 am on Aug 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I for one would really appreciate the specifics of this technique since I also use phpBB forums. Thanks in advance!

You can find these files in /templates/[name of theme you use]/ (in your phpBB directory)

Dowload the files to your computer, edit them as described in the post above and upload again.

When you update phpBB make sure you don't overwrite the edited templates :)

ownerrim




msg:1400207
 6:10 pm on Aug 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Adsense states that you'll need to include a significant amount of content within the section targeting tags.

How much is enough? A paragraph's worth? More? Even info sites sometimes have pages that are skimpy on wordage.

berto




msg:1400208
 6:31 pm on Aug 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

The way I understand it, page content falls into three categories:

--sections marked for emphasis
--sections marked for downplay
--unmarked sections

"Emphasize" means "give more weight to." It doesn't mean to "consider this and only this to the exclusion of everything else."

"Downplay" means "give less weight to." It doesn't mean "ignore entirely."

Sections marked neither for emphasis nor downplay are still considered when selecting ads.

If there is any potential for trouble here, as in giving the mediabot so little to chew on that the system only serves PSAs (or fewer ads per ad unit), it might come with too aggressive use of the downplay tag.

A lot depends on how much weight that Google gives the emphasis and downplay factors. 10% more weight for emphasis, 10% less weight for downplay? 20%? 50%? 100%? I suspect that Google will never divulge the exact weights, as that would make it too easy to game this new system. These percentage weights are "dials" they can twist to do their fine tuning.

This is all my interpretation. I could be wrong.

One other point:

I observe a lot of people in this thread reporting that they made changes, then saw (more or less) immediate results, whether good or bad. Your mileage may vary, but in my case, the Google mediabot has visited just a small fraction of my pages since Google introduced this new section targeting feature. The mediabot has yet to revisit any of the pages that I care about most, and where I have finely tuned the section targeting. This delayed response is why I am moving cautiously here. Don't conclude anything about this new section targeting feature as it applies to you unless and until you are sure Google, through its mediabot, has actually picked up on your changes. (Check the logs.) Then give Google some time to process the changes, and distribute the new data to the various ad servers. (Check the ads.) Only then draw your conclusions.

lorendata




msg:1400209
 3:46 am on Aug 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I observe a lot of people in this thread reporting that they made changes, then saw (more or less) immediate results, whether good or bad. Your mileage may vary, but in my case, the Google mediabot has visited just a small fraction of my pages since Google introduced this new section targeting feature. The mediabot has yet to revisit any of the pages that I care about most, and where I have finely tuned the section targeting. This delayed response is why I am moving cautiously here. Don't conclude anything about this new section targeting feature as it applies to you unless and until you are sure Google, through its mediabot, has actually picked up on your changes. (Check the logs.) Then give Google some time to process the changes, and distribute the new data to the various ad servers. (Check the ads.) Only then draw your conclusions.

I have over 2 million pages, so I know my site was not reprocessed by the mediabot; however, it seemed that there were immediate changes to how AdSense was treating my site.

While I understand how the feature was described, the change was so drastic and immediate, that I didn't want to risk it, so I removed the tags.

While it could be an unrelated coincidence, someone else can be the beta site.

berto




msg:1400210
 4:28 am on Aug 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

... it seemed that there were immediate changes to how AdSense was treating my site... the change was so drastic and immediate...

I often observe "drastic and immediate" changes to ad targeting, irrespective of this new section targeting feature.

For example, I see five ads in an ad unit (wide skyscraper). I click the refresh button, and often I will see five entirely different ads which may or may not be in the same market niche. I then go to a different system, on a different network (I connect to two commercial networks here at home), and maybe will see a third set of ads, some or all of them different, displayed on the very same web page. (I swear that at times, I appear to see one set of ads displayed in Firefox on Linux systems, and a different set of ads displayed in IE on Windows systems.)

This is something I have never understood. I don't believe that AdWords advertisers are changing their bids at those very instances. It appears that

--the top five ad placements don't always go to the five highest bidders
--bidders in the 6th and lower ranks can win placement
--there is some randomization in the auction process
--different ad servers are serving differing results
--maybe Google is deliberately confusing the issue (to thwart our gaming the system)

Maybe what you saw had nothing to do with any section targeting you had implemented.

I'm beginning to see the mediabot visiting more and more of my section-targeted pages. Section targeting could be a deciding factor, it could be that many improvements I have made recently are beginning to kick in, it could be that AdWords advertisers are adjusting to the system (in my favor) after last week's upheaval, or it could be coincidence, but my CTR and eCPM are up sharply in the last several days.

shafaki




msg:1400211
 6:55 am on Aug 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

berto

1] My guess and the impression I got, though Google have not said it explicitly, is that Google will treat unmarket sections in pages that use section targeting tags differently from pages that do not use them. I believe that if a page uses section targeting, then Google will give less wieght to the sections that are not marked than if the paged had not used section targeting at all. That's my impresssion, but again Google did not say this explicitly, yet I get this impression maybe from their saying that using section targeting may result in PSAs if you do not include enough content (and again I guess they did not only mean using the exclusion tags to downplay a lot of the content like others have suggested, but even just using the section targeting tags to select a small part of the page).

2] As I have been involved in programming neural networks and similar types of programming (AI), I do not believe that Google's algorithm is that simple to use a fixed percentage emphasized sections and a fixed one for deemphasized ones. I find that with regards to this (and all other Google algos) they do not use hard coded numbers and fixed rations, weights or percentages. Such equations are simply more complex than that and probably use heuristics that depend on several factors related to the page.

On another note, whether you select to view it as a fixed ration or a more complex function, in both cases I believe that Google will change the way it works and affects ad targeting after some time when people start to use it, and Google collects a good amount of stats about it and learns from it then fine tunes their targeting algos to reflect what they have learnt from such stats. It can be an ongoing process (same as with their page rank algo and search matching aglos).

3] As for the ads changing in the same page upon refreshing, I've had pages that change their ads infrequently and others that may change upon a refresh (though that was more rare). Alternative reasons besides the ones you've already mentioned could be: when google sees that the same IP (the same visitor) has refreshed the page (without clicking) maybe they can change the ads to give the other fresh ones a chance as the first ones had no clicks. Maybe the more you refresh the page, the lower its CTR becomes which triggeres a different type of ads. Probably Google selects ads also based on other factors such as from where the visitor came (was brought by a search engine, from another site (which site), ... etc). There are always alternative reasons. But again, I would like to repeat that I have many pages whos ads remain relatively constant for a considerable period of time (i.e. weeks if not more).

berto




msg:1400212
 3:33 pm on Aug 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

shafaki,

... I do not believe that Google's algorithm is that simple to use a fixed percentage emphasized sections and a fixed one for deemphasized ones. I find that with regards to this (and all other Google algos) they do not use hard coded numbers and fixed rations, weights or percentages. Such equations are simply more complex than that and probably use heuristics that depend on several factors related to the page.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Google section targeting algorithms are much more sophisticated than what I hypothesized. Still, given that we will never know Google's secret formula, our thinking in terms of simple percentage weights is a useful rule of thumb. We need to come to grips with section targeting, however tenuous.

If Google can apply complex heuristics to each and every section-targeted web page they serve ads to, I am more in awe of the computing power and hardware infrastructure they must have to support this than I am in any fancy algorithm they may have devised.

On another note, whether you select to view it as a fixed ration or a more complex function, in both cases I believe that Google will change the way it works and affects ad targeting after some time when people start to use it, and Google collects a good amount of stats about it and learns from it then fine tunes their targeting algos to reflect what they have learnt from such stats. It can be an ongoing process (same as with their page rank algo and search matching aglos).

No doubt about it.

As for the ads changing in the same page upon refreshing, ... alternative reasons besides the ones you've already mentioned could be: when google sees that the same IP (the same visitor) has refreshed the page (without clicking) maybe they can change the ads to give the other fresh ones a chance as the first ones had no clicks. Maybe the more you refresh the page, the lower its CTR becomes which triggeres a different type of ads. Probably Google selects ads also based on other factors such as from where the visitor came (was brought by a search engine, from another site (which site), ... etc)...

If it is as complex as you describe, I am in even greater awe of their computing capacity.

... I would like to repeat that I have many pages whos ads remain relatively constant for a considerable period of time (i.e. weeks if not more).

Same here, which makes it all the more mysterious why some pages change ads frequently (even from moment to moment, from page refresh to page refresh) while others do not.

It's a little disappointing (but, alas, not surprising) that more people aren't engaged in serious discussion of this new section targeting system. IMO, good ad targeting is essential. On my most lucrative site, my high-CPC ads pay 50X to 100X more than my low-CPC ads. The high-CPC ads tend to have much higher CTR, too. In my case, fiddling with ad types, colors, positions, etc. profits me relatively little. I earn the best ROI devoting my time to coaxing the highest CTR, highest CPC ads from the Google ad server. Which is why I am obsessing on section targeting and other on-page ad selection factors at the moment.

shafaki




msg:1400213
 4:21 pm on Aug 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't worry, the last on earth (or beyond) to lack computer power would easily be found to be Google :D. (Ok, I'm kidding, when it comes to AI, if ever they use it that is, there is just never enought computer power, even (the combinatorial complexity thing).)

As for being in awe of their hardware infrastructure and computing power, you should be. (I wonder how many computers they have ...)

sailorjwd




msg:1400214
 1:25 am on Aug 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've had about 10 pages on which I could never get accurate ad targetting.

I used the weight=ignore on the navigation area and now the targeting is perfect.

It is nice not to be eating up the budget of advertisers with marginally appropriate clicks (my budget too!)

jetteroheller




msg:1400215
 5:54 pm on Aug 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am on vacation

Just siting in an internet cafe uploading 2 small web sites with the new feature.

I marked the navigation area as (weight=ignore)

My ohter web sites will follow when I am again at home.
No chance to update a big web site from here.

BTW: About all the theories about controlling the web sites for invalid click activity.

It's simple not possible on vacation. Every 3 days for 1 hour in an internet cafe with slow connection. I am happy when I have my emails downloaded after 20 minutes

Heartlander




msg:1400216
 12:55 am on Aug 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's important to remember for the phpBB folks that ignoring header content is also ignoring your keywords, right?

I agree that it needs to be set up to somehow differentiate between ad boxes, otherwise it's kind of useless when we have gone to great lengths to get the different ads in just the right places.
OR am I missing something?
Can we use it wrapped around the content AND the ad box we are targeting?

Hell, now I'm confused.

Time to go back to hurricane tracking on the TV....

razinkane




msg:1400217
 3:00 pm on Aug 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I gave it a few more days of testing, Ads are much better, no more PSA's and earnings are up 30%, So the section targeting will remain.

JohnKelly




msg:1400218
 7:09 pm on Aug 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is the ending tag for the ingnore section this?

<!-- google_ad_section_end(weight=ignore) -->

So ignored code would be like this:

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

(ignore this bit of code)

<!-- google_ad_section_end(weight=ignore) -->

It's not mentioned on the page in the FAQ.

Powdork




msg:1400219
 2:50 am on Aug 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

John Kelly I came here for that exact question. My take from the Google page is that the (weight=ignore) should only be added to the opening tag.

Powdork




msg:1400220
 4:52 pm on Aug 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I added it to a section early last night using

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->
Stuff that the adds recently started focusing on.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

and within 90 minutes the ads that had been ruining the page's eCPM were gone.

Wi11




msg:1400221
 9:39 pm on Aug 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm in the UK.

I'm seeing a link in adsense control panel for site targetting, but it goes to an error page.

Has anyone in the UK implemented ST successfully? Or would it be best to wait until Google properly roll it out to the UK?

CherryHintonBlue




msg:1400222
 10:03 pm on Sep 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

I reported the broken link on "TIP: Improve your ad targeting by pointing us to the relevant content on your site. Learn more about section targeting." from the UK, and received a prompt response from a Google representative in the UK.

He said he'll get someone to fix it straight away. That was a week ago.

It's a bit daft that we have to go to websites discussing AdSense to find out what section targeting is all about and how to implement it.

kwasher




msg:1400223
 1:09 pm on Sep 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where would you put this to stop wordpress blogs from showing irrelevant ads about RSS?

CherryHintonBlue




msg:1400224
 7:17 pm on Sep 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Wha-hey! The "What is section targeting and how do I implement it?" page finally stopped being broken today and those of us who couldn't read it can now join in with the rest of the world...

rytis




msg:1400225
 5:58 pm on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Wud be nice if ASA clarified which closing comment is correct for ignore code:

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

(ignore this bit of code)

<!-- google_ad_section_end(weight=ignore) -->

OR

<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

(ignore this bit of code)

<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

OR

both?

thank you

This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
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