Jon_King
msg:3115413 | 1:17 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>How Google lost a good customer They likely have a different definition of good customer.
|
Vlad
msg:3115444 | 1:37 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Were you paying 3 cents for search or content?
|
briggidere
msg:3115460 | 1:44 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
what you spend in a month, we spend in less than an hour and we don't get any special treatment from them. there are many more people out there spending much much more than we could ever imagine.
|
Green_Grass
msg:3115472 | 1:58 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
They are after pure arbitrage sites. You got hit like many others.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3115578 | 3:34 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| I'm reasoning that Google made this huge jump in cost to me to justify getting quality, targeted advertisers to their website; I'm sure profit had nothing to do with it. |
|
The jump in cost is the result of a low Quality Score on your landing page. (You've admitted that the purpose of your site is to convert cheap AdWords clicks into higher-price AdSense clicks.) Google didn't really expect you to pay an oppressively high minimum bid; the reason for raising the minimum was to force you into cleaning up your act or withdrawing from AdWords, thereby ensuring a better experience for users of Google's SERPs. BTW, what's your rationale for the sarcastic remark that "profit had nothing to do with it"? You've just told us that Google has "lost a good customer" (you), so how has Google profited by raising its minimum bid?
|
swa66
msg:3115588 | 3:42 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Good for Google and the rest of us, we don't need you people relaying ads from cheap sources to expensive targets. Way to go GOOG!
|
walkman
msg:3115593 | 3:45 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Seems like google needed to make a decision:
keep sites with $0.0x profit a click, or concentrate resources on those with $0.xx+?
|
netmeg
msg:3115628 | 4:18 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
(I'm sorry, but I'm lost. What does a star wars dvd have to do with diabetic drugs?)
|
koan
msg:3115671 | 5:04 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm guessing a lot of Adsense publishers were happy when they stoppped getting 0.03$ a click ads about "top 8 sites on diabetic products" on their sites about noodles.
|
jomaxx
msg:3115688 | 5:18 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Agree with everyone else. I'm not sure why you're looking for sympathy here -- we're the people you have been lowballing with 3c clicks.
|
david_uk
msg:3115928 | 8:08 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is really something to direct to the adwords forum. I can't see what relevance your post is to adsense. Are you using the star wars as an analogy as opposed to quoting exactly what you are doing?
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3115972 | 8:39 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| This is really something to direct to the adwords forum. I can't see what relevance your post is to adsense. |
|
It's relevant because he's a click arbitrageur whose AdWords troubles have made it harder to earn an AdSense income.
|
Genuine1
msg:3116006 | 9:14 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
But I thought that the quality score and no more 3 cent clicks was only the search ads?
We still get the same old mfas as well as the new ones that are apearing on content because goog dont want them on their own site? Plus if its true thats a good thing surely? Personally I think that I dont want any sites advertising on my own pages that are not the end seller or manufacturer or whatever.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3116021 | 9:36 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| But I thought that the quality score and no more 3 cent clicks was only the search ads? |
|
Yes, he was buying cheap clicks from Google Search until a low landing-page Quality Score boosted his minimum bid. | We still get the same old mfas as well as the new ones that are apearing on content because goog dont want them on their own site? |
|
Sure, because Google's landing-page Qality Score is designed to protect the Google Search user's experience (and, indirectly, the Google Search brand). | Plus if its true thats a good thing surely? |
|
Depends on your point of view. For AdSense publishers who buy traffic with AdWords, it isn't a good thing.
|
david_uk
msg:3116039 | 9:47 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| It's relevant because he's a click arbitrageur whose AdWords troubles have made it harder to earn an AdSense income. |
|
Before I personally jump to conclusions I would like to know if he's a newbie that is simply using an analogy badly or not. He may be trying to illustrate a valid point, but doing it really, really badly. That being the case, he's simply posted to the wrong forum. Therefore I'm sure that you will accept that I made a perfectly legitimate statement.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3116057 | 9:59 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Well, the OP did say: | I had Adsense on my site for income, and made my money on the spread of the two |
|
He was paying 3 cents for traffic; the minimum bid went up to 30 cents, and click arbitrage was no longer profitable. Whether that's good or bad depends on how you feel about click arbitrage (and whether you're in that business).
|
Genuine1
msg:3116071 | 10:15 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
What I would dearly love to know is when are they going to do the same for us lot! Or give us better tools.
|
Khensu
msg:3116075 | 10:18 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Yeah, Double what jomaxx said. He is just using Star Wars for filler subject in a comparison for whatever keyword he is using. If he who I think he is he shouldn't be complaining, his organic position in the SERPS is great, tons of "borrowed" content though. [edited by: Khensu at 10:46 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2006]
|
ann
msg:3116093 | 10:39 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
3 cent clicks...:( makes my head hurt. Ann
|
ann
msg:3116094 | 10:40 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Oops, posted twice Ann
|
Khensu
msg:3116100 | 10:47 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
:( :( Now your head hurts twice as much. [edited by: Khensu at 10:48 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2006]
|
spaceylacie
msg:3116124 | 11:06 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Actually, for publishers, that would be about 2 cents a click since we only get roughly a little over 2/3 of the bid(70%? or so). Grab that ice pack, ann... or something stronger.
|
Scurramunga
msg:3116141 | 11:30 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Good to see that Google is finally taking some action that could potentially discourage arbitage sites. :-)
|
maxgoldie
msg:3116319 | 3:52 am on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Good to see that Google is finally taking some action that could potentially discourage arbitage sites. |
|
But, if this were really true, then we would be seeing less of the parked domains with Adsense on them. Lets face it, most of these people use Adwords, and then drive the visitor to a landing page -- with nothing but ads! How can Google on one hand justify encouraging domain parkers to build these sorts of sites, and then go after the "little guy" who is playing nickel-and-dime arbitrage for peanuts? (ads on those parked domain sites are likely the worst paying ads too! -- and the most degrading to the user experience, irregardless of niche)
|
ronburk
msg:3116327 | 4:14 am on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| They are after pure arbitrage sites. |
|
Maybe, but I've seen similar price increases for ads pointing to my Honest-to-God content website. We just agreed to disagree about what those clicks were worth and I moved my money elsewhere in the keyword space. If they were trying to eliminate my site, they presumably would have jacked the price on my many other 1/2/3 cent ads. When the ROI is slim (big purchase price, thousands of clicks to make one sale), a few pennies is often all a click is worth. | Good for Google and the rest of us, |
|
Sorta depends. If there were advertisers who got a decrease in qualified traffic stream because of the elimination of this arbitrage site, then "not so good" for them, eh? Arbitrage lubricates the system, filling in for inept AdWords advertisers. In effect, arbitrage allows AdSense/AdWords specialists to implicitly sell their services to advertisers who do not understand the keyword space of their product well. | I'm guessing a lot of Adsense publishers were happy when they stoppped getting 0.03$ a click ads about "top 8 sites on diabetic products" on their sites about noodles. |
|
Really? I don't see many posts of the form "Cool -- my revenue went down again!" here. | Good to see that Google is finally taking some action that could potentially discourage arbitage sites. |
|
I don't see why Google should, I doubt they are, and I don't think it would be good. Arbitrage cannot exist unless other forms of delivering the customer to the advertiser are failing to cover all their bases. I would expect to see smarter posts in this thread, perhaps of the form "Gee, I better look into making some excellent content that ranks well for specific diabetic drug search terms." But maybe the smart folk are just doing that and not posting :-).
|
david_uk
msg:3116355 | 5:31 am on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| I would expect to see smarter posts in this thread, perhaps of the form "Gee, I better look into making some excellent content that ranks well for specific diabetic drug search terms." But maybe the smart folk are just doing that and not posting :-). |
|
I'd agree here, but there is a "But" of course. I think the idea of improving site content and google friendliness only goes so far as regards adsense profits. I'm personally not very happy at Google on this issue currently. Over the last couple of months I've been working intensively at improving my site's position in serps and improving page load times etc. Currently I've increased my site's position on Google from number 5 to a very solid number 2. I am now placed higher than Wikipedia (number 4) and the jokey cult site that was at number 2. I'd love to get to number 1, but that's a hard act. Increasing page rank at the very top is much more difficult than going from page 200 to page 150. So I've done this partly as a result of technical changes, and partly as a result of content changes. The site has mantained a top position for some years purely as a result of content. The results of this work as regards adsense earnings? CTR has improved slightly but overall traffic and clicks have gone up by a third over the last two months. EPC had decreased to a QUARTER of what it was, and earnings are at their lowest point in two years. That's what you get for adding prime content, and working to make the site as Google friendly as possible. You might do better in serps, but adsense will crucify you.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3116373 | 6:12 am on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| How can Google on one hand justify encouraging domain parkers to build these sorts of sites, and then go after the "little guy" who is playing nickel-and-dime arbitrage for peanuts? |
|
Again, the AdWords landing-page Quality Scores (and higher minimum bids tied to those scores) apply only to search. Google is simply trying to protect its brand by ensuring a positive experience for users who click ads on its pages. (The only reason we're even discussing the topic here is because the original poster is an AdSense publisher who was using AdWords ads to generate clicks and income on made-for-AdSense pages.)
|
Green_Grass
msg:3116398 | 7:08 am on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Parked Domains are part of the Google SEARCH partners. Believe it or not. Many adwords advertisers frequently complain to no avail. [webmasterworld.com...]
|
ronburk
msg:3116805 | 2:15 pm on Oct 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| That's what you get for adding prime content, and working to make the site as Google friendly as possible. You might do better in serps, but adsense will crucify you. |
|
Could it be that the difference between position 5 and position 2 is less qualified traffic for the current set of ads?
|
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
