homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.41.242
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

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >     
Year over year, adwords vs. adsense
martingale




msg:3249783
 6:07 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I advertise on adwords and I run ads on adsense. My revenue is seasonal, and right now is my peak time of the year for both revenue and cost.

My site is monetized by adsense revenue and in fact the ads I pay for are in exactly the same category as the ads that run on my site--I aim to break even on adwords advertising in that I pay about as much for a visitor from adwords as I earn from a visitor via adsense (I pay for 5th-6th position ads and then some click through the 1st position, net it balances or I'd stop paying for the traffic). I view that as a way of generating a little extra exposure for my site--if a few of those bookmark me or tell their friends I come out ahead. I actually earn my income on organic traffic (search, referral, or returning).

At any rate, this puts me in a position to compare adsense revenue with adwords costs and I've noticed something interesting. By comparing the exact same time periods this year with last year I can see:

-- My organic traffic has grown 50-60%, great!

-- My adwords ads cost 2x what they used to, and since I refuse to raise my bids that means my CPC traffic has crashed

-- My adsense per click revenue is about 60% of what it used to be, per click

So advertising cost has gone up while advertising revenue has gone down, per click, for the same/similar keywords. Google is taking a very much bigger bite now than they used to.

The net result is my overall income from the site is about the same as it was last year, except that I now have much higher free organic traffic, and much lower paid adwords traffic... I know advertisers are actually paying more (I am one of them!) so google got the difference.

 

koan




msg:3249802
 6:48 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is a fascinating situation. I tried to come up with other reasons for the discrepancy between your spendings and revenues and I can't come up with anything else right now except your own conclusion.

Can't wait to see what others will have to say.

jomaxx




msg:3249822
 7:16 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I assume your AdWords traffic is from the content network, otherwise there would be no particular relationship between the figures at all.

Even so, you don't know what advertisers are actually paying for clicks from your site. That can vary due to smart pricing, the number and type of ad blocks on the page, the range of ads that get matched to your website, etc.

TheTraveler




msg:3249826
 7:22 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bingo!

Welcome to the world of big corporate business.

Do no Evil!(and quietly suck more revenue from the middle of the pie)

It is a natural tendency since the begging of time. A middle man will always strive to increase the percentage of their cut.

darkmage




msg:3249839
 7:46 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is pretty much a bit of a broken record. Earnings are down, advertising costs are up - Google must be taking more money. But..every quarter we see Google's overall take as a percentage stay roughly the same. In fact Google's cut dropped last quarter.

The effects you are seeing are a result of a much bigger network of advertisers and publishers - but both are not growing equally. Plus budgets are often capped on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. This all leads to the same conclusion:

-CPC will fall - *and continue to fall* for publishers as long as new sites are added
-Costs on Adsense will rise.

Lets say you had a budget of $100, $1 per click. And you get 100 clicks out of 125 you could have got. The ads are only appearing on one site. Your budget runs out at about 6pm (probably 7-8pm, but it's only a rough example). Other cheaper bidders take your place. The sole publisher sees a CPC drop later in the evening (But really they don't see it directly, because they only have daily totals). After Google's cut and allowing for lower bids, they may see a CPC of, say, $0.60 for the day

Because of competition, now you have to bid at $2, your budget runs out much earlier. You expect that the publisher gets rougly the same income for the day. However, now imagine if there are now three sites showing the ads instead of 1, the original publisher will now only get a third of the income from that advertiser (assuming same CTR and traffic). The original publisher now gets just 16.6% of the clicks (we'll call it 17). Depending on how many other advertisers are bidding, the CPC may decay quite rapidly during the day - the more sites displaying the ads, the greater the decay. This effect cascades down through the Adsense network and the publisher may get an end result of $0.40 CPC for the day.

They then come here and complain that Google is taking more money...and lot's of people agree that this this is the only possible explanation!

TheTraveler




msg:3249909
 9:18 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

The falloff effect is definitely present.

Niche fragmentation by too many publishers in your area.

2 great points of expanding market forces.

But I still think there is some algo pie slicing constantly going on.

mzanzig




msg:3249923
 10:08 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

darkmage:

Every quarter we see Google's overall take as a percentage stay roughly the same. In fact Google's cut dropped last quarter.

As outlined in msg # 3242856 in the thread "Google just disclosed the amount of money given to AdSense partners" ( [webmasterworld.com...] ) the revenue share of the Google earnings report is meaningless because we as publishers do not have enough insight into how this figure is being calculated. It depends on:

- details of special deals Google might have (we don't know)
- number of publishers participating in Adsense (we don't know)
- individual payouts (we just know our own payouts)
- revenue share (we don't know)

You could get to 75% revenue share ("traffic aquisition cost", i.e. money paid to Adsense publishers for running Adsense) two ways:

(case 1)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, 100% revenue share, 100$ revenue for publisher = 100$ accounted to publisher, 0$ to Google
Site B: 100$ Adwords income, 50% revenue share, 50$ revenue for publisher = 50$ accounted to publisher, 50$ to Google
Total: 200$ Adwords income, 150$ revenue for publishers = 150$ accounted to publishers, 50$ to Google
The overall revenue share is 75%

(case 2)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, 75% revenue share, 75$ revenue for publisher = 75$ accounted to publisher, 25$ to Google
Site B: 100$ Adwords income, 75% revenue share, 75$ revenue for publisher = 75$ accounted to publisher, 25$ to Google
Total: 200$ Adwords income, 150$ revenue for publishers = 150$ accounted to publishers, 50$ to Google
The overall revenue share is 75%

You see, the overall figure of 75% does not help estimating the individual revenue share. To Google, the net result is exactly the same (while we certainly both agree that the net result for the publisher differ big time).

Can we now at least conclude that the revenue shar must be at least 50%? No, because we have to account for the size of pie as well:

(case 3)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, 100% revenue share, 100$ revenue for publisher = 100$ accounted to publisher, 0$ to Google
Site B: 50$ Adwords income, 25% revenue share, 12.50$ revenue for publisher = 12.50$ accounted to publisher, 37.50$ to Google
Total: 150$ Adwords income, 112.50$ revenue for publishers = 112.50$ accounted to publishers, 37.50$ to Google
The overall revenue share is 75%

Again, the overall payout has stayed the same (75%), but the shares are very different.

We simply do not know the details behind the figures, so we should try to avoid using this figure ever again to explain the details of Adsense.

darkmage




msg:3249931
 10:35 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I read that thread. You are right, we don't know exactly how the percentage works. On the other hand, there is no evidence that OVERALL, Google is taking more money - which was the premise of the original post. "I know advertisers are actually paying more (I am one of them!) so google got the difference."

There is a much simpler explanation as to why Advertiser costs are going up and Publisher CPC is falling - growing markets.

I also would like to point out that this is about CPC, not earnings. More advertisers mean that inventory is more likely to be filled. So a falling CPC doesn't mean falling income.

europeforvisitors




msg:3250061
 2:10 pm on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

The trouble with the "Google is taking a bigger share" argument is that not all members of this forum are seeing declines. So one could argue that Google may be taking a bigger share of your revenues, but if that's the case, it may just as easily be giving a bigger share to other publishers (e.g., publishers who aren't engaged in click arbitrage).

It seems to me that more likely explanations would include supply and demand (the dilution effect that was explained earlier in this thread) and "smart pricing."

martingale




msg:3250688
 12:28 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

efv, you can just say "smart pricing" . I really don't think so, though.

First, my site is not some made for adsense click farm. I'm an expert in my area and the content is written to educate people on the subject and provide actual answers to questions people have. I don't even run it to earn the adsense revenue (though it's nice to receive), but rather, long-run, to build my reputation.

My site helps people make decisions that involves a fair amount of money--the advertisers on my site are primarily trying to get new customers, and my site is educational, and primarily offers advice to people on how to make this decision. Presumably when they click through they intend to compare the advertisers' offering with what they've learned reading my articles. I would think that makes them high quality clicks.

In terms of empirical evidence 22% of the visitors to my site are repeat customers who bookmarked it, 30% of new visitors browse several articles before clicking off the site, and I receive a couple of emails every day from people saying they appreciated the effort I put in. I've been contacted by advertisers who want to advertise on my site, but I've stuck with Adsense.

In terms of "click arbitrage", first we're talking about just 13% of the traffic on my site that comes from CPC, probably not very significant. Still, they're probably among the best quality--they represent people who were searching for something, found an apparently related article on my site and then clicked off to a related advertiser. Either the article helped them figure out how to make the decision, or it was slightly off topic and they found an ad on my site that was more in line with what they were searching for.

Obviously I don't really know how well my traffic converts for advertisers, because I'm not them, but I'd be pretty surprised if the traffic I'm sending them isn't among the highest quality traffic they're getting. What I'm saying, in this long post, is that I think if anything I probably benefit from smart pricing, if, as I understand it, it's designed to reward high quality sites that deliver high quality traffic. I've seen "made for adsense" sites, the sort that smart pricing should punish, and mine is not one of them.

In the long run I'm not overly bothered by all this. I think that if I keep on producing high quality content I will keep on building up organic traffic. At some point, whether it's via adsense, or via something else, I will find a way to leverage that into something valuable--possibly just by building up a reputation that I translate into non-online advantage. Possibly by monetizing the traffic.

For now it's nice to have the adsense revenue--it adds about 7% to my annual income--but I dont' view adsense as core to my success. I view it as one current method of extracting some value for the work that I've done.

[edited by: martinibuster at 2:04 am (utc) on Feb. 13, 2007]
[edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] 4 & 19. [/edit]

rbacal




msg:3250711
 1:07 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Obviously I don't really know how well my traffic converts for advertisers, because I'm not them, but I'd be pretty surprised if the traffic I'm sending them isn't among the highest quality traffic they're getting. What I'm saying, in this long post, is that I think if anything I probably benefit from smart pricing, if, as I understand it, it's designed to reward high quality sites that deliver high quality traffic. I've seen "made for adsense" sites, the sort that smart pricing should punish, and mine is not one of them.

Sometimes people take comments on "smart pricing" too personally, or misinterpret the meaning (which is actually partly google's fault for poor use of language when describing it).

It's not really about site quality in terms of your visitors. It's about site quality in terms of advertisers as guessed at by google and its algorithm. It's confusing because QS on the adwords side IS partly about user experience re: landing pages.

You're drawing an incorrect conclusion when you talk about the quality of your site and smartpricing, and that you probably "benefit from it". It doesn't really work that way... it's way more complex.

So, what you see could certainly be smartpricing at work, and although you can't see that it "should" be that way, that's likely it.

The descriptions of your site resemble my situation and websites and their focus. I can tell you without a doubt, from looking at the abrupt and fairly regular changes in income, that our sites certainly get smartpriced, then get unsmartpriced, AND, that changes in our EPC/ECPM are also a clear result of adjustments in advertiser behavior.

There's no way to know if there are OTHER variables at play like "improvements" in the ads google serves to your/our specific pages, for example that have happened over the last year or two.

Too many things continue to change to identify only one or two explanatory variables.

jomaxx




msg:3250740
 1:42 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

1. As I already said but you didn't confirm, these numbers only have any relevance if you're talking about the cost of advertising on the content network. Clicks from Google's own site will necessarily be a lot more expensive.

2. Smart pricing is more than simply conversion rate. It may also be related to the theme of your site, the content on the specific page where the ad is shown, where your traffic comes from, user behaviour after a clickthrough, etc.

ronburk




msg:3250772
 2:10 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Isn't it interesting how Smart Pricing stimulates all sorts of emotional responses, as though having an algorithm make a decision about what ROI advertisers can expect via your website is akin to having a man on the bus say that your baby is ugly? (Oooold joke. Conductor: "I'm terribly sorry that man upset you ma'am. Let me upgrade your ticket, and I'll see if I can find a banana for your monkey!").

Smart Pricing may have nothing whatsoever to do with your situation, but you could at least look at it rationally. For example, if Smart Pricing works as designed, then a website that has a high degree of repeat traffic and displays ads for infrequently purchased products/services should see its revenues decline over time (as the ROI for advertisers drops due to saturated eyeballs). As another example, if Smart Pricing works, then many websites should see revenue decline as their traffic increases since, beyond a certain point, traffic increases simply mean displaying ads to less qualified prospects.

Since Google is pouring a huge amount of cash into getting data to make Smart Pricing work better, it seems to me it's only sensible to carefully consider it as a factor in any significant change of payout over time.

[edited by: martinibuster at 2:11 am (utc) on Feb. 13, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed edited quote. [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3250788
 2:27 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

efv, you can just say "smart pricing" . I really don't think so, though.

Smart pricing is one possible reason for your troubles; I also mentioned supply and demand. But let's talk about click arbitrage for a moment. You say that your site isn't a "click farm," and I'll take your word for it, but it would appear from your initial post that you are buying and selling clicks, even if that doesn't represent the bulk of what you do. So, if Google is using profiling to determine smart pricing and/or revenue splits, it's certainly possible that your click arbitrage (relatively limited though it may be) is working to your disadvantage.

martingale




msg:3250941
 6:27 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

-- Yes we're talking about content network clicks. For the record I pay only 10% less for them than for search clicks.

-- I had about 20% returning customers a year ago as well

-- My site is seasonal, so most people haven't been reading it for a good year. Traffic volumes go up 10x this time of year. I really doubt I have stagnating traffic since 9/10 of the site visitors haven't been visiting since last year

-- Point about quality declining with volume is interesting, but I don't think my volume is at a level yet where that would apply. My site probably captures 1% of the available relevant traffic so there's a lot of room to grow before I hit that limit. Traffic volumes have gone up because I moved from page 2 of the relevant keywords to the bottom of page 1 on google search.

-- The supply/demand argument misses the point. If it were supply/demand I would see prices move in the same direction on both the buy and the sell side. I'm seeing prices move in opposite directions.

-- I have every reason to think that my adwords ads are well targetted--they get high CTR's and those CTR's often lead to lengthy site visits (30% view 5 or more articles) meaning people generally find something interesting when they click through

OK, so sure, a lot of things have changed over a year and I can't conclusively prove that this is google taking a bigger chunk, but it SURE does look like it, and I think most of you here are too quick to discount that.

martinibuster




msg:3250960
 7:35 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think most of you here are too quick to discount that.

It's okay if someone discounts that. It would be strange not to, given there are many facts we aren't privy to. ;) You could very well be right but there's no way to prove it, and all the other suggestions can be considered equally valid given the lack of certain facts.

europeforvisitors




msg:3251288
 2:08 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

OK, so sure, a lot of things have changed over a year and I can't conclusively prove that this is google taking a bigger chunk, but it SURE does look like it, and I think most of you here are too quick to discount that.

And some are too quick to discount the fact that other publishers are reporting increases, which hardly supports the notion that Google is taking a bigger chunk across the board.

Of course, Google could be giving a smaller percentage to some publishers and giving a larger percentage to others, based on its own criteria (e.g., whether the site is using click arbitrage, what type of content the site has, etc.) We just don't know.

martingale




msg:3251449
 4:10 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Other publishers reporting increases is only significant if advertisers in their sector are not reporting increases. If you only run adsense and not adwords then you're not in a position to judge whether the increase or decrease is due to supply/demand, as I am.

If you're seeing a 30% increase in price and your advertisers are seeing a 100% increase in price Google is still taking a bigger bite from you.

I'd like to hear reports from others who have visibility into both sides of the equation, as I do.

rbacal




msg:3251504
 5:09 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'd like to hear reports from others who have visibility into both sides of the equation, as I do.

I do. But here's the problem. You/we can't take the data from a very small sample of sites relative to the whole, and extrapolate any general conclusions about what google is doing. It simply doesn't work that way, because both adsense and adwords or too complex for us to even get close to knowing even a handful of the variables that would apply to any individual site.

All of these thread that try to explain some limited data (and I've participated in some of them) are really a mug's game. Entertaining perhaps, but absolutely pointless with no utility whatsoever for understanding google, or improving revenue.

I say the same thing when people claim their revenue increases as a result of doing x or y. You cannot extrapolate to any other site, or to the network.

I don't know whether google is taking a bigger share or not. It's essentially unknowable from where we sit.

justageek




msg:3251512
 5:17 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

And I said I wouldn't get involved in another thread like this :-/

There is one more scenario that is almost never discussed. Google admitted they lost money on some deals so here is another scenario in which the overall numbers can indeed tell us something about the payouts.

(case 4)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, guaranteed revenue, 150$ revenue for publisher = 150$ accounted to publisher, -50$ to Google
Site B: 50$ Adwords income, 25% revenue share, 12.50$ revenue for publisher = 12.50$ accounted to publisher, 37.50$ to Google
Total: 150$ Adwords income, 162.50$ revenue for publishers = 162.50$ accounted to publishers, -37.50$ to Google
The overall revenue share is NOT 75% yet this number seems to remain constant! How can this be?

I used $150 as a guaranteed payout amount to keep the math simple. We do not know how much they lost so that number could be anything but it is still going to be a loss as Google says. The deals that Google loses money on are huge deals so keep that in mind.

Knowing that Google has a loss on some of the BIG deals where there is a guaranteed payout and the Google overall percentage remains the same where does the money come from? Anyone?

JAG

rbacal




msg:3251529
 5:36 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Knowing that Google has a loss on some of the BIG deals where there is a guaranteed payout and the Google overall percentage remains the same where does the money come from? Anyone?

Funny post. Has it occurred to you that it can work BOTH ways?

...that google may lose on same of this "fixed" type contracts, and they may also gain?

PS. You may also want to reflect on exactly how these "sweetheart" deals are actually structured, and determine what you KNOW is true, and what you are guessing MIGHT be the case!

..but...uh...wait. You don't really know, do you?

justageek




msg:3251541
 5:47 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Funny post. Has it occurred to you that it can work BOTH ways?

Actually it has occurred to me. But I cannot make the math work if it did. If Google is paying more than it is making to BOTH the garanteed payout folks and the others that would be a funny post indeed. Please rbacal, or anyone else, show me how to do the math in the BOTH ways scenario and still have an average payout of 75%.

PS. You may also want to reflect on exactly how these "sweetheart" deals are actually structured, and determine what you KNOW is true, and what you are guessing MIGHT be the case!

..but...uh...wait. You don't really know, do you?

I don't have to know the details nor do I care. All I need to know is what Google has said which is that some have been a loss.

I would really like someone to prove me wrong based on the Google facts. Please, keep trying.

JAG

rbacal




msg:3251554
 5:58 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't have to know the details nor do I care.

That's kind of obvious. The nature of the deals is critical to your argument -- and for example, it makes a huge difference to the numbers if the agreements are flat rate, percentage, or a combination.

But we don't know. As for making the numbers work, the problem isn't in your numbers, but in your logic, and since you "don't care", I'll leave the explanations to someone else that wants to track through your messages on this topic for like the umpteenth time.

rbacal




msg:3251557
 6:02 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't have to know the details nor do I care. All I need to know is what Google has said which is that some have been a loss.

..and it has occured to you that "some might have been a gain"?

(does that give you a hint as to "where the money might come from"?

mzanzig




msg:3251574
 6:19 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

JAG,

I like your "Case 4". In fact, when I made my post earlier, I also thought about such a scenario, but was too lazy to work out how it might get to a revenue share of 75%. :-)

The flaw in that case as presented by you is that you assume that Google are actually losing money. At the end, they see a balance of -$37.50 which is not the typical scenario of the earnings reports.

One possible answer to your question - "How can it be still 75%?" - is that Google tries to limit the number of sweetheart deals, and the content network to balance the whole thing off:

(case 4b)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, guaranteed revenue, 150$ revenue for publisher = 150$ accounted to publisher, -50$ to Google
Site B: 150$ Adwords income, 25% revenue share, 37.50$ revenue for publisher = 37.50$ accounted to publisher, 112.50$ to Google
Total: 250$ Adwords income, 187.50$ revenue for publishers = 187.50$ accounted to publishers, 62.50$ to Google
And again, the overall revenue share is 75%
(surprise, surprise)

To make the situation even more complex, Google may be pouring money from other sources (marketing budget) to increase the Adwords market. For example, I have seen deals from big hosting companies that offer Adwords vouchers of up to 50 Euro (65$) with each new contract.

Also, Google could be using associated sites like Youtube to "correct" issues as required, acting as "flexible sweetheart deals" if you want.

justageek




msg:3251578
 6:28 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

and it has occured to you that "some might have been a gain"?

Sure it has. But as I said, for the umpteenth time, the math doesn't work. To cancel a loss, and still keep the payout percentage as a whole at 75%, Google would have had to collect more than it charged the advertiser OR reduce the payout percentage to others. What's the chances Google will overcharge folks let alone get away with it?

(does that give you a hint as to "where the money might come from"?

No. It doesn't.

the problem isn't in your numbers, but in your logic

Thanks. That's great. The numbers do not lie. Please explain where my logic is flawed. Please explain how if the numbers are correct and the 'logic' (as you call it) is wrong when it comes from Google themselves.

I'm not making all this up. It is there for you to read in Google's documents. The only thing I am doing is applying the math (which we agree is correct) so please carry on and explain with math, and facts, how I am wrong. The only thing I keep reading is 'what if this or what if that' or 'but some have had a gain' etc.

At the end of the day the math is correct and the data to do the math is straight from Google themselves. No 'what ifs' in my posts.

JAG

justageek




msg:3251584
 6:36 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

The flaw in that case as presented by you is that you assume that Google are actually losing money.

Actually, I'm not. It is in their 10Q. They lost money and they say it as they should.

One possible answer to your question - "How can it be still 75%?" - is that Google tries to limit the number of sweetheart deals, and the content network to balance the whole thing off:

(case 4b)
Site A: 100$ Adwords income, guaranteed revenue, 150$ revenue for publisher = 150$ accounted to publisher, -50$ to Google
Site B: 150$ Adwords income, 25% revenue share, 37.50$ revenue for publisher = 37.50$ accounted to publisher, 112.50$ to Google
Total: 250$ Adwords income, 187.50$ revenue for publishers = 187.50$ accounted to publishers, 62.50$ to Google
And again, the overall revenue share is 75% (surprise, surprise)

Right...which brings the little guy down to a 25% payout which is the basis for these type threads. It's the little guy that gets the shaft to keep the 75% payout number the same :-)

JAG

europeforvisitors




msg:3251631
 7:42 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Right...which brings the little guy down to a 25% payout which is the basis for these type threads. It's the little guy that gets the shaft to keep the 75% payout number the same :-)

There's one problem with that argument: Not all little guys are getting the shaft, so the question becomes "Why is John Doe getting the shaft when Jane Buck isn't?" Maybe John Doe needs to be looking for reasons that are closer to home.

Getting back to supply and demand (which the OP dismissed earlier in this thread), it's a mistake to assume that the term "supply and demand" refers only to bids. It also refers to inventory. If more publishers are chasing the same number of $1 clicks for "nickel-plated widgets" or "whatsitville hotels," there will be fewer $1 clicks for each publisher.

Still, in the end, John Doe (or the OP, for that matter) can't know what's causing a drop earnings per click. He can experiment and try to find a solution, or he can look for alternative sources of revenue to supplement or replace his declining income from AdSense. But there's one thing we do know: Idle speculation, unsupported allegations, and venting don't pay the bills.

jatar_k




msg:3251635
 7:49 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

the trouble with these threads is that we have only hypotheses and very little in detail

this makes it possible to discount or prove either side

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone because there isn't really enough data

to talk about factors that are possible and may contribute to a possible truth is fine but I don't see any use in getting too entrenched on either side

these threads should be more amicable analysis and less confrontational absolutism

justageek




msg:3251692
 8:41 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone because there isn't really enough data

I don't know about that...Google gives enough data to figure it out.

But, I agree that we'll always have two very different sides of the house with this subject so please stick red hot needles in my eyes if I ever get sucked into this topic again :-)

JAG

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >
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