| 9:20 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yeah, I've see it to:
[edited by: martinibuster at 1:36 am (utc) on April 5, 2007]
[edit reason] Fixed URL. [/edit]
| 10:49 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google just announced:
| 11:06 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Although itís not possible to opt out of the new designs, we hope that you and your site visitors will find our new ad formats clearer and more attractive. |
Isn't that special. I'm afraid to check our earnings now:-)
| 12:47 am on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Don't like the way it comes out without any border. Used that way, the Ads by Google seems like it's floating.
On the positive side, I like the fact that Goog is trying to keep things fresh.
Suggestion (Can ASA relay to the team?) :
Perhaps Google can come up with a few formats and allow publishers to select the one that best suits their site's look. I don't think it's too much to ask. While at it, maybe a color version of Goog's logo might just add a bit of spark to an otherwise dreary web page.
| 1:34 am on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thanks andrewshim, I will pass along that suggestion. I'll also keep an eye on this thread and continue to make sure all of your feedback gets back to our ad formats specialists.
| 1:53 am on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The only thing I don't like so far is the inconsistency. I run 2 468 x 60 banners and one has the Ads by Google picture type link while the other had a text link look. I'm pretty meticulous about the consistency of my site's look and feel and this inconsistency kind of stands out (in a bad way).
| 2:10 am on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|... one has the Ads by Google picture type link ... |
I noticed this too. Looks okay, but it does draw a little more attention away from the ads. (In my opinion.)
| 4:35 am on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It really needs to be consistent in both placement and style. I prefer it at the top as people understand right away that these are Google ads and not part of my navigation.
On the other hand I could put up with almost anything if you would just get rid of the misspelled Google (Goooooogle). It makes it look like we are running phony Google Ads.
| 1:25 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Programming consistency should be easy. Otherwise it looks like G is testing!
Curious... any guesses... why do you think these changes would improve earnings?
I can guess why "Ads by Google" at the bottom instead of top would... b/c people don't read the text at the bottom (!) and assume they are nav links... isn't this going to mislead more ppl, "fast surfers," among others, dsylexics, et al?
But why would the graphic be better than "Ads by Google" text?
| 3:59 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|our ad formats specialists |
I'm not sure why but this sounds very funny to me. I can just picture how hard this job must be because I havent seen very many new ad formats in very long time. Google should hire more "ad format specialist". Or just give your publishers freedom to create custom ad formats.
| 4:19 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone know when this started, as since the beginning of this month I have seen increased earnings, CTR, and eCPM. Wasn't aware of this, and just wondering if this is the cause. Personally I much prefer the new design - but quite agree that I think that Google should give publishers a choice of layouts - rather than forcing a new one on everyone.
Afterall - every site is different, targets different audiences and age groups, so perhaps ad variations to reflect this would be good.
| 4:19 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I like it much better than Ads by Gooooooooogle ;)
| 4:40 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
i like it.
a) it stays at the bottom right of my leaderboards - because squished with the ad links on the top left is a no no - and
b) it hopefully gets consistent and doesn't alternate with the old design like now. i also wouldn't welcome if it boils down to a procedure of constant testing of new logos and placements in my ad blocks on googles' site.
now goog please give us options for the logo color and ad fonts.
| 4:40 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Definitely an improvement. It seems also if you blend the borders for your ads then the logo is a black Ads by Google. At least that's what I'm seeing on my site with a white background.
| 5:52 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I prefer the old style, even Gooooooooogle. ;-)
Doesn't look too good without borders, and I saw it once at the top left of a leaderboard and it was really ugly. My pages have no graphic and I'd rather keep them that way.
| 6:34 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I really like it. Looks fresh and more stylish.
The only drawback - some designs might have to be adopted to the new design - is certainly outweighed by the fresh look.
| 10:27 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Great improvement if the ad has borders but looks a bit naff on the ones without.
| 10:57 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am wondering what research has gone into the new designs and what does Googles hope to achieve with the new design.
Just a theory but is Google trying to increase the surfers awareness that they are advertisements not internal links. Thus decreasing click throughs but increasing conversions for the advertiser?
Can anyone see any change in stats that they can contribute to the new design (eg.higher / lower clickthrough etc)?
| 4:31 am on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
good question. I see slightly higher CTR, but I still can't say whether it is part of the usual "swing" or due to the new design. It's probably too early to tell. Also, my ads have not been blended in the past, so my visitors know that they are clicking an ad anyway. I understand that this may not be true for those sites with fully blended ads, and I agree with you that the new design looks strange without borders.
| 4:40 am on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is a few designs. No G or anything, a simple G in a box, a tab with Ads by Google, and a few other variations.
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 4:42 am (utc) on April 6, 2007]
| 4:46 am on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What happened to the "Advertise on this site" links? They're gone on all my ad units, though my Account Settings say I'm still opted-in to Onsite Advertiser Sign-Up.
| 4:32 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm noticing an increase in CTR (between 10 and 20%) with the graphical 'ads by google' at the bottom right of the ad block.
Could be other factors but I don't see anything else changing.
Likely more confusion between internal links vs ad links. As long as the ads are on topic then it is fine with me if users click.
| 4:51 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As a webmaster that is always trying to boost website performance, I'm disappointed to see an image file be loaded where in the past there was simply text. I'm spending a lot of time shaving milliseconds off page load time and now Google shoves in another image to fetch from it's already somewhat slow [pagead2.googlesyndication.com...] server. To Google's credit they do provide GZIP compression on almost all file types (many, many websites amazingly do not), but this does nothing for already compressed image files.
image is a 2kb additional fetch. It appears that at least Google has made sure this is the last fetch made to the pagead2 domain so it does not block other fetches, such as the more important ad content.
There was a time when the ads worked well in an IFrame, allowing complete decoupling of the load time, but this IFrame capability has long since been partially broken. Placing the ad's code at the end of the page helps but there can be so many fetches to the one server it blocks all other asynchronous browser activity for many milliseconds. Google's ads cannot be made to execute "fully" asynchronously without using an IFrame.
This new "Ads by Google" format could be handled fairly well, simply with fonts, classes, and styles, but of course Google wouldn't have absolute control of the look.
Edit:The link above won't work Google is detecting WW's redirect (No PR for anyone these days!).
|Recently Google's home page has gone from 3 fetches (GETS) to 4. It used to be two fetches until they added the silly drop down "more>>" DIV that apparently needed a [X] button close graphic. That "close" button graphic is needlessly loaded millions of times a day! It's in everybody's cache, intermediate caches at ISP's. Now if the whole world used Google's "X" graphic the internet might be a little faster! (I wouldn't do that though!) |
Google checkout is now penalizing the world too.
There are many very nice fonts available.
So I guess you can see I would prefer some text only options which could approximate the graphic very closely, it does look better, but it takes longer for the site visitor to see it!.
Back button anyone! (Instead of clicking on an Ad!
I'd truly love to see the IFrame capability fully restored, then Google's server can go as slow as it wants.
Anyway just some rantings from a webmaster that's getting tired of seeing the web go slower, and sssllloooowwwwweeeeerrrrrrrrr, needlessly.
| 3:02 pm on Apr 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The Google Checkout doesn't have a 120x240 size. Can this please be added?
| 4:10 am on Apr 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
threadjack much? :)
| 3:52 pm on Apr 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I really like the new format, and I don't use borders. It looks so much cleaner than all the underlined text that used to be at the top.
| 4:15 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|My pages have no graphic and I'd rather keep them that way. |
I second this. My pages are simple, with text and no images, and the graphical "Ads by Google" grates unpleasantly. I think if the publisher has specified "text ads only" then the branding should also stay in text format.