| 5:26 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just saw it on my site... let's see if this performs well. Also I tested it on another site and it looks ok to me.
| 7:21 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Also enabled on 468 x 60. Just noticed them this morning on my site.
I did wonder what the two very small arrows were and was more dubious on whether I could click on them.
| 7:25 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Saw these too, but only on my site so did'nt click to see what they did
Could be good that it has captured the visitors attention if they are scrolling as there is 3 times more adverts for them to choose from so hopefully there will be something thats relevant to them
| 7:29 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So...if the arrows just display more ads, is it ok for us to click on them to see it work?
How come there was no announcement about this - it would have been nice to have it explained before it went into effect on site.
| 8:02 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
me too saw it today on my site.. :)
If someone is interested to click on those icons then he/she will surely visit one of the link given in that ad.. what you say? CTR may increase.. and of course the impression will also increase significantly.
| 8:45 am on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I clicked on the arrows in a 160x600 wide skyscraper and simply observed more ads being displayed. I don't see any harm in it. That is, I did not click on any of the individual ads and was not redirected to any advertiser site, so no advertiser was charged. I may be wrong, but I think everybody can relax about this. It's akin to clicking on a link unit link and viewing the follow-up ads page.
Looks neat. I hope it works to publishers' benefit.
| 1:43 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It does not look quite good on one of my templates, it makes the ad stick out even more. I just don't see people wanting to scroll ads either, there is already enough dislike towards clicking on adsense ads at all.
I would have liked a heads up too, and a choice. I still find it hard to stomach that Google makes changes to ads, which changes the appearance on websites, without so much as a warning.
| 5:16 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pretty harmless I guess, but I fail to see any popular demand for the ability to scroll through more ads.
| 5:51 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Pretty harmless I guess, but I fail to see any popular demand for the ability to scroll through more ads. |
I don't think most surfers study ads enough to want to scroll them.
| 7:21 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
OK, so if there are 5 ad sets lined up for scrolling, and the viewer doesn't scroll, is that 1 impression, or 5?
What counts as an impression with this deal?
| 7:41 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Pretty harmless I guess, but I fail to see any popular demand for the ability to scroll through more ads. |
But then I see an "unpopular" "demand" to see more ads in my link unit results, which are pretty decent (on one site), on a par with my ad unit results.
|I agree. I don't think most surfers study ads enough to want to scroll them. |
I don't care about "most surfers"; I care about the tiny minority of 1-2% of surfers who might increase to 2-3% of surfers who do study ads and, more to the point, click on them.
If my CTR goes from its typical average 1% to average 1.2% (i.e., a 20% gain) because of this new scrollable ads feature, hey, I won't complain. ;-)
If some ("most"?) publishers want to ignore "little" improvements in their CTRs (hence revenues) at the margins, who am I to argue? ;-)
| 10:37 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't like the idea of not having an opt out option for scrolls or "more links" type navigation. There may be situations where the publisher wants to restrict adspace on a site.
| 11:24 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Maybe soon it will be possible to view and navigate Adsense advertisers' websites in full-screen mode (using roll-over/layer/expand techniques similar to Youtube) and then your visitor won't even have to click on any link ;).
| 11:31 pm on Dec 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have seen the ads with the more links feature. I doubt any of these would work.
Who would want to actually scroll or click to see more ads?
| 1:19 am on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This does bring up the old issue of "less is more". Many webmasters (like us), a while back, went to the extent of removing all but one ad unit per page on the theory that by displaying too many ads and giving more options to click on gives the visitor more options to leave the publisher site at a lower PPC rate. In other words the ads displayed beyond the primary (unscrolled) set are probably worth less and thus undesirable to publishers. Looks like there is no escaping those worthless low-end bidders now, short of FILTERING them all. Oh well...
Edited for major spelling bug.
[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 1:22 am (utc) on Dec. 13, 2007]
| 2:07 am on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|n other words the ads displayed beyond the primary (unscrolled) set are probably worth less and thus undesirable to publishers. Looks like there is no escaping those worthless low-end bidders now... |
[edited by: Scurramunga at 2:28 am (utc) on Dec. 13, 2007]
| 4:25 am on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If my visitors aren't inclined to click on a link for a reputable company name they recognize, I find it hard to believe they'll scroll and then click on one for the ever present MFAs like see-top-10-searches-for-this-product.com.
| 10:41 am on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Who would want to actually scroll or click to see more ads? |
The same people who click on link unit links?
People who might actually, believe it or not, be interested in the ads?
Generally speaking, Google (at long last, it was a struggle at first!) ad targets my sites well, and I am careful to post ads only on pages where they might serve the reader.
Not all publishers blanket their webpages with Adsense (and other) ads showing MFA arbitrageurs, bogus search engines, ringtone scammers, eBay, and others of their ilk.
On some sites, again believe it or not, Adsense ads can be an additional resource pointing to useful information.
If some publishers think that ads offend their site visitors so much, it's a wonder that those publishers subject their site visitors to the annoyance (or worse).
| 12:10 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Automatic scroll would be maybe a better option.
| 6:57 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
well seems good as improvement but i think revenue will decrease as it will show more ads in 1 banner ...what u thinks?
| 8:59 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I would assume no difference. Otherwise Google would be cutting its own income as well, which seems contrary to the point of the exercise.
| 9:00 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|but i think revenue will decrease as it will show more ads in 1 banner |
More low-bid advertisers might show (in the scroll-down or scroll-to-the-side displays), but CTR might go up, as the site visitor has more choices. So, it all depends on whether higher CTR offsets lower EPC (earnings per click).
If you didn't think this, if you think that more ad displays by necessity lead to lower overall revenue, then by all means, implement single-ad half banners and buttons on your pages to minimize display of the low bidders.
I don't know about you, though (and I don't recall their EPC, whether high or low), but I do know that half banners and buttons had atrociously bad CTR on my sites, and despite the supposition that only highest bid advertisers occupied those spaces, by posting those ad types I lost revenue.
I also know that link units (not disguised as navigation links, not unduly blended in so as to confuse the visitor) do fairly well on my sites, on a par with ad units. Yet link units potentially display 40-50 ads (depending on whether you show the 4 or 5 links variety, with each follow-on page showing 10 ads per page). Surely there must be many low bid advertisers among those 40-50. But there must be enough high bidders, too, because from link units, I make relatively good money.
Look at it this way: Google is testing scrollable ads to see if, not only will advertisers benefit, but also will Google, and by implication publishers, too. There is a rough correlation between Google's take and ours. If, as a whole, Google's algorithms determine an ad mix/format/presentation that yields the highest average CTR x average EPC, they benefit, and publishers do too. (Another rhetorical question: Does anybody think that Google got rich by purposely maximizing the impression counts of pennies-per-click, lowest-bid advertisers?)
As in all things, you have to find the "sweet spot," in the case of Adsense between too many ads and too few, just the right mix that maximizes ad revenues in your particular situation. Scrollable ads are potentially another tool for achieving that sweet spot.
| 10:20 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I wonder how this might affect the performance of AdLinks units?
It seems like this would be competing with Adlinks for ad inventory to display.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this will work.
[On a somewhat related side note, about 80% of the AdLinks units I've seen on my site today, have only been displaying the AdLinks search box. I've seldom seen that search box on my site before.]
| 10:31 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Look at it this way: Google is testing scrollable ads to see if, not only will advertisers benefit, but also will Google, and by implication publishers, too."
Except that Google's motives and the publishers are not always the same. Google wants YOUR site visitors to click on THEIR (advertisers) ads and leave YOUR site even if it means they only make a penny (better than nothing to them). Whereas, as a publisher, and not an MFA, if that is all I'm going to make for a lost visitor, I'd rather they visited another page on my site (with better ads) or clicked on another (NON-GOOGLE) ad which is going to make me MORE than a penny.
The way they're going, I wouldn't se surprised if next they start displaying auto-refreshing ads which change every 3 seconds. Oh darn! Look out, now I've given them the idea. I remember a competitor back in the 90's who started doing that so they could bill advertisers for more ad impressions... obviously a last resort, as they were out of business 2 months later.
| 10:58 pm on Dec 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The tradeoff is not so much between visitors
--leaving my site via a high-bid vs. low-bid ad click
as it is between
--leaving my site via an ad click vs. some other click (clicking on the back button or some other non-ad link).
On MY sites I profit from showing just the right mix of ad units and link units, with high-bid advertisers and low-bid. I have split-tested this to death, and I know what works FOR ME.
| 2:15 am on Dec 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Allow this only as an option.
Web site owners could decide if it is beneficial to their own purpose.
| 10:12 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Also a lot of visitors might have been burned in the past by "fake scroll" ads that do nothing but click through when you try to scroll them.
| 1:12 am on Dec 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm with jomaxx. The little scroll arrows strike me as being harmless but not likely to get much attention from the average user. I'm guessing this is just a test (one that isn't likely to yield stellar results).
| 7:27 am on Dec 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Automatic scroll would be maybe a better option. |
Ticker tape ads? Can they alternate with Google's Stock Price? 8->
At least on the business sites...
P.S. I don't see great potential for this scroll idea, but at least the Google Adsense Team isn't static; it keeps trying to innovate. Let's hope they find a new killer idea!
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |