homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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 220 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 220 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]     
New AdSense Advisor

 5:29 pm on Nov 12, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hi All,

Our previous ASA is transitioning to a new role within Google, so I'm thrilled to announce that I'll be your new ASA.

I really look forward to working with you.

Fire away!




 4:58 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

It depends on how it's implemented. Let's say that you declare 10 cents as the minimum net bid that you're willing to accept, and you see that the advertiser is being asked to pay 20 cents. Does that mean Google is keeping a dime and you're getting a dime? Not necessarily. It could simply mean that, for its own reasons, Google won't let that advertiser bid less than 20 cents. And what if Google did charge the advertiser 20 cents and pay you 10? How could you know that Google wasn't using part of its 10 cents to subsidize other publishers, using a quality score or "share the wealth" formula as a guide? You'd be guessing, just as you're guessing now.

IMHO, Google doesn't want to let publishers set minimums for one simple reason: The AdSense "black box" wasn't designed to be micromanaged by outsiders who don't have the network's greater interests (including Google's own interests) in mind.


 5:41 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

Setting minimum bids isn't going to provide the control over what ads show on one's site that people think it will. Isn't this kind of obvious?

Yes, it is.

But some people don't care what ads appear on their site as long as they earn the right amount of money from those ads.

Some people primarily want to have control over which ads are shown on their site and the amount earned is a secondary concern.

Still others want both a minimum click amount and control over which ads appear.

And there are those who believe that setting a minimum click amount will also keep away most or all of the unwanted ads.

Regardless of all that, I think everyone should consider all this just somewhat interesting conversation and not get their hopes up lest they be disappointed.



 8:27 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

By now, the upper echelons of Google AdSense should be way past getting a forwarded list of 5 top requests. They should know, for one example, publishers here want a better and bigger filter and should be examining why - "what is it about the ads we're serving that seem to be so unpopular in many situations with publishers?"

I agree that it's generally not a good idea to set your expectations too high. I'm reading what you guys are saying, and I'll gladly pass it along, but at the end of the day I'm not the one building the product. There are lots of factors that go into product prioritization.

But the idea that the folks who build our products don't know or care about what publishers want is dead wrong. The thing to remember is that there are tons of sources of feedback and tons of publishers asking for tons of things. The challenge is trying to surface the stuff you all care about most so that we aren't just inundating the product team with a million different asks.

I'm not going to make you any promises. I will say that the more you all work together to prioritize what you want the most, the more likely you will be to influence the product. That's how things get done within Google too.



 9:03 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

ASA, you're suggesting that we as forum members prioritize things we'd like to see in the Adsense program. Do you mean by this that we unite and create a dedicated website, just like Dell did with its Dell Ideastorm campaign?

The result of a public "Google Adsense Idea Storm" may also be good for the search & advertising industry in general.

Please let us know how you think we could best prioritize things, other than the things we've tried on this forum for several years in lots of threads available.



 9:50 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

From ASA:
I'm not going to make you any promises. I will say that the more you all work together to prioritize what you want the most, the more likely you will be to influence the product. That's how things get done within Google too.

It would be cool if the WW Adsense forum mod could create a poll with 5 prioritized topics that cover the most requested Adsense features.

This way, publishers could vote (without including their own, nitpicky caveats to the requests) and the most popular requests will surface.


 10:04 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google is still doing publisher surveys, isn't it? Why ask the moderators to do work that Google is probably doing on its own?


 10:28 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

because Google is here and listening to this group of publishers signor_john.


 11:37 pm on Nov 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

Yes, it is.

But some people don't care what ads appear on their site as long as they earn the right amount of money from those ads.

I'm sorry but I can't see how this could provide much more control than now, unless one doesn't understand how the system works. We know that which ads get displayed on any given page are a function of a number of variables, price being only one.

It's just way more complicated than people seem to want to believe (I know some of the people pushing for this option DO know how it works, but seem to have forgotten). You have to get it in your head that this is NOT an auction, the "auction process" does not determine what gets shown.

I have nothing against having choices, and I think min. bids would be cool, but I hope people will really try to understand how the systems works NOW so they will understand what makes sense for the future features.

I suggest people think about the complexities by first considering the relationships between the information advertisers input (MAXIMUM bids), and the prices they actually end up paying.

I'm betting the majority of people in this thread aren't thinking through the complexity of the system.

..and thus if they get the feature, they will be disappointed because it simply will not provide the control they think it will.

There's other stuff involved with the idea that is really complex regarding what the system is set up to optimize and what happens to that system when it's pushed to optimize revenues in a different way, because the parameters change (ie. supplying some sort of minimum limit).

I'd like the choice, sure, but no illusions that this will solve problems that google has created due to its prior poor decisions (lack of supervising ad copy and destinations, not enforcing rules, not limiting the parking program, not having reasonable standards for publishers, etc)

You can't fix the publisher problems created by bad decisions, by adding a new feature. Honest, it won't work, and if you think about it, understand the system from both the advertiser and publisher (and google), you'll see the only way to solve "our" problems is a fundamental (not trivial feature) shift in policy about quality, enforcement, and yes, even to some degree scalability).

Then again, I've always believed that standards and quality (versus populism and quantity) are profitable. That's NOT the road google started on. I suspect CTR, and revenue will fall for everyone, as a NATURAL progression from policy positions.

sorry, this may be a bit abstract for people but the problems lie not in the implementation so much as policy issues, and that's why a feature can't fix them.


 1:07 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Why not just stop there and let Google worry about their bad choices in the past. I don't think publishers want to fix Google's bad choices in the past, they just want to stop selling clicks for less than they think their web sites are worth.

Because the problem -- selling clicks for less than they think their websites are worth, is a result of those previous choices, and can't be "undone" or fixed the way you think.

I'm with you on the goal. I've said elsewhere that as a result of poor quality ads (which I do believe tend to be correlated with low bids PLUS high clickability) we are cutting our adsense impressions by 50% as our next step. The poor quality ads aren't being clicked on by our visitors...

But what you folks don't seem to want to consider is this is NOT an auction, so therefore you can't reasonably control it via price minimums. Not to mention the conceptual/technical issue involved in integrating smartpricing, bids (and actual click rates, which are different), and the present algorithm which shows ads to maximize revenue OVERALL, not per click.

What you are asking (and Signor John hit it on the head) is for google to start over, because their system isn't created to make it possible for what you are asking to work for anyone.

Again, I hope we get the choice, I guess, but I suspect it's a really bad idea at this time, with the present policies.

AND, I think if google wants to revisit their models, principles and policies and essentially start over, they can solve the issues we all want solved in better ways than offering a minimum bid system which would require publishers to have a ph.d. in combinatorics.


 1:49 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)


Can you set up a poll here like on other sites for the top AdSense feature reqs?


This 220 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 220 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
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