homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.183.169
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 306 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 306 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >     
ASA: What are theTop 5 Publisher Requests?
Bddmed

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:37 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

From another thread here: [webmasterworld.com...]

I'll make you a deal: if you all, the members of the AdSense WebmasterWorld forum, can agree on your top 5 asks in order of priority, I will personally email the Director of Product Management for all AdSense products with your list.

So lets get it started.

 

Scurramunga

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 1:09 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Good, then you can have my 1 cent ads that would have come to my site. Have fun with my ads. I don't want them. You take them.

Ditto.

<Added> I have just read Big Dave's full statement and to be fair I think he was quoted out of context, somewhat.

[edited by: Scurramunga at 1:17 am (utc) on Nov. 22, 2008]

buckworks

WebmasterWorld Administrator buckworks us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 2:05 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Publishers who moan about setting a minimum cost-per-click value must remember that CPC is only part of what matters here. Clickthrough rate is equally important.

A higher CPC ad is not necessarily the one that will put the most money in your pocket. A lower CPC ad with a better CTR could easily be more profitable. Google already tries to balance both factors when serving our ads.

I'll cast my vote (again) for better filtering abilities for publishers ... primarily the ability to filter by advertiser account, and also by keywords in ad content.

If it's easier to keep stupid or unsuitable ads off my site, CPC and CTR issues will tend to look after themselves.

darkmage

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 2:20 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Some of this repeats above ideas, but we are looking for a t op 5.

Exclusions. The ability to specify the topics when the words have multiple meanings - and to do this by both exclusion and inclusion (google hints is not that good at this)

Eg Driver - is it:
-Golf driver
-Bus driver
-Hardware driver
-The game 'Driver'
-The Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research.

Even Bus drivers could be a computer bus or public transport bus.

2. The simple ability to see all income from both Search and Ads in one report.

3. SMS/Email reports in HTML or one line, not as an attachment

4. Ability to set Minimum CPC or eCPM equivalent

netchicken1

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 3:53 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

AA how about using some poll software and letting us rank in order of priority features that you consider to be key issues?

I am sure it would be out there somewhere.

farmboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 5:10 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

You must be kidding.

I agree zett. This is becoming surreal.

It's hard for me to believe a company the size of Google functions in this manner.

A lot of people are asking for control over which ads appear on their site. Surely there is someone at Google who would say, "wait a minute, what's wrong with our ad quality?. Is there an underlying problem we need to find?"

Instead of developing a 5-item wish list, I think the bigger goal here should be for Google to understand the problem and then fix it. I'd much rather ASA understand the problem(s) than simply be a wish list messenger.

FarmBoy

koan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 6:23 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

You can have all the great content in the world, but you are more likely to be placement targeted by an advertiser if your site looks polished and professional. You'd be surprised how frequently we hear that feedback from advertisers.

Thanks for that juicy tidbit, feel free to throw us a few more. I was about to say this could be the subject of a great Google Adsense blog post, however, I'm afraid it would be then filled with diluted corporate speak, so maybe you can stick to saying how things really are by making a new thread in this forum. On the other hand, personally, I would say Google hasn't been very critical when it came to accepting publishers, especially when I see some free blog with about 10 plagiarized posts displaying Adsense ads. This whole unfettered growth of low quality publishers might be the reason the average EPC is lower or we have to deal with 1 cent clicks.

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 7:30 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

I agree koan, sounds like the making of a good AdSense blog post: Advertiser Feedback about the Content Network.

Surely there is someone at Google who would say, "wait a minute, what's wrong with our ad quality?

Ad quality will go up if Google promotes the content network more vigorously. Bad ad quality is a symptom of a lack of competition. Didn't you notice that after abitrageurs were whacked the vacuum was filled with wave after wave of irrelevant advertisers, from ringtones to fat loss? The bad advertisers are the SYMPTOM of the problem. The problem is a lack of competition. Treat the problem, not the symptom. Adding a bigger filter solves nothing, absolutely nothing.

Step back, take a look at the big picture. It's like treating an engine oil leak by adding more oil. The oil leak is the symptom. The problem is a broken oil pan.

I agree 100% that some of the advertisers are total crap. I don't need ebook sellers and irrelevant ads for affiliate products on my sites. That's not the user experience I want to give my site visitors. Imo, what they offer is poor merchandise. However, being able to shut them off will only result in less competition, allowing the better advertisers who are already there to slide in at even less CPC, until the next wave of low bidding crap advertisers arrive. Filters and publisher controls solve nothing. The answer lies in more competition.

The advertiser pool is huge. I am confident that the amount advertising on the content network is a fraction of that on the search network. You do realize that? Google needs to grow the content network advertiser base, particularly now that the advertiser signups are probably not growing as fast as in prior years.

[edited by: martinibuster at 7:44 am (utc) on Nov. 22, 2008]

OnlyToday

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 7:43 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is becoming surreal.

Indeed. It's as if ASA is asking us for our letter to Santa, and not trying to brainstorm with us about how we can all make more money.

The green curtain moment from the Wizard of Oz?

The cacophony of MFA's out there is beginning to make a little more sense.

Scurramunga

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 8:16 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

...I would say Google hasn't been very critical when it came to accepting publishers, especially when I see some free blog with about 10 plagiarized posts displaying Adsense ads.

And how does adsense expect to attract quality advertisers knowing this?

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:08 am on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

The problem is a lack of competition. Treat the problem, not the symptom. Adding a bigger filter solves nothing, absolutely nothing.

OK.

Lack of competition among advertisers is the root of the evil. Should it be really as simple as this? The content network does not work, hence there are no (or too few) advertisers willing to compete, hence MFAs are running the show? Is it that simple?

Not entirely. Let's have a look at this from a different angle. Google wanted the growth more than anything else. They let everybody and his dog in. Both on the advertisers and the publishers side. After all, the arbitrage of the early days contributed a lot of revenue and traffic. Sure, it inflated the figures, but they did not care. And so they just looked away. They wanted the growth. They needed the growth.

The result? A program that was built upon a good idea, that got out-of-control, and advertisers began to opt-out of the content network.

So, yes, I agree that adding competition should help, but I fail to see how they could achieve this. It's very difficult to get the ghost back into the bottle. If they tighten advertiser oguidelines (e.g. "quality score"), they lose paying customers. If they tighten publisher guidelines, they remove a big chunk of the real estate. In both cases it becomes clear that improvements will reduce the revenue. Which is not what Google wants.

However, a bigger, better filter will help regulating the mess that Google created. I attribute the ever decreasing eCPM on our sites to those advertisers looking for cheap traffic that sneak in somewhere, unseen, unnoticed.

true_INFP

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 2:00 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

How are we supposed to figure out what you want the most?

Well, the easiest way is to count the votes.

If we exclude each request that got only 1 vote, we obtain the following results:


21% Minimum CPC

17% Block all ads from an advertiser

17% Filter ads by keywords

13% More channels

10% Smart pricing information

6% Font control (size, family)

5% Bigger filter

4% Constant number of ads per unit (honor the chosen ad format)

4% Ads opening in new window

OnlyToday

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 2:45 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

true_INFP I nominate you shop steward, all in favor say "aye."

I say this only partly in jest, collective bargaining won't work here but we do need some leadership when dealing with ASA since he seems less an advisor and more of an errand runner.

farmboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 4:33 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

The bad advertisers are the SYMPTOM of the problem... The problem is a lack of competition.

That might be true.

I think the bad advertisers are the problem. A lack of competition might be the reason the bad advertisers have the ability to become a problem. But a lack of ad quality control on the front end might be the reason bad advertisers have the ability to become a problem.

We could go deeper. I have a niche site where people can submit ads to buy and sell things. I don't have a bad advertiser problem because I don't let them in the door. I willingly forgo the revenue I would receive if I let these ads in my system.

Let's say, for example, I wanted to make $2K per month from this site and didn't have enough good advertisers to reach that goal. I could let in bad advertisers and excuse them by saying I don't have enough good advertisers to reach my goal - in other words, not enough competition.

But I won't do that because I value my site's usefulness and my reputation. And I would also have to consider that if I got rid of the bad advertisers, the whole experience might improve to the point where more good advertisers would come on board. And that's exactly what is happening in my case.

Or there could be something else at work. Maybe Google considers anyone with a valid credit card to be a good advertiser. If that's true, then maybe there is no "problem." Maybe it's just a matter of publishers realizing how things stand and either taking it or leaving it.

Adding a bigger filter solves nothing, absolutely nothing.

There are a number of people who think a bigger filter would have benefits.

And if nothing else, by studying which URL's end up in publishers' filters, Google could learn a lot, assuming that's something they want to know.

You do realize that?

I don't understand the relevance. However, questions/comments like that come off as personal put-downs which personally I don't think are necessary in friendly conversations. If you want to do that OK, but for the record, I don't converse with you in that manner.

FarmBoy

jaynl

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 6:45 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

@true_INFP: did you also have a look at the "New ASA" thread, where suggestions were made this week? A lot of people made suggestions there, and did not participate in this thread (including myself). Those suggestions should be counted as well (and in fact we have a much longer history of making suggestions).

night707

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 7:45 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

...I would say Google hasn't been very critical when it came to accepting publishers, especially when I see some free blog with about 10 plagiarized posts displaying Adsense ads.

One may ask how many more adsense clicks are getting generated on MFA carpets with stolen content compared to the ones on quality sites with original content, design and only one stripe of adsense.

In fact Google gives a lot of web spam No.1 ranks and plenty of advertising Dollars whilst many regular publishers get strangled by malfunctioning algos, dubious Page rank games and other freaky stuff.

night707

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 8:04 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

you are more likely to be placement targeted by an advertiser if your site looks polished and professional.

If Google were serious, one could easily raise the bar by identifying the best content and publishers in the most relevant areas and by working out a collaboration scheme that may include, discussing site structure, design, etc. to please the advertiser.

As well the publisher should receive some sort of security, that his cultivated content investment doesn`t vanish behind webspam or through mad algos or some unmotivated Indians kicking out 950 penalties.

Google could easily ensure decent rankings for good sites to create even a better search experience for everyone.

Very simple.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 8:17 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

If Google were serious, one could easily raise the bar by identifying the best content and publishers in the most relevant areas and by working out a collaboration scheme that may include, discussing site structure, design, etc. to please the advertiser.

You're talking about a different kind of company and a different kind of ad network. Google was built on scalable automation; so was AdSense.

(I also think you'd find that the the "best publishers" of the "best content" wouldn't welcome having advertisers or an ad network act as editorial and design consultants.)

true_INFP

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 8:25 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

did you also have a look at the "New ASA" thread, where suggestions were made this week?

No, just at this thread.

iridiax

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 8:48 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Here are my top 3:

1. Minimum EPC
2. No EPC less than 1 cent
3. Combination text and image ads like Amazon's

jaynl

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:03 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

No, just at this thread.

That will not be sufficient then, I'm afraid. People are tired of mentioning their feature lists over and over again, so you miss a lot of good suggestions from the past if you're only counting this thread. As said, the other thread with lots of good ideas currently running on this forum ("New ASA") should at least be taken into consideration as well.

Thanks.

Bddmed

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:35 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Don't be afraid. But this thread *is* about getting getting the top 5 list. What suggestions did we miss in this thread?

jaynl

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:52 pm on Nov 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

bddmed: I'd also like to point out to you the existence of the other thread that's currently running. Check what's been said there and compare with this thread, thanks.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 1:29 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

One thing to keep in mind: Features don't exist in isolation. As Coachm points out in the "new ASA" thread, AdSense is a complex system, and a feature such as publisher-set minimum EPCs (to name just one) could have an impact that goes beyond the obvious.

For what it's worth, *my* number one feature request would be the ability to block advertiser accounts, not just domains. I doubt if I'd make use of that feature very often myself, but I think it would be useful for some publishers and might make life a tiny bit more difficult for the bottom-feeding advertiser crowd.

true_INFP

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 9:23 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

As said, the other thread with lots of good ideas currently running on this forum ("New ASA") should at least be taken into consideration as well.

You're not expecting me to analyze all AS feature request threads on this board, right? I have more important things to do.

jaynl

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 9:30 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

true_INFP, then I suppose this initiative is not bringing us to a group consensus. In fact I'm not expecting members of this forum to do the inventarisation, I'm expecting Google to read what's being suggested here in the past years, and prioritize the most urgent things that way.

Without structure, there's no way to do this here, and that's why I mentioned the Dell Idea Storm in another thread - that's a good way to let stakeholders (we, the publishers) speak up and make our top concerns visible - and track the implementation status of the ideas continuously. Dell nowadays is a perfect example of a responsive company, listening to requests from its customers and partners.

Just counting things in this thread will not lead us anywhere, for several reasons already uttered by me and other members of this fine forum.

[edited by: jaynl at 10:14 am (utc) on Nov. 23, 2008]

true_INFP

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 9:57 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just counting things in this thread will not lead us anywhere

Why deny simple statistics? IMO, there are enough votes in this thread for it to be sufficiently representative.

There's no need for an ultra precise picture. And you will never get one here, because people can have sock puppet accounts and keep voting for their favorite features until they are in the top 5.

[edited by: true_INFP at 10:02 am (utc) on Nov. 23, 2008]

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:02 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

You're not expecting me to analyze all AS feature request threads on this board, right? I have more important things to do.

See, that's the problem.

WE all do have better things to do than stuff that a product manager at Google should actually do (or maybe a community manager who operates on the record, or undercover).

We can provide suggestions, we can discuss, but we can (probably) not come to a consensus. Even if we could, there would be no guarantee that Google would actually implement these features.

Hobbs

WebmasterWorld Senior Member hobbs us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 10:54 am on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

How about for now we keep those threads focused on listing and discussing benefits (selling) new features, and take our frustrations somewhere else (perhaps other threads).

Guys keep listing your requests.

ASA, please see if you can dive into your AdWords team discussions and fish out some more pointers and tips for the content network.

dazzlindonna

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 12:49 pm on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google could easily send out an email to all publishers asking them to take a poll. We then go to an online poll in which we are presented with 10, 20, 30, or however many choices of publisher requests. The poll allows us to pick 5 that we want the most. Google then has a top 5 most requested list. (And yes, they can include a disclaimer that we aren't guaranteed to actually "receive" these requests in the future).

Google is a tech company. Use technology to solve issues. It's not like the technology doesn't exist. Poll options are a dime a dozen.

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 1:57 pm on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

More and more, I find better control over filter or not filter.

I imagine the following

I type an URL,
I see a list of ads and landing page URLs.

I type a phrase of a landing page
I see a list of ads and landing page URLs.

Maybe some are in my filter list with some hundred good ads, but the one bad ad was just on my page when I make a filter inspection.

coachm

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3790002 posted 4:59 pm on Nov 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

If someone (le't say someone from google) wanted to show publishers what it's like to try to develop and offer features that would please publishers, how could you structure an exercise to allow us to experience said challenge?

Ahhh....a tried and true management/training/group facilitation technique.

This 306 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 306 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >
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