|Vote for Top Five Adsense Requests?|
What is your opinion?
| 2:09 am on Dec 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In the first thread by the new ASA he/she stated
|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. |
And later he added
|... I’m compiling a list of general feedback. In the future, I hope to get the help of this group to prioritize these requests so I can be as clear as possible with our product team. |
|We get tons of feedback on a daily basis from tons of sources. The challenge is prioritizing it according to importance, scope, urgency, business need, and feasibility. Our resources are not unlimited, so it’s important to choose wisely what we spend our time on. |
From the two threads where requests were made it was obvious that improved filtering capabilities and minimum CPC are two of the top wishes, but what are the others?
New AdSense Advisor [webmasterworld.com]
ASA: What are the Top 5 Publisher Requests? [webmasterworld.com]
Obviously, it would be impossible for everyone to agree on the top five but we could vote for our own personal top five favorites to indicate our priorities to Google.
This is the compilation of all requests made in the two threads grouped by common themes:
Foreign currency conversions problem
EFT to more countries
Paypal integration to payment
Make Western Union payments more widely available
Announce important news on this forum
Prompt and meaningful communication
Better communication and collaboration with quality publishers
ASA to participate and provide feedback on feature requests
Promote the content network
Develop more bidding strategies appropriate for the content network
Share the revenue sharing details with the publisher
Ad Appearance & Action
Ad click opens a new window
Better control of ad links unit landing page colors
Fill each ad slot with the number of ads it was designed for
Ad Filtering & Viewing
Filter or limit ads on any criteria*
Rating for family-oriented sites
Filter and pre-approve CPC ads in Ad Review Center
Adsense Review Center should show which site was targeted
Opt out of run-of-network ads
Adsense preview tool for Firefox
Preview tool for Mac Safari
Link unit ads should have same CPC as Search ads
Information on whether a site is smart priced or not
Investigate the Smart Pricing algo for unexpected price fluctuations
Ability to correct erroneously matched contextual ads
Ability to specify keywords for contextual ads
Block own IPs from generating paid clicks
Use GAS to sell, manage, and collect payments for direct-sold ads
Ability to integrate directly-sold ads in Google ad blocks
Overhaul AdSense AdManager
Combination text and image ads like Amazon's
"view-through" for CPM placement-targeted ads
Check that landing page URL matches the display URL and no IP in URL
Make the Adwords system far simpler and transparent for small businesses
Referral system that allows you to send a link to an advertiser
Stats & Reports
Firefox plugin to show Adsense stats in the status bar
Update the GAS login to use current Google account email
Report page changes: time stamp, message box options, preserve date range
Ability to view aggregate stats for content, mobile, search
Show per-channel conversion rates of specific ads
SMS/Email reports in HTML or one line, not as an attachment
Removal of fraudulent clicks from CTR
Show income in local currency
Speed up roll out of Adsense-Analytics integration
*Suggestions for filtering and minimum CPC have been combined as follows:
Filter or limit ads on any criteria includes all the following
- by keyword, domain, advertiser, ip address
- ability to restrict the number of times an ad appears
- block specific types of ads such as weight-loss and toolbars
- for one or all of the sites in an account
- negative keywords
- negative keywords in ad URL
- keywords regular expression
- a way to opt out of certain keywords
- allow us to specify the reason for for blocking an ad
- by landing page phrase
Minimum CPC includes all the following
- per ad
- by channel
- by ad block
- by site
- by page
- able to set for targeted ads
- ability to set a minimum EPC/CPC should not impact the sites that don't set a minimum
Proposed voting system: One round of voting, five votes per ballot, limit each voter to one vote for each candidate, winners are those with the most votes
It has fairly good accuracy because each person has a chance to decide each of the five winners. However it doesn't allow to voters to weight their choices from highest to lowest.
Voters are limited to one vote per candidate to ensure that every person has an equal say in deciding each of the winners.
Voters submit up to five of their choices, one per line, in order of preference, no comments permitted
Length of voting period: One week, from Tuesday noon (Eastern), Dec 2 until Tuesday noon, Dec 9. An official tally can be made at that time but voting could continue as long as necessary in order to give everyone to get a chance to vote. The more people that cast their votes, the more weight will be given by Google to our choices.
If the majority of comments made between now and Monday evening at 9PM (Eastern) are in favor of this system, voting could start at Tuesday noon.
Do you think that non-technical requests should be included in the vote?
What about adding suggestions to the list as voting progresses?
[Edit: corrected Dates]
[edited by: Leonard0 at 2:47 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2008]
| 8:59 am on Dec 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What are the 5 "candidates"? Has that been narrowed down yet?
I nominate "Ability to Filter Ads on multiple criteria, and that includes keywords, and/or CPC"
| 8:12 pm on Dec 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I say the voting system that is proposed is fine. We can always come up with something different/better but I think it's best to move on and give ASA something to work with.
“Do you think that non-technical requests should be included in the vote?”
"What about adding suggestions to the list as voting progresses?"
I’d say no just to make things easier.
| 9:49 pm on Dec 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm voting early. I'm also including comments since rule breaking with impunity is my fondest request. Also can only find four, someone else may vote my fifth. Can I be disqualified for any reason?
1) Prompt and meaningful communication. Its lack is the root of all evil.
2) Minimum CPC Sounds good, may not help.
3) Better stats Always room for improvement.
4) Report page changes: time stamp, message box options, preserve date range More information is always better, so not everyone uses it all, NBD.
| 10:06 pm on Dec 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My vote is for INCREASED TRANSPARENCY.
I want to know where people go when they leave my site via adsense. I believe I can filter out unwanted sites better than the adwords filters and increase my sites value accordingly.
| 6:59 am on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How about being able to customize the search box and remove the Google branding? Or at the very least, be able to swap out the button for an image button and descrease the size of the input box?
| 12:31 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|How about being able to customize the search box and remove the Google branding? |
I would have thought the Google branding lent credibility.
| 2:02 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Are the groupings OK?
Especially the ones for Filter and limit by any Criteria and Minimum CPC.
They are quite broad in coverage. But if they are broken into two separate choices they may both end up in the top five. If they were broken down into several different choices they might not rank in the top five.
Also, aren't the choices at the top of the list more likely to picked because people won't read all the way down the list?
| 2:58 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|If they were broken down into several different choices they might not rank in the top five. |
I think there should be as much consolidation as possible, it will be AdSense's call anyway. There are probably internal AdSense politics driving this anyway—we just have no way of knowing what they are.
|Also, aren't the choices at the top of the list more likely to picked because people won't read all the way down the list? |
The hazards of democracy. The uninformed and the misinformed form the majority so we are ruled by the passionate, the ignorant and the easily led. I think that applies less here, if you bother to vote at all in this survey I think you have enough interest to read the whole list. But those on top may have a very slight advantage. Almost all who are voting here already know which things they really want first and will read the list to find numbers 3, 4, and 5. I couldn't even find a fifth.
You're doing a great job Leonard, I hope they appreciate it.
| 3:55 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the encouragement. I was beginning to wonder if there was enough interest.
Also, last minute jitters about getting it right.
There will probably be a cluster of results below the top two rankings. Some people will be unhappy their picks didn't make the top five.
| 4:36 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Filter or limit ads on any criteria includes all the following |
* by keyword, domain, advertiser, ip address
* ability to restrict the number of times an ad appears
* block specific types of ads such as weight-loss and toolbars
* for one or all of the sites in an account
* negative keywords
* negative keywords in ad URL
* keywords regular expression
* a way to opt out of certain keywords
* allow us to specify the reason for for blocking an ad
* by landing page phrase
"Filter or limit ads on any criteria" is incredibly broad and therefore nonsense. Keyword filter is the most requested whereas "allow us to specify the reason for for blocking an ad" has been barely requested by anyone. Moreover, they are completely different suggestions.
Again, keyword filter must be a stand alone suggestion.
| 5:16 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You're right that the filtering choice is too general.
But if it were subdivided into more possibilities it would split the vote.
As it is now I think that there is too many choices to make from the list of 50. Some are very general, others are quite specific.
I doubt that there would be any significant results from a vote even if there were hundreds of voters (which I doubt there would be). The responses would be all over the map.
I'm now of the opinion that we shouldn't hold the vote.
| 5:51 pm on Dec 2, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Taking 50 substantially different suggestions and merging them into a single suggestion is not useful. It gives an unfair advantage to barely requested features (which need time to implement) over the most requested ones. It does not matter that they all pertain to filtering.
And yes, voting here is next to useless as well. The results are easy to manipulate. The AdSense team needs to conduct a verifiable online survey.
If ASA wanted to, he already took the suggestions. The rest is up to him or her. These threads are a dead horse to me.
[edited by: true_INFP at 5:54 pm (utc) on Dec. 2, 2008]
| 4:40 pm on Dec 3, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A superb thread Leonard0. And a great idea from ASA to ask us to agree on 5 to start off with. Much easier for him to actually do something with 5 rather than 500 (and keep it quiet, but I'm sure if we agree on a starting point we might be able to work through some of the other ones later).
So here's mine (and as I'm naughty also the reasons):
1: Minimum CPC (I think it will help get rid of MFA and it would allow me to make make better use of the alternative ads function to actually help visitors rather than waste the space on advertisers I don't want).
2: Better communication and collaboration with quality publishers. (Communication with everyone is probably uneconomical, but Google might benefit if they can offer a human to talk to 1M/month plus impression publishers. A few minutes from a non-call centre person might result in a few thousand dollars for all involved.)
That's all I could find in the list, but that's my own fault for not participating in previous discussions. I'd love to somehow be able to work with Google to help improve the quality of the program.
If more of my visitors felt the ads were worth looking at they might look. But if they land on MFA sites once or twice, or an irrelevant site they might be put off from using Google ads to find the good advertisers.
I have very few visitors that haven't already looked at other sites on the internet and who haven't already made some judgement about Adsense, so the ideas I have suggested probably won't help me at all. But this thread does give a small opportunity for us to help Google along with this.
My point - Feel the Force new ASA :-) I'd be happy as Larry if Google pursued the single point that would help us all along. And there have been nudges in that direction.
| 1:33 am on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hi Leonard0, I don't want to get in the way here since you're clearly doing an awesome job, but have you thought about using Google Moderator [moderator.appspot.com]?
| 2:42 am on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Has Google Adsense itself thought about using it?
| 3:31 am on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Has Google Adsense itself thought about using it? |
Indeed. I think people are less inhibited when there is at least a small sense of anonymity. If I were logged on with my Google account I'd feel that there might be a temptation on the part of AdSense to peek and see who I really am.
Yes, I'm sure they would know how to figure that out here if the really wanted to, and maybe they do. But at least it feels more anonymous here than speaking on a Google property.
| 10:46 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I think people are less inhibited when there is at least a small sense of anonymity. If I were logged on with my Google account I'd feel that there might be a temptation on the part of AdSense to peek and see who I really am. |
I like my anonymity too. :)
Seriously, though. Google is very serious about privacy and user data; it's not just something we say. I can only speak from my own experience, but I personally have access to almost nothing, and that's exactly the way it should be.
| 5:18 am on Dec 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
1: Prompt and Meaningful Communication
2: More Channels