| 5:06 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Upon further inspection the test case site has up to 8 regular ad units on some articles.
Some test case, given that nobody can repeat what's being done without special treatment...
|norton j radstock|
| 6:36 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Crikey! what a lot of ads...now where's that 'back' button?
Actually raises an interesting discussion as to how many ads you really need to be effective -I've always thought that one or two carefully placed ads are more effective than a splattergun approach. The best test for the value of a webpage is how it would look if all the ads were removed.
| 6:46 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Could be that some of the adblocks are being served in frames.
But I do not believe that makes it "legal".
| 7:30 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It crashed my browser every time I tried to look.
| 7:59 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
30k is good income and google may be providing publisher special treatment.
| 9:10 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Clearly breaking the rules, making tons of money and getting free publicity by Google..
What a combination. Way to go..Some guys just know how to manipulate everyone.
| 9:19 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think he is using his 3 adblocks straight out and then serving more through a third party adserver program that rotates the ads, that's why the ads vary. He might be using another adsense account with the adserver software to pick up extra $$$, maybe his wife, partner or he has a personal and a corporate adsense account. The adserver program might provide the functionality to mask the code so his extra units are not blocked by the G server.
Whatever is happing it's pretty slick.
| 9:28 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I looked at the code he is using either high end premium publisher code or third party ad serving and it looks like the first. He has been an example site for them since I joined 3 years ago so he's connected, I assume.
| 11:15 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Google applying double standards? Oh my.
You'd think it'd be possible to monetize that site with just 3 Adsense ads, and perhaps a link unit or two (i.e. using what the rest of us is allowed to). Is this greed or necessity, I wonder? I find the link unit in the navigation bar to be rather deceiving.
Having said that, the pages where he is apparently allowed to use up to six ad units are generally quite long, so it's not as if he's stuffing all of his pages with them. Well, maybe a little bit.
All in all, a bit strange for a site that Google Adsense continues to put in the spotlight as an example of a good publisher.
| 11:29 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Yep, something rotten in Den____, I mean Mountain View.
I think those Dane guys get a bad rap! All that nonsense about decay.
| 12:34 pm on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Maybe he's on the premium network; Google treats its premium publishers better than us mortals.
I think he's done a very good job at creating the perfect MFA. His content is of good quality and the ads, although many, are not too intrusive. IMHO, this site shows how ads can complement a site experience and also teaches us something about placement. I bet he's done his testing rounds.
| 2:25 pm on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Considering the amount of AdUnits, it looks surprisingly clean (=not spammy).
| 3:32 pm on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Considering the amount of AdUnits, it looks surprisingly clean (=not spammy). |
That's what I mean by learning a lesson or two about placement. If you do it right, you can add as many ad units as you want. I doubt it's worth it though, since the lower ad units will definately be very poor CPC-wise. Not only that, they might even be off-target on certain pages.
| 3:49 pm on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have used the site many times. But since I am looking for specific info, I have never clicked an ad.
| 2:53 am on Mar 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I have used the site many times. But since I am looking for specific info, I have never clicked an ad. |
Thats likely because your trained eyes can make out an ad in a split second, leading to an advanced case of ad blindness. The average visitor however knows very little about online advertising and just spots a complementary link / offer.
| 10:12 am on Mar 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Talking about trained eyes johnnie do you think that the switch the site does on category pages has any impact on earnings? The content on category pages is shoved to the right so that you have double ad filled sidebars beside each other where the content is on regular article pages.
When you first see the switch you do have to pause for a second and wonder if the ad is content.
It's a quality site content-wise no doubt, but it rubs me the wrong way as a Google case study promoting "how good google adsense is" because nobody can duplicate those results without special treatment. It is using special google provided ad code to get the 8 standard ads per page.
[edited by: JS_Harris at 10:13 am (utc) on Mar. 15, 2009]
| 12:10 pm on Mar 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for the double post but I want to add that it rubs me the wrong way that this even bothered me too. The owner of that site deserves every special treatment he gets, he's more than earned it in his field.
Maybe it's time for the site to move on from the case study pages though, it has earned hall of fame status by all measures. It's outgrown being a case study for sure, nothing about the site can be duplicated without a 20 year+ investment imo.
| 8:10 pm on Mar 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Lovely, As soon as I say I feel the owner deserves all the breaks he gets this gets posted to the site - March 15th.
|Please keep in mind the ads you see at my web site often are the solutions to your problems. The exact products and services you need are right in front of you, and you might be ignoring them. Always scan the ads to see if they have what you need. |
Since it's a case study does that mean I can ask for people to click too ?
| 10:50 pm on Mar 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well, he's asking to *look* at the ads, not asking for a *click*. It's subtle, but it's a difference. I wonder; did he ask google about adding this passage?
| 11:59 pm on Mar 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That website is totally MFA! I went to look at the "cabinets" section and there was nothing but ads above the fold...nothing else...
That is the "Nickelback" of websites!
What a MFA joke!
| 12:16 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Well, he's asking to *look* at the ads, not asking for a *click*. |
The Google rule is about directing users' attention to the ads, not just clicking.
| 12:38 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The Google rule is about directing users' attention to the ads, not just clicking. |
I stand corrected. I'm rereading the TOS as we speak; want to know it by heart.
| 12:39 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
KlingWRAP; look at the content, it's very very good. Although I agree the site could do with less ads.
| 4:14 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The content is amazing and the owner extremely well versed on his subject for sure.
It just doesn't belong as an adsense case study in any way, we can't repeat anything he's doing from how many units he's placed to how he tells people to check them out.
It doesn't get more misleading (or depressing when you're looking for official advice). I'd love to get more information about what the case study is testing.
edit: at 1:22 of the owners youtube video on the google case study page you can see a classic MFA layout being promoted. You can't see any content whatsoever as the page scrolls... is this ok "in certain cases?".
[edited by: JS_Harris at 4:22 am (utc) on Mar. 18, 2009]
| 4:22 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just counted the ads again. There are 8 units on one page, not 6 lol
| 4:58 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I just counted the ads again. There are 8 units on one page, not 6 lol |
If you check the code you see 8 instances of GA_googleAddSlot, you're right.
I don't think we're allowed to place two google powered search units per page like that site is either...
[edited by: JS_Harris at 5:13 am (utc) on Mar. 18, 2009]
| 5:17 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I guess people in the construction business are feeling the pinch of a real estate crash, web publishers included.
Bah, they had a bubble for many years. Shoulda cashed out.
| 5:49 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|So tell me punk, do you or donít you want the DART cookie? |
| 10:24 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm hoping that's an attempt at humor. If so, he should probably stick to building things.
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |