homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.10.244
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: 113 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
3 Things Adsense Needs To Do To Stay Great
Erku




msg:3918557
 2:59 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

If I were Google Adsense, I would do these following 3 things to refresh and revamp the program

1. Retire Smart Pricing
2. Go back to the very basics that made Adsense great.
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.

This last point will fight click fraud perfectly.

 

Dave_Hybrid




msg:3918567
 3:24 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

2. Go back to the very basics that made Adsense great.

Which are...?

farmboy




msg:3918570
 3:32 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

If I were Google Adsense, I would do these following 3 things to refresh and revamp the program
1. Retire Smart Pricing
2. Go back to the very basics that made Adsense great.
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.

This last point will fight click fraud perfectly.

1. Google isn't just AdSense, it's also AdWords. Without smartpricing or a similar mechanism, they will lose a lot of the advertisers on the AdWords side and then AdSense won't be refreshed and revamped, it will cease to be viable.

2. What are those basics?

3. Did you arrive at the 5,000 number based on a scientific process, or is it that you personally just happen to have more than 5,000 daily visitors?

Reminds me of the joke asking how many AdSense publishers does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Just One. The publisher holds the light bulb and the universe revolves around him.

FarmBoy

Erku




msg:3918572
 3:38 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Basics = ad locations based on competition. Whoever pays more gets the best location.

5000 and Adword Protection = 5000 means to have many pageviews at a point that you are not anymore interested in every single click, but rather you are more interested in preserving the integrity and continuity of the program. This would make Adsense participants equally interested in preventing click fraud.

In terms of protecting Adword participants. Adword advertisers' main worry is the click fraud. Not the prices.

Take for example Vibrant Media, they don't accept anyone in the program unless you can give them 200,000 monthly pageviews.

I have not heard them having click fraud problem.

Google will succeed with lick fraud when Publishers come on board in terms of protecting the program from fraud.

LARGER PUBLISHERS ARE NATURALLY MORE INTERESTED IN CLICK FRAUD PREVENTION THAN SMALLER PUBLISHERS.

I do not say smaller publishers are not interested. But when you are a larger publisher you have more at stake than when you are getting only 100 pageviews a day.

icedowl




msg:3918585
 4:03 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Requiring 5,000 pageviews a day is being snobbish and just plain rude. The number of pageviews has nothing to do with a site owner's level of personal integrity nor the quality of their content. Not all topics/niches have massive numbers of followers but that doesn't make the site's content any less valuable to the site owner or to those that do visit the site.

dawnstar




msg:3918587
 4:09 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Great, pull the ladder up Jack!

Everyone's got to start somewhere, why would you want to cut off the little guy?

realmaverick




msg:3918588
 4:10 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

They just need to somehow stabilise their system a little. It's far too sensitive for my liking.

I should not have to fear updating my sites code, knowing it could cost me 5k that month if I do. It's absolutely ridiculous. But it bloody happens.

explorador




msg:3918593
 4:14 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are maaaaany bad ways to get to 5K daily page views of visits. So is not quality indicator.

I would like to see some penalization or rejection for COPIED content.There are many sites getting traffic from YOUR content AND MINE. Google "says" its able to detect duplicates and WHO copy WHO.

I guess is not easy but the Adsense Bot could, just as the G bot, make some record of this. And of course put some limits as some sites give credit of your content and are just displaying part of it (and that's not stolen content)

farmboy




msg:3918600
 4:24 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Basics = ad locations based on competition. Whoever pays more gets the best location.

Which is the best location - my site that delivers X clicks to an advertiser each day and 20% of my clicks results in a conversion for the advertiser or your site that delivers 10X clicks per day and 2% of your clicks result in a conversion for the advertiser?

I would like to see some penalization or rejection for COPIED content.

They actually do better than that. They close the AdSense account of the person who has stolen content. But you have to first notify them through the proper channels.

FarmBoy

purplecape




msg:3918606
 4:33 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Adword advertisers' main worry is the click fraud. Not the prices.

Click fraud is one of the problems that smart pricing helps with....

swa66




msg:3918620
 4:59 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Actually there's just

1. better advertisers
2. more advertisers
3. less scammers being advertisers

Erku




msg:3918685
 6:30 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Not all topics/niches have massive numbers of followers"

There is a truth in this. So I concede on this part.

And I did not mean to say cut off the little guy. The little guy may want to do some serious business online, but the little guy can't expect to earn money immediately the next day. No business can bring realisstically ROI that quick to cover expenses. The little guy should spend months building traffic providing great content. Months of hard work can get you there. OK, let's make it 3000. But the little guy should demonstrated that he or she is willing to do the hard part.

My main point was this. I do seriously question Smart Pricing and whether it is the optimal solution for click-fraud fight. Especially when it's account-wide or site-wide. At least it should be per-page. If I am a news website the visitor comes and acts TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY on a page about depression treatment and on a page about a celebrity doing something odd to get in the news.

What I meant by basics was this: there used to be a day when you bid the higher amount to be on the top of the ad unit or searched results. That's auction, which has worked for thousands of years when people make auctions.

m0thman




msg:3918693
 6:40 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)


1. Retire Smart Pricing
2. Go back to the very basics that made Adsense great.
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.

I'd like to chip in on this if I may. I've been earning a living from AdSense for around three years now on a site that has less than 5,000 daily. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of mom and pop sites out there that cover the cost of their hosting fees etc. from a bit of AdSense pocket money. I think you'll find that one of the very basics that made AdSense great was the fact that you didn't have to be a big shot to monetise your website.

Erku




msg:3918711
 7:16 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

m0thman I will agree with you too.

Ok let's make the minimum 3000, or even 1000. But I CAN'T justify accepting someone to Adsense who just started a Blogger blog this morning and has no clue of what it takes to earn money online, except that you get paid when someone clicks on your ad.

signor_john




msg:3918720
 7:31 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Retiring smart pricing would be foolish, because advertisers would stay away in droves (and rightly so).

A modest traffic minimum might not be unreasonable, but a minimum "age of site" requirement is likely to work better (a la the Google Search "sandbox" that was intended to discourage the disposable-domain crowd).

Tighter resrictions of the number of AdSense ad units, Ad Links, etc. per page wouldn't hurt, either, because sites that use three AdSense units above the fold tend to reinforce the notion that AdSense ads = sleaze. (But that's just my opinion, and Google isn't likely to agree.)

Erku




msg:3918725
 7:36 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Signor_John thank you for bringing this discussion closer to my point.

Perhaps his idea of a minimum age and perhaps daily activity is a better idea than mine. Thus it will not hit the honest small adsense publisher, but requiring a site's minimum age is a much better idea.

In regard to Smart Pricing: If you retire smart pricing without countering click fraud, of course the advertisers will run away. But if you retire it or change it and take action at the same time that counters click fraud Advertisers will be happy.

Smart pricing was brought about to counter the click fraud, but I am not sure it's the most effective way of countering the click fraud. Especially when google itself says that they are not earning money off the smart pricing system.

There has got to be minimum requirements for accessing Adsense.

purplecape




msg:3918735
 7:45 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Smart pricing doesn't just counter click fraud--it counters, in theory, non-converting or poorly converting clicks in general. But if you assume that click fraud can not be detected 100% of the time, you need some way to deal with it when it isn't or can't be. And smart pricing is as good a way as any.

In my experience smart pricing gets blamed for earnings declines that have nothing to do with it, but that's a whole other topic.

Erku




msg:3918794
 9:04 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Smart pricing does hit the good publisher. However, when the clicks don't convert it's not only publisher's fault. In fact it's equally advertiser's fault as well.

How many times have you seen clicks leading to advertiser's home page instead of sales page. How can a click like that convert well?

How many times you have seen a click that leads to a page where you have to scroll down for "half and hour" to get to the bottom and there is a little box to leave your email.

How many times you have seen... This can go on and on. Point is Advertisers are equally responsible for bad conversion.

ken_b




msg:3918798
 9:45 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Man O man I was kinda hoping they'd not allow in and boot out any already accepted site that competes with mine, regardless of how many page views or visitors they get, or how many backlinks they have, or how old their site is, or how good their content is.

Did I miss anything? :)

signor_john




msg:3918816
 10:29 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Smart pricing does hit the good publisher. However, when the clicks don't convert it's not only publisher's fault....Advertisers are equally responsible for bad conversion.

Smart pricing doesn't exist in a vacuum. Think of it as the equivalent of "grading on the curve." If (with all other things being equal) your site's referrals don't convert as well as referrals from other sites do, that says something about the quality of your traffic, not about the quality of the ad.

Also, unless Google has completely changed its smart-pricing formula, the type of content (not just the publisher's referral history) is taken into account. When smart pricing was introduced, Google used "a camera review" and "a page of photo tips" to make the point that some types of content convert better than others do. So, regardless of how good or bad a given ad is, it's likely to perform better on "a camera review" than on "a page of photo tips," based on the research that Google conducted before projecting the likelihood of conversion for different types of content.

Some publishers may complain about smart pricing, but if smart pricing makes advertisers more comfortable with Google's content network, it's good for publishers whose clicks convert. And without smart pricing, advertisers would be forced to rely on placement targeting and domain blocking, which would leave many publishers out in the cold.

tim222




msg:3918823
 11:34 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Another shakeout of the MFA sites wouldn't hurt.

tim222




msg:3918824
 11:40 pm on May 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

How many times you have seen... This can go on and on. Point is Advertisers are equally responsible for bad conversion.

Another example is when the visitor arrives at the landing page, and fills out the form which "conveniently" fails to work. If the visitor is interested enough in the product they will continue to explore the advertiser's site and possibly purchase it through another page. But since they didn't convert through the form, then the publisher doesn't get credit for it.

signor_john




msg:3918855
 12:43 am on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Another example is when the visitor arrives at the landing page, and fills out the form which "conveniently" fails to work. If the visitor is interested enough in the product they will continue to explore the advertiser's site and possibly purchase it through another page. But since they didn't convert through the form, then the publisher doesn't get credit for it.

How many pay-per-click advertisers are foolish or reckless enough to assume that frustrated users will stick around their malfunctioning sites and buy something?

tim222




msg:3918904
 5:22 am on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

How many pay-per-click advertisers are foolish or reckless enough to assume that frustrated users will stick around their malfunctioning sites and buy something?

I've come across this often enough to feel that there are some who do it deliberately.

Green_Grass




msg:3918958
 9:33 am on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

"I've come across this often enough to feel that there are some who do it deliberately"

I have found this quite common in so called tech. sites offering something for free -- free download of (trial version of) some tool/ shareware for example..when the damm link / form does not work.. one gets frustrated enough to click on some adsense link / ad conveniently placed.

farmboy




msg:3919038
 12:41 pm on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

...there used to be a day when you bid the higher amount to be on the top of the ad unit or searched results. That's auction, which has worked for thousands of years when people make auctions.

I sometimes consult with businesses in a field in which I worked for many years. A community college in the area decided they wanted to also offer the same consulting services so they could have a new revenue stream. So here's an organization I involuntarily support with my tax dollars using my tax dollars to compete with me. I'd rather they not be able to use those tax dollars to outbid me on AdWords and get better placement.

Or suppose I write some software that competes with a Silicon Valley giant. I'd rather they not be able to squash my start-up efforts with their huge advertising budgets.

When factors other than bid amount are considered, that people like my product best and make purchases for example, and I'm able to get good positioning, that's a modern version much preferable to something thousands of years old IMO.

Ok let's make the minimum 3000, or even 1000. But I CAN'T justify accepting someone to Adsense who just started a Blogger blog this morning

In philosophy they call that "insufficient options." In other words, if a webmaster doesn't get the 1,000 or whatever number of page views every day, that doesn't mean he's someome who just started a blog this morning.

There are people, for example, who have good established sites about Halloween. Most of the year, the site gets little attention. Then for 45 days or so, it's boom time.

---------------------

I don't know what's behind this thread, but I'll repeat something that's been written here before.

If you'll stop blaming AdSense, publishers with low traffic, etc. when your earnings aren't as desired, and put your energy to use in finding things you need to change yourself, it's amazing how many great ideas and solutions you'll discover.

Necessity is the Mother of invention.
Blaming others is the fertilizer for stagnation.

FarmBoy

londrum




msg:3919050
 1:07 pm on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

nice sounding phrase, farmboy, but sometimes it is genuinely not our fault that our earnings have taken a dive. there are too many people (not just on this board) saying they've suffered a hefty cut in may for it to be a coincedence. if google let it be known what was going on, then we'd know what to correct.

if they said it's the economy, then we would understand.
if they said it's interest-based ads, then maybe we could deduce some way to benefit from the change.
if they said it's targeting, then we could work on that.
but they say nothing. so everybody is trying out different things, fumbling in the dark, not knowing if they're concentrating on the right thing.

sometimes all we're asking for from google is to be pointed in the right direction.

signor_john




msg:3919061
 2:53 pm on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

sometimes it is genuinely not our fault that our earnings have taken a dive.

And sometimes it may just be evolution in the program. When AdSense was launched in 2003, a click was a click was a click--regardless of where it came from or how likely it was to convert. If, in six years, Google has managed to figure out that a click from Pakistan on a forum page about photography isn't likely to be worth as much to Nancys-New-York-Nikon-Store.com as a click from Chicago on a review of a Nikon camera is, that's bad news for the forum owner. It doesn't mean anyone is at "fault," though; it just means some clicks are worth more than others are, and it isn't Google's place to tell the forum owner that (a) he should limit the nationalities that participate in his forum, or (b) he should shut down his forum and concentrate on camera reviews.

sometimes all we're asking for from google is to be pointed in the right direction.

Figuring out what works or doesn't work on your site, or what kind of site you ought to have, is your job. Can you imagine the furor we'd see in this forum if Google started telling people what kind of content to have, how to organize their sites, or what kind of visitors to allow?

The term "AdSense publisher" is a two-word phrase. As a publisher, you need to understand that Google is responsible for what goes into the box labeled "Ads by Google," and you're responsible for everything else--including content, audience, and presentation. Google isn't your editor or your publishing mentor. It's just a company that puts ads in little boxes on your site. If those little ad boxes make money for you, great. If they don't, then maybe they're a poor fit for your site. As a publisher, you need to decide whether the ads are worth having and, if not, what to do about it.

londrum




msg:3919068
 3:12 pm on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

but we're all on the same side though. it's not an us and them situation. google should be in the business of advising the publishers what's going on, because if we can work with their changes then it makes them more money.

we're not little kiddies asking for google to tie our shoes everytime our eCPM drops by a penny.
we are people who have been with the system for years and know a big change when we see one.

when google changed the click area on an ad, then that was an obvious change that we could adjust too.
but what is going on with interest-based ads? the info that we have been given is very basic. we don't even know for sure whether they they are running on our sites yet - a month after the launch date. so we can't tell whether the dip is because of that or something else. how you can make a judgement on decreased earnings, if you don't know what is causing it?

we are not asking for the moon on a stick when we ask google for more details about something which is having a big effect on our earnings.

people who say shut up and be grateful and just get on with it, and don't bother the mighty google with questions, are just encouraging them to keep us lowly little publishers in the dark.

signor_john




msg:3919090
 4:56 pm on May 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

people who say shut up and be grateful and just get on with it, and don't bother the mighty google with questions, are just encouraging them to keep us lowly little publishers in the dark.

Nobody's saying "shut up and be grateful." What some of us are saying is that there is no magic formula for success, and it's unrealistic to expect Google to supply one. And let's face it--if a publisher's earnings are dropping, it doesn't matter how much information or guidance the publisher gets from Google; that amount of information will never be enough.

The fundamentals of successful publishing aren't too difficult to grasp, although they aren't necessarily easy to implement:

Pick the right topic, target the right audience, and create pages that have intrinsic value for both readers and advertisers.

Obsessing over whether to block interest-based ads, whether you're being "smart priced" because people from India might be clicking ads on your pages about the Jersey Shore, or getting worked up because you're afraid that THE NEW YORK TIMES might be getting a bigger revenue share than you are isn't going to make you a successful publisher.

What's more, you need to understand that what's good for Google may not always be good for you. For example, some publishers think they should be able to dictate the minimum EPC of ads on their sites, but Google needs inventory for low-paying ads as well as for high-paying ads, and it needs to protect publishers who don't want to micromanage from those who do.

The bottom line is that the AdSense ad units on your pages read "Ads by Google" for a reason: You've chosen to outsource your ad sales to Google. If you aren't happy with the results, why not act like a real publisher and fire the vendor?

This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: 113 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
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