homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.155.142
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 72 message thread spans 3 pages: 72 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google Adds Large Size 300 x 600 To AdSense
jpch




msg:4519115
 6:15 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Coming soon to AdSense.

[adsense.blogspot.com...]

 

netmeg




msg:4519116
 6:18 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Yea I can't even remember the last time they added a new ad size (other than mobile) I do pretty well with that size with Amazon, it'll be interested to test it in the sidebar on long pages.

jpch




msg:4519117
 6:20 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

It's already showing as an option in my account under create a new ad.

netmeg




msg:4519124
 7:01 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Yep; only available ad types are text and text/image - no image only. They must not have the inventory yet. I don't remember seeing any notices on the AdWords side that I could submit image ads of this size.

Plus there's no examples yet on the page where you can see what the different sizes look like.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4519127
 7:22 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Google wants more webmasters to embrace images and flash in general. I regularly get recommendations to turn images on but when I do it my earnings switch to cpm from cpc and I lose 50% of my earnings.

Do you think the 300x600, which is sure to be mostly images, will change that trend?

netmeg




msg:4519128
 7:36 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

I stuck it on one of my sites, it's only showing text ads for me.

Here's a screenshot I took; hopefully the link won't get pulled.

[netmeg.com...]

That is one honking big text ad.

As I said, I don't think they have image ads (or even flash) for it yet - I haven't seen any notifications on the AdWords side. It might be there, but they haven't called my attention to it.

martinibuster




msg:4519130
 7:52 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

As long as it doesn't get me pandalized, I LIKE it. :)

Thanks for posting up the pic. ;)

[edited by: martinibuster at 8:17 pm (utc) on Nov 14, 2012]

netmeg




msg:4519135
 8:07 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Like I said, I did pretty well with an Amazon seasonal ad of that size (why they don't have them for *every* season is a whole nother discussion) so I'm willing to give it a shot.

MikeNoLastName




msg:4519153
 9:12 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Meh, I'll wait for the 1200x800, ad. It can't be far behind. This is pandalization just waiting to happen.

nomis5




msg:4519158
 9:15 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

300 x 600?!

That's absurdly large. Can't get get my head round how that would work.

nickreynolds




msg:4519173
 10:08 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

Might try it on already pandalised site that now only gets Bing Yahoo and direct traffic!

moTi




msg:4519186
 11:10 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

hmm.. problematic. considering how people react on ads, it will be one more turnoff for the users. apart from that, i see rather a shortage of horizontal banner formats (and they'd be easier to implement on my sites). for text ads, the new format looks desperate. and concerning image ads..

Google wants more webmasters to embrace images and flash in general. I regularly get recommendations to turn images on but when I do it my earnings switch to cpm from cpc and I lose 50% of my earnings.

Do you think the 300x600, which is sure to be mostly images, will change that trend?

i think it's obvious that google adsense has a major problem with image ads. even when they as a tech company had the chance to gain an insight after buying doubleclick years ago, they didn't get the fundamental differences between text and image advertising.

image ads are not primarily suited for direct product sales - but in contrast to text ads, they are able to transport a visual impact. they provide an additional benefit for the advertiser. a benefit that isn't included in the accounting. so advertisers get a free ride, whereas the payout for the publisher simply is always too low.
in order to fix that, they would have to take image ads into a separate auction rather than let them compete with text ads which basically serve a different purpose.

ember




msg:4519196
 11:43 pm on Nov 14, 2012 (gmt 0)

It's huge.

And I like image ads. When they compete with text ads, our revenue is always higher.

ken_b




msg:4519205
 12:29 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

How long before we hear complaints from "legitimate non-spammy" webmasters who get mauled by some wild critter just because they had 3 of these things next to each other above the fold?

The email did say because they don't have a lot of image inventory for these yet we should expect a lot of text ads until image ad inventory builds up.

netmeg




msg:4519207
 12:59 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

How long before we hear complaints from "legitimate non-spammy" webmasters who get mauled by some wild critter just because they had 3 of these things next to each other above the fold?


As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

breeks




msg:4519212
 1:31 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Wow that is a big boy. Going to have to make a new page layout just to fit this fatty :)

breeks




msg:4519215
 1:42 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Published one and you get nine text ads on desktop or laptop, one ad on tablet(Ipad) and the worlds biggest blue arrow :)

J/k arrow is the same as other tablet ads. Seems a waste of space on ipad.

ken_b




msg:4519220
 1:47 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Does this thing collapse to fit the number of text ads shown?

Or might you end up with a 600 pix deep box with one normal size text ad in it?


.

netmeg




msg:4519232
 3:02 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

I guess we'll find out.

setzer




msg:4519241
 3:17 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Lol, the text style ad unit of this looks pretty spammy. If I used it, I'd probably go image only.

johnnie




msg:4519262
 5:48 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

I wonder how this would work with Google's page layout algorithm... I don't see how you could possibly fit this unit above the fold without triggering some sort of spammy layout penalty. Maybe we should be placing this one directly below the fold?

edinburgher




msg:4519285
 8:40 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

It looks horribly spammy with text ads, but properly targeted image ads could look really good. I'll give it a try with a couple of sites where I've given up and ripped out Adsense.

jetteroheller




msg:4519287
 9:14 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

I could exchange my 160x600 starting 1060 pixel to the right.

First question was:

How many visitors would have to scroll vertical?

So I looked in Google Analytics,
but the statistic about screen sizes is gone.

So I have no idea about this question.

scooterdude




msg:4519300
 10:45 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Erm , how does this work with that update which specifically targeted sites with too many adverts, before Panda perhaps

Above the fold something or the other?
I tiptoeing towards some editorial content rather than web app, so wouldn't want to get run over by the next Google critter to be released from mountview :)

jetteroheller




msg:4519304
 10:47 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

This makes the static code implementation a problem.

This is a new case, where I would like dynamic implementation of adsense code

if windows.width > 1359
than place 300x600
else place 160x600

If something like this would be possible, I would immedeately implement it. Show the 300x600 only right at a big window, at smaller windows, the 160x600

Lame_Wolf




msg:4519318
 11:37 am on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Does this thing collapse to fit the number of text ads shown?
No. I am testing this size out atm. I have seen them with just 4 adverts, with a huge space below.
Play_Bach




msg:4519332
 12:43 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

I'm giving it a go. Hope it helps.

Lame_Wolf




msg:4519368
 2:33 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

Or might you end up with a 600 pix deep box with one normal size text ad in it?
Yep, that is exactly what happens. I've just spotted one with just one advert in it, and a huuuuuuuuge space underneath.

(There are enough advertisers to fill those gaps many times over, so lack of inventory is not the reason.)

ChanandlerBong




msg:4519379
 3:15 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

every site has a sweet spot of adsense ad acreage. I reached mine years ago and every effort I've made to increase it due to google suggestions has led to a fall in revenue. They must know this. Also, if I make my main text box text/image, revenue falls but google insists on repeatedly inviting, sorry insisting, that I make it image-enabled.

and we already know the adsense and search teams have lunch in different canteens. If adding this monstrosity gets you Pandalised, you can't go crying to google.

personally, I won't be touching this with a bargepole. It looks hideous.

backdraft7




msg:4519410
 6:01 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)

300x600? What a great user experience. MFA sites no longer need to fill in with scraped content, just slap two of these fat ads next to each other and you've got all the Google provided "content" you need to fill an entire page. Blech!

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: 72 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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