homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.75.155
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >     
Figuring out landing page quality
toddb




msg:3002511
 1:49 pm on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Lets crack the code. I assume they are using something similar to what they use in the free serps.

Low PR sites seem to be hurt worse or is that just my limited data? I had heard that they drop to the index of the .com and check PR to make sure it is a "real" site. Sites with zero PR seem to have just been blasted for me.

The bot cannot identify a misspelling. The cost on "wigdet" versus "widget" is out of line. Thinking of adding these to the page... not sure how to do that and not make people think I am a moron.

 

OceanDoctor




msg:3002549
 2:22 pm on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Without providing more information to its clients (i.e., us) about how Quality Score is calculated, Google is further eroding two key attributes of its service that advertisers depend upon: Consistency and predictability. This makes it very difficult for many of us to continue a business that depends heavily on AdWords advertising. The world of marketing and advertising is intrinsically dynamic but the tools we use to engage it shouldn't be.

Like many of you, I have followed Google's Quality Score instructions (as vague as they are) yet have some campaigns doing well and others with nearly every keyword disabled. I also have encountered "comical" inconsistencies such as "widget" for $0.05 and "red widget" for $10.00.

I plan to talk with my AdWords account representative today and encourage others to speak to folks at Google. We can only hope that they will listen if enough of us register negative feedback. It might also help us collectively to better divine what's in that Quality Score black box, i.e., "crack the code."

toddb




msg:3002553
 2:24 pm on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

We do this type of discussion all the time on the free serps side. We probably have the over all data to see what the key is to this new code. Oddly enought PR seems important.

vphoner




msg:3002577
 2:34 pm on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

I spoke with a google representative today and they are going to look into some keywords that got shut off that the rep agreed should not have. (They will "escalate" this issue to higher levels). The rep said my landing page was relevant too. I had one keyword that was over 10% CTR, and relevant to my landing page. It was shut off asking for 3x more in price.

Bottom line is at least from the representative level, they see the same problems we do with the shutoffs of keywords and our calls, I believe can make a difference.

RhinoFish




msg:3004788
 11:23 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have several fairly low PR sites that are unaffected. That doesn't mean much I bet, just noting that I'm not seeing PR involved here. Who knows, maybe I soon will...

Unscathed, but the uncertainity is disconcerting.

OceanDoctor




msg:3004803
 11:34 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some of my most affected campaigns are targeting landing pages with PR=5

toddb




msg:3004804
 11:36 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

ok well that helps as maybe we can throw out pr. Has anyone seen the minimum get smaller do to high CTR? I want to know if it is fluid or permanent.

vanillaice




msg:3004823
 11:57 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't believe there is a code.

Here is my situation. I have 2 landing page templates where everything is *exactly* the same down to the .css file. In fact, I just overwrite the other .css files whenever I make a change to one. The *only* differences are the keywords and sponsors on the page. So here are my campaigns...

1. Template A
2. Template A
3. Template A
4. Template A
5. Template A
6. Template B

Now, yesterday before I noticed my ads were disabled, I was working on:

7. Template A
8. Template B

What do I see yesterday?

1. (A) - Active
2. (A) - Active
3. (A) - Active
4. (A) - Disabled
5. (A) - Disabled
6. (B) - Disabled

then today, I look at my account...

7. (A) - Active partially, but inactive are my fault (meaning I bid .05 on .10 keywords. They're not charging me $1+ to make them active)
8. (B) - Active

So both templates have an active and inactive campaign.

That leads me to believe it's less to do with the actual landing page despite what they say, and more to do with a larger formula based on your CTR / CPC / QS. Why do I think that? Well, the inactive ones happen to be my pages that have a CTR higher than 6%, and running in the 3rd-6th position with sometimes a CPC of .03-.05. The active ones happen to have a CTR under 4%, and have an avg CPC of .05+ and rank 4th-7th usually.

Like I posted in another thread. My guess is they scrapped my 'good' ads forcing me to pay between .20c to $1+ per click on ads they *know* will generate a lot of clicks (due to a 6%+ CTR), and if I don't pay it, they simply remove me and allow someone else to slide in my slot probably paying 2-3x amount per click because they don't have as good of a CTR / QS, so they're forced to 'pay' their way into good positions.

So believe it or not, I think you're actually penalized the better your ads are.. in some cases. If you have fantastic ads getting tons of clicks but are paying pennies each one, I think you're a red flag to be booted.

I mean why else would my 6%+ CTR ads not be good enough for good until I pay them $1+ per click? Seriously, if I agree to pay their insane rates, suddenly my ad is good enough to display.

Tin foil hat time! :)

rbacal




msg:3004830
 12:04 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

That leads me to believe it's less to do with the actual landing page despite what they say, and more to do with a larger formula based on your CTR / CPC / QS. Why do I think that? Well, the inactive ones happen to be my pages that have a CTR higher than 6%, and running in the 3rd-6th position with sometimes a CPC of .03-.05. The active ones happen to have a CTR under 4%, and have an avg CPC of .05+ and rank 4th-7th usually.

Like I posted in another thread. My guess is they scrapped my 'good' ads forcing me to pay between .20c to $1+ per click on ads they *know* will generate a lot of clicks (due to a 6%+ CTR), and if I don't pay it, they simply remove me and allow someone else to slide in my slot probably paying 2-3x amount per click because they don't have as good of a CTR / QS, so they're forced to 'pay' their way into good positions.

So believe it or not, I think you're actually penalized the better your ads are.. in some cases. If you have fantastic ads getting tons of clicks but are paying pennies each one, I think you're a red flag to be booted.

Some of you guys are finally "getting it". First, google never said they would look ONLY at onsite factors.

They've created a profile for sites that they do not want, and it so happens that the sites that are providing a poor user experience happen to have a profile that includes high CTR, low CPC, and large numberf of keywords, pages and landing pages. (using some math formula to weight factors)

The financial side is pretty much as you describe. It also happens that the sites that provide a poor user experience (MFA, misleading ads, etc), reduce the number of clicks "real" advertisers receive due to the add positioning formula used. By removing these low value sites, they open the door for the useful sites (and the ones paying higher CPC) to receive more clicks.

Also, let's not forget that the min. bids are a function of landing page AND ad content, so that's another factor. But it's not all they are looking at here.

Sadly, if you fit the profile (rightly or wrongly) you get caught in the net at least for the moment.

vanillaice




msg:3004902
 12:43 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sadly, if you fit the profile (rightly or wrongly) you get caught in the net at least for the moment.

I think that's what my personal problem is. I called them and they'll re-review it. Hopefully they see my sites aren't that bad.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think my sites are fantastic. I never intended them to be. They were supposed to just be landing pages since they removed the ability to link directly to sponsors (well it's still there, but very hard to compete now. Easier just to do the LP route)

That being said, my sites are simple portal pages that promote websites that generally fit the keywords i'm getting traffic for. I hate broad traffic, and can't stand when I get 'blue widget' traffic on my 'red widget' page. I try to avoid that.

The design is very basic with a header, a paragraph describing the widget, then nice looking listings of websites that provide you with the widgets including screenshots of the site before you visit, prices, and tons of description. Main thing, no Adsense ads either.

What is really bothering me is if my site isn't good enough, why are there still pages listed for the same keyword with ugly designs, and content that doesn't even exactly match the keyword. It's because like you said, my site was doing well at a low cost, and those sites probably aren't. They're probably paying 2-3x amount per click to sit in positions lower than I am, and google doesn't like that.

rbacal




msg:3004912
 12:59 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

What is really bothering me is if my site isn't good enough, why are there still pages listed for the same keyword with ugly designs, and content that doesn't even exactly match the keyword. It's because like you said, my site was doing well at a low cost, and those sites probably aren't. They're probably paying 2-3x amount per click to sit in positions lower than I am, and google doesn't like that.

You're still caught up in the notion of "quality", which is more google's dumb choice of words here. It's just a phrase they coined. It doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.

You aren't going to like the rest of my comment, which is written from google's business perspective. You and many others have had a good long run at, in effect, getting more value from your adwords investments than other "kinds" of advertisers. Some of the people who have benefited over and above what their value is to google have done so by playing on a different field. Google is leveling that field, and also equalizing the value for advertisers, while at the same time addressing the user experience.

It's a hard thing to explain succinctly. Now as to the WAY they did it, which is to raise bids SO high all at once is really puzzling, except that there are some possible explanations.

1) They're real p***ed off (even though they created the problem).
2) They've been bleeding (quietly) as a result of the low click/high cpc's and MFA's and simply can't afford to go slow.
3) They are really concerned at what might be an across network drop in clicks as a result of the junk ads and fake sites.

I wish everyone good luck with this. We're still suffering from the SERP hits. I know what it's like.

PS. MFA/junk sites for my monitored terms have disappeared, in effect, on ALL three networks. Go figure that one out. I'm still watching on a daily basis.

vanillaice




msg:3004931
 1:18 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks. I do understand what you're saying. I'd like to believe i'm not in that class, but perhaps I am.

I also know what you're talking about with the SERP hits. I was pretty upset when "big daddy" showed up as it completely wiped away one of my sites. That frustrated me, as that was a hobby site where I reviewed products in full detail (600+ word reviews each), then poof, all my pages were gone. I was ranking high on nearly every product I reviewed if you did a direct search on that product, then I was gone just like that.

They have come around and re-listed my pages, but my rankings aren't anywhere close to what they were. Sadly, most of the top results are just spam now.

jtara




msg:3004957
 1:44 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

So believe it or not, I think you're actually penalized the better your ads are..

I believe it.

They've just continued the trend from their previous efforts.

My experience is that poor ads consistently knock-out high-quality ads. Only it's more-so now.

One of the problems is Google's bug up their a.. about minimizing keyword quantity and maximizing use of keyword substitution.

They WANT you to use keyword substitition. They DON'T want you to write targeted, hand-crafted ads that speak directly (and gramatically!) to the user's needs.

It doesn't make any sense, and never has. It just makes even less sense now.

The only logical explanation I can come up with is that the hardware is overloaded and/or the software efficiency is horrible, and they have to limit server load.

Google today is a great lesson on why not to let programmers run your company. And I am a programmer.

Gwebman




msg:3006633
 4:20 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have tried for 3 days to get somebady to give me a straight answer at Google. No nada they just send out the form letters and then respond with another one.

I also believe that they are killing off the low bid ads that have high click thru rates.

Some of my ads had a 5% CTR and as low as 2 cent average. They murdered all of those and jacked the bids up to 10 dollars.

My landing pages are loaded with content and the keywords are used in the ads on the pages. I asked for a response on how I can improve they send me a form letter with a link to the help guide for landing page quality.

I know I am not a big spender like many of you but I do spend 3 to 4 grand a month. You would think they could send a notice or something before they shut all my ads down.

paperclips




msg:3006854
 9:13 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have to chime in on this one. I have been using adwords since the very beginning. My ads have always been well written and targeted to the product I am offering.

I fined tuned my ads and my CTR increased. I started using exact matches about 6 months ago when I noticed in my logs that adwords was delivering ads not directly related to what keywords I had chosen. This knocked down my CTR and drove up my CPC.

Basically, my opinion is that most of the changes have been made to increase revenue from less advertisers and attempt to filter out the junk.

Better communication would have been greatly appreciated from those who have helped to build the Google empire.

wayne




msg:3007682
 4:01 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've heard people saying that their campaigns going direct to merchant haven't been
affected but their campaigns with landing pages have been. I wonder if Google wants
to stop having so many ads for the same product listed in their results. With only
allowing campaigns direct to merchant, and stopping other ads from affiliates linking
to the same product, there will be only one listing in their results per product. Phase
1 was when they started allowing only one ad per domain, maybe this is phase 2
to eliminate duplicate ads for the same product. I myself have a campaign which is
going direct to merchant that hasn't been affected like my other campaigns. Doesn't
look good for affiliates using Adwords though.

RockSolidWes




msg:3007716
 4:09 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

If that is the case, I would continue to call every day to get an 'update' on the status - and chat with support online. It never hurts to get an extra person to push the review faster.

IM_Mike




msg:3007749
 4:19 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not sure Wayne.. Every direct to merchant keyword that I have that has a CTR above ~1% has gone inactive. Anything below that threshold is fine. Same thing goes for my seperate landing page campaigns.

I have many adgroups where one or two high performing keywords are requiring $5-$10 and the others are fine at $.05. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the landing page at all. Explain that one Google..

-Mike

RockSolidWes




msg:3008203
 9:46 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

“Let’s Crack the Code.”

I am currently trying to crack the code, and I found an important distinction but I need someone with more technical knowledge to help. More specifically, I need to know if Google can tell how long a person has been on a website before they click the back button to the original SERP.

Google Solves Problems by Computers.

Computer Solve Problems by Math.

Google had a problem with poor user experience. Therefore, they found a need to evaluate landing pages. There are many variables they can assign to a landing page based on the data Google collects. For all we know, they can use Analytics, Google Toolbar, what percentage of the user clicks the back arrow button after first glance on a website; in addition to on page factors such as number of outgoing links, keyword saturation, and amount of text and graphics.

From my best guess, there is probably a non-linear mathematical formula which computes this data and assigns a score.

I really think the percentage of visitors that click the back button upon first glance on a website is a strong component, yet I do not have confirmation. (On a side note, does Google have the technical abilities to determine HOW LONG a user stays on a website before they click the back arrow?). That is why providing many links and quality content is important. If your keyword is broad, you want a user to spend time on your site before returning to the SERP.

I am going to test a quintessential MFA (Made for Advertising) page alongside a content rich page with awesome links designed to engage the user. My hypothesis is that while many people will stay and click around a MFA page, I will see a high percentage that leave immediately as compared to a content rich page.

[edited by: eWhisper at 10:25 pm (utc) on July 14, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Please no requests for emails - See TOS. [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

chief72




msg:3008275
 10:29 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've heard people saying that their campaigns going direct to merchant haven't been
affected but their campaigns with landing pages have been. I wonder if Google wants
to stop having so many ads for the same product listed in their results. With only
allowing campaigns direct to merchant, and stopping other ads from affiliates linking
to the same product, there will be only one listing in their results per product. Phase
1 was when they started allowing only one ad per domain, maybe this is phase 2
to eliminate duplicate ads for the same product. I myself have a campaign which is
going direct to merchant that hasn't been affected like my other campaigns. Doesn't
look good for affiliates using Adwords though.

I was wondering when this point would be made. This is obviously a big part of G's motivation. It seems to me that what we have been witnessing is a slow role out of G's single domain policy.

The single domain policy whilst designed to provide a greater array of results (5 ebay ads on the page, anybody) it also served to heat up the overall bidding process. I'm sure G realised that aff's would respond to this by creating landing pages (hell, I did). This outcome kind of renders the policy redundant so voila we have the quality score (this baby had me worried right away). April and now July we experienced the baby getting it's first teeth.

Another thought that has occurred to me in the last few days; I used to link direct to merchant, did pretty well out of it. Then the policy change, so I build landing pages (essentially a review page linking to my original merchant and a couple of competitors) start doing great. I figure my pre-sell is working pretty well & the users are happy doing their comparative shopping from my page. Quality user experience? Apparently not, all my kwords went inactive. Now whilst I don't think this is their primary motivation it does occur to me that there is no advantage to G in having users click through to several merchants from my page. Best that they do their comparitive shopping at adwords level (more clicks = more money).

As a footnote to this story; I changed my links back to direct to merchant and guess what, those $12.91 kwords are all happily active at 10-20c again.

sailorjwd




msg:3008580
 12:39 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is my belief that one important factor in the landing page quality score is the time a user stays on the landing page and likely the website in general.

I was informed that most good landing pages have lots of content and stickyness. So therefore Google is certainly measuring time on page and/or time on site (i guess page is easier).

That is likely why those with affiliate links and probably adsense/yahoo advertising are getting hurt with this update - people are leaving the page too soon for G's algo.

I'm betting that the fact that there is some limited advertising on a page has nothing to do with the quality score other than the ads cause the visitor to leave the site.

My current goal is to make my landing pages as sticky as possible short of a video feed to the cowboys cheerleaders locker room... hmmmm wait a minute.

Anyone else believe it isn't the ads but the fact the visitors are leaving via the ads or aff links that is hurting quality score?

Tom_PR




msg:3008834
 1:58 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I dont know about it, but I looked at a few stats.

One of my ads only had 12 exact keyphrases since paring them down steadily since January to just the ones that make me money (the ONLY thing we need to look at, right? lol..). All are now deactivated. It was direct to merchant, and out of 88447 unique visitors to the landing page, 71404 went at least 3 pages deep (the order page).

This landing page is mostly graphics. The text that does appear is mostly legal jargon and links to policies and customer support and such at the bottom of the page. The images do have alt text, but it's mindlessly repetitive.

The second page is more information on the widget and contains little more than navigation links.

The third page is where I take orders.

Does any of this matter? Maybe. I wish they'd tell me :)

profitpuppy




msg:3008938
 4:30 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

does anyone think over optimization might be a factor? I have a list I compiled of MFA and non MFA sites that were dumped and other MFA and other sites that were not dumped. Have noticed a few common factors in the sites that are dumped and the MFA sites that are still active. Possibly overoptimization .. using the same phrase over and over on the page, but not having related phrases. I think some of the factors are the same factors that apply to seo.

Must be at least a dozen different factors and the funny thing that google has done is to make it so that if you go over the threshold, the site is suddenly massively penalized. Sites that haven't gone over the threshold have seemed to have no effect (as in it doesn't seem to be an incemental effect), it's basically an all or nothing penalty. The people that have noticed an incremental effect is either because some of the pages are going the threshold and some are not, OR they are still waiting for the pages to be hit by the quality bot.

El_Gringo




msg:3009098
 9:12 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have a similar experience to vanillaice as posted above with regard to identical sites and also believe that landing page cannot be affecting anything, which seems unlikely but is certainly true from my little corner of this Adwords fiasco.

I have two cobranded/whitelabel shops on two different domains (set up as different campaigns in AW) that simply pull the same merchant’s page into my framed page.

Both pages contain no content of their own (only the frame containing the merchant’s page)
Both landing pages are identical
Both campaigns have the same max CPC price
Both campaigns use the same keywords
Both have averaged similar impressions, CTR and conversion over 2 ˝ years for identical KW’s

One has had no keywords affected, one has every keyword suspended.

There are a few differences between the two shops;

Perhaps most significantly, the affected shop has adgroups with low price, low volume, high CTR, high conversion long tail KW’s (in addition to all the more general keywords it shares with the unaffected site) and because of this, overall campaign CTR is higher, but CPC is slightly lower. The long tail KW’s click through to landing pages that could not be more targeted.

The unaffected shop is PR2, the other is PR0, though this seem irrelevant from previous posts

The unaffected one has some “content” (rather than just online shop type pages) in the wider site though these are not the pages I send AW clicks to. Maybe G looks to it’s organic SERPS to see if a site is really a site not just a landing page?

These campaigns have always shared the KW space under G’s double serving policy, maybe this is why one of the identical sites has been hit, although it seems a little illogical to me.

If the QS is heavily or even partially weighted towards landing page “quality” then surely neither or both of my sites should have been hit (maybe the second one will be in time – gulp….)

Sharkster




msg:3009211
 10:24 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing some similar results also.
I have about twelve campaigns running and half of them have been 99% put offline.

Five of the twelve campaigns are of the same age, they have been running since Adwords started.

All twelve of my campaigns are for my own small businesses, I am not an affiliate and I do not have adsense or any other third party advertising on my sites.

Of the five original campaigns, four are virtually without problems, however the other one has been 99% slaughtered like all my newer campaigns which are around nine to twelve months old.

So, comparing the five original sites/campaigns the only difference between the four ok ones and the slaughtered one, is the amount of content that has been placed in Googles organic listings.

All five sites have similar content levels on their domains, similar landing site content amounts etc. But when comparing the amount of indexed content on the odd site, Google has only indexed a very small number of pages compared to the others.

All my newer campaigns that have been slaughtered also have a very small amount of indexed pages in Google, this makes me think that the amount of content coming from your site is a major factor and not the landing pages.
I have seen similar results to Vanillaice’s in regards to the landing pages being similar.

Btw. All my campaigns have large numbers of very tightly targeted kw's running at low costs and high ROI.

I am waiting to get more pages indexed on that odd site mentioned and see if that makes a difference.

jimberan




msg:3010051
 1:40 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have been sitting here reading through the various posts and the same thought keeps returning back to me.

Many of us spend a considerable amount of money on adwords to attract customers. Due to various reasons our natural rankings arent good enough (yet) so we attract customers through the ppc system which normally delivers customers almost instantly.

Adwords is for my firm the highest overhead expense and like with anything in the world of business, its important to have a crystal clear view or insight on how the money is being spend, what can be done to reduce costs, how much needs to be budgeted for the upcoming period etc etc. This is SOP and businesses around the world have been working this way as its a must. Without this its like driving a car without a steering wheel.

I am ok with the games played every few month with the natural rankings when google does some funky move and all the webmasters are trying to find out what to change or do so as to keep their ranking or improve them. However for those of us that use adwords and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly, its completely ABSURD that google has now included advertisers in their games. If we have to pay more because of some quality landing page stuff then please act in a proffesional business manner and inform your advertisers exactly what they need to do to bring their rating up or whatever else is needed. What Google is doing instead is to cover this whole ranking crap in a layer of secrecy and are forcing advertisers spending fortunes allready to do guess work based on no actual facts which can lead to financial disaster for many. If this in fact does happen and I dont care what anyone says, I hold Google responsible for companies going bust, employees loosing their jobs and god knows what else. Google will surely like the new system as in the end adwords revenue will increase due to their new little scoring system. You guy honoustly show absolutely no concern for those advertisers which have build and paid for the growth of Google over the years. You continue to look for ways to squeeze the extra dime out of us until there is no more blood to bleed. I still wonder why google has content network activated per default for new advertisers. I have seen so many sites including myself when i started off who did not realize what this content network joke was costing until months later. If you were in anyway advertiser friendly or supportive you would have it off per default and those wanting to use it could activate it later. But heck, who am I to second guess the actions of Google.

holyearth




msg:3010076
 2:02 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Folks, I spoke to someone very closely related (and highly ranked) to shis situation and this is the message I got...

"WE WANTED MORE MONEY - THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY...."

Don't bother "optimizing" anything because it won't make a difference...

limitup




msg:3010078
 2:08 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

These threads are hilarious to me. Google is in business to make money, they could care less about anything else. Ok, well sorry, there is the power thing to. But power and money - that is all that matters to 99% of big companies. Google's "do no evil" crap was just a scam. They are very smart indeed. They did and said what they needed to do and say in order to build a massive business that they could later reap the rewards from. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless. To make a long story short, this is business and it's cutthroat anywhere big money is involved. You either learn how to play the game, or you suffer. But don't complain about it. And don't act like Google owes you anything, because they don't. The absolute bottom line is that if you are unhappy with Google's advertising system, DO NOT USE IT. It does no good to spend hours on message boards complaining about it. Let's stick to the topic of this thread, which is trying to figure out how to game the system. All this bitching and moaning is silly.

Tom_PR




msg:3010161
 5:07 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Then just pretend none of the "bitching and moaning" threads existed and find some useful information on gaming the system :)

charliemunger




msg:3012514
 2:00 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, some of you guys might find this funny, and I dont know if it throws a spanner in the works as to theories that "your domain is good or bad"... I think it is a lot more complex than that...anyway..

I sell a product (product vendor) and my ads for all intents and purposes are inactive (unless I bid $10 per click, and since I dont convert at 87% I dont intend to)... but (and this is the funny bit), affiliates linking to my site (some via direct linking) are running apparently fine!

Waitago google! Stamp down those pesky affiliates, eh?

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
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