| 3:47 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
are you serious? that is nuts. that would mean that you can create click fraud and hurt a sites "quality."
| 3:51 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I cant get that to happen. I clicked a couple ads that looked totally irrelevant and spammy to my search and nothing happened
[edited by: Soze at 3:51 am (utc) on July 14, 2006]
| 4:01 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's only happening on one of my computers.
| 4:07 am on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
on all the ads? google toolbar? cache cleared?
Apparently this happened back on the 6th of june. I have never seen it before though.
[edited by: Soze at 4:07 am (utc) on July 14, 2006]
| 2:44 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 3:20 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Was this link useful? Yes or No |
Just thinking that something like that is a bit dangerous. Most searchers don't know how to search very well. The ad may be right on target but since the searcher did not search correctly, of course it would be of no use. Or if the price was more than they were looking to pay, then it is not useful to them.
There are alot of things in the world that are not useful to me, but that does not mean that they are not useful.
| 3:38 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
oh, i will now go to click all my competitors' ads, click back in my IE and click NO as an answer to Google's question.
Google will make more money thanks to ugly idolw...
| 3:51 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the problem would be that the person would say no if they didnt find what they want. like i wanted to a buy a tv, but his prices were a little to high or he didnt have my model in stock, so the link was not useful. even if it was a good ad
| 3:55 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think this is quite relevant to recent discussions on quality score and might one day (maybe soon?) add to the factors which influence it. It would have to be used with care though, if you look at the Digg results from voting on quality, it easily goes the wrong way in the wrong hands but you would expect the system to have an element of protection from quality score fraud.
| 5:04 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|oh, i will now go to click all my competitors' ads, click back in my IE and click NO as an answer to Google's question. |
Well, I guess that is easier than just filing a spam report on all your competing sites (if you could manage to be served the survey link on demand). Both actions are likely to boot you little, of course, since Google will use data mining to separate the random cranks from an actual groundswell of dissatisfaction.
| 7:53 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
FIX MY ADWORDS ACCOUNT - Get all your fix my adwords account at ebay - www.ebay.com
Was this ad helpful to you?
| 8:53 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|FIX MY ADWORDS ACCOUNT - Get all your fix my adwords account at ebay - www.ebay.com |
That was funny.
| 9:06 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Oops. My point was addressed, I suppose, so I edited it out. Carry on. :)
| 9:26 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
don't know if any of you have seen this but I was just searching google and clicked an adwords ad and I pushed back to get to the listings and a little line of text below the url of the ad I clicked said "Was this link useful? Yes or No" Just thought this was interesting and wanted to pass it along.
One thought: Google Webmaster Guidelines discourage you from messing with the back button, and they do this?
| 10:04 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have mixed feeling,spammers can you it to ruine your rating but the same time now Google can hear back users expirience,not the SEO,not backlinks but true(if) user's opinions
| 10:39 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|One thought: Google Webmaster Guidelines discourage you from messing with the back button, and they do this? |
I read the OP to mean that they had clicked their back button, not that it was automatic or against their will in any way.
| 3:20 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Makes sense to me... Would be pretty easy to detect someone just using a proxy or else just going back and forth on ads to get the question to come up.
As for blaming it on the user searching, that is not really an issue because google is trying to judge the usefulness of the overall experience of the visitor. If they don't know how to search properly that is still part of the experience and does not invalidate the question.
| 8:51 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think this has more to do with the website than the advert. It's a quality score issue around the website imo. Adverts can be spot on by websites can be completely off target when it comes to customers.
I guess if Google can get enough data then they will have a pretty good gauge on how to value a website. The cream will rise and spammy websites will die.
| 2:53 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If a user is looking for something in particular and then clicks on an ad, in all likelyhood he/she will remain on that site if it satisfies what they were looking for. They are going to forget to go back and click the button that suggests the page was useful.
The only people that are going to be clicking the back button are those that are unsatisfied, because they need to find something else on the SERP page. Since they are the only ones that are likely qualified to answer the question at hand, it stands to reason that the maority of the feedback will be negative, no?
| 7:01 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Since they are the only ones that are likely qualified to answer the question at hand, it stands to reason that the maority of the feedback will be negative, no? |
Maybe, but if user feedback is more negative for some advertisers than for others, isn't that useful data to have?
| 7:53 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why even bother with the screening BS. If a page is that bad then no one will buy and the advertising will drop of its own accord. Some people will like it, some wont. Because it makes Google look bad? Oh well too bad, thats the price you must pay for an open market where everything does not have to be the same or agreeable to everyone.
| 9:14 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Look, it's just market research. (Does my car dealer post angry messages on public forums if JD Powers calls me to ask whether I was satisfied with my last service experience?)
| 9:26 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
nope..your car dealer just puts an advertising frame around the license plate.
| 9:34 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hey ispy... "Why even bother with the screening BS.?"
All the negatives will get users clicking more and more on google ads.
| 1:38 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe, but if user feedback is more negative for some advertisers than for others, isn't that useful data to have? |
Yes .. BUT, you probably don't have to engage users to obtain that kind of information. Having a way to determine the click-back ratio (CBR... the % of people that click the browser back button) would probably suffice. Is CBR already a term? - if not I want credit for coining it - he he!
Obviously there are some obstacles to overcome by using something like that, such as browser cache, but all things considered, the error margin would be proportional and thus, sufficient in determining the relative quality of an ad without having to engage the user.
I am wondering:
a) What change in Global average CTR will be noticed by having such a call to action below an ad (ie. will more people click on it to rate it)?
b) In what ways are it susceptible to fraud (competitors fraudulently giving negative ratings)?
c) Contingent on (b), in what ways will Google use the feedback in order to determine which ads are shown?
| 3:19 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good questions, Chico_Loco. I assume that the feedback requests are served randomly and infrequently (with a limit of one per session) minimizing the chances of ballot-box stuffing or excessive distraction, but who knows?
| 8:53 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do they launch to all countries or just test in USA?
| 9:46 am on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The key to avoiding deliberate manipulation of any kind of ranking or measure is two-fold:
Increase the reliability of your measures
Increase the number of your measures
This is a case of the second. Sure, 5% manipulated data could seriously affect your site if that was the only data source used. But you are unlikely to be in the erroneous 5% for more than one or two measures, bringing you right up into the safe level.
The more data sources used the better!
| 6:05 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I saw this on my laptop in the UK so must be international testing.