| 2:33 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We made the changes they suggested to us and then asked for a manual review. They came back saying it still didn't meet the QS. When we asked what else we should do/change they wouldn't say and refered us to there QS guidelines.
I'd be interested to know if anybody has had there website reinstated without getting a manual review? I haven't heard that anybody has.
| 2:35 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes I had one with the QS increased after a manual review. Then I modified a few more and asked for another manual review and they said it's actually an automated system that does the review and it should catch up in a few days. This did occur and my minimum bids were dropped from $10 down to the normal $0.05 or $0.10.
| 3:46 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'm not sure whether we should just wait and see what happens or contact them again and ask for a manual review? |
Consider having someone else take a look at it before asking for a review - sometimes a fresh pair of eyeballs can spot things that you've seen so much you don't even realize anymore. If you have any friends who are webmasters, or in your particular industry - or even ask here if anyone would be willing. That is what I would do.
| 9:49 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I actually had them review mine a couple times. For some reason they refuse to suggest to you what you can do to be more in compliance. All I keep getting is a link back to the QS guidelines. Also when I ask why are there 50 other landing pages that look exactly the same they say they can't comment due to privacy issues.(I do ringtone stuff for reference so you know almost all the landing pages look very similar.). Anyway they sent me an email basically telling me that the site was low quality and going so far as to suggest that it was a favor because I could be getting low ROI from these low quality ads and lose money. I blew my top from that because I figured who the hell are they to analyze what my ROI is or even know. If it wasn't worth the effort why would I be banging my head against the wall talking with you to try and become compliant. Anyway they also informed me that my business model does not fit with Google's ideas. My business model is your typical affiliate model, ad takes you to a splash/landing page with some info and then with another click to the offers. So I take this to mean Google is not so keen on the affiliate scene for some reason. Read into it how you will, I just know it was amusing to read them giving me tips on my business model and assume they know what kind of ROI and profit I am seeing from ads.
| 11:04 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|My business model is your typical affiliate model |
I think therein lies your problem. G doesn't really seem to want affiliates - particularly ones bidding on the same kwords as merchants they link to - consider this an extension of the single domain policy if you will.
Unique content is the answer, your affiliate landing page needs to have the appearance of a legitimate website - not sure how many articles you can write about ringtones, think laterally.
| 1:53 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good points, but after the first review told me I needed more content I actually added about 25 pages of content on various topics such as certain specific ringtones, cell phone companies, etc. These were on an articles page and the landing page has a link at the bottom to articles. Anyway, its funny because the rep said if someone searches for ringtones do they really want to go to your page and then to the offer or straight to the offer. So it doesn't seem like content is the only thing. My argument to that point though is that if you go direct to an offer you alienate certain carriers since not every offer accepts all carriers. So part of my page has the typical select your carrier. This then funnels the people to appropriate offers that they can use. How can this not be adding value? On generic search terms like ringtone or free ringtone you don't know what carriers people who click have, so say a Nextel person (I use Nextel because they frequently are not accepted by many offers) clicks and is taken directly to an offer I use, which converts good for the majority of the carriers (Sprint, Cingular, Tmobile, and Verizon....which make up the majority of the traffic) but does not accept Nextel. Now we all lost in that scenario. The user got a poor quality experience, I lost money on a worthless click, and Google's search got hurt since the user did not get a useful thing. When I have my so called useless low quality page in between the Nextel person is directed quiite happily to an offer that he can actually sign up to. It seems so logical I don't get it. I would think the ringtone companies should care more about us competing with them than Google.
| 3:17 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with what you're saying. In my niche areas I enjoyed great success with single page landing pages. I figured a bit of comparison, pre-sell and direct the customer to the merchant site. If you deep link there needn't even be any additional clicks. These sites convert great probably because their is no unnecessary BS to muddy the waters. To me that's quality, problem is G don't agree and they ain't about to tell us what they want - beyond the vaguest explanations anyway.
So here's the point; people have found work arounds but many are only short-term fixes - who needs the constant cat & mouse, not me. My feeling is we - affiliates - need to build "legitimate" websites with unique value added content, contact us pages, privacy policies etc. etc. i.e. pages that could possibly rank in the serps. Having built this website it might be best to use a new domain as the old one's been marked.
P.S. After all this work G still may not want to know & guess what they still won't tell you why. Oh well there are other PPC's.
| 5:06 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As an affiliate, will a 1 page or several page website meet the requirements of the QS if it has some good content on these few pages? Or does it have to be a huge site with lots of content?
What are the most important elements of getting back in the quality score for affiliates? (No direct links to affiliate on first page?)
What kind of privacy page would you have as an affiliate, since you don't use the information of customers (most of us). If we link directly to the parent.
How important is the privacy and about us pages?