| 6:25 am on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just wrote them an email about this..(I know it will do no good...just ranting)...
I personally am sick of having to go back every day and check for inactive keywords. Now they are in the thousands. I have corrected them to the minimum bid for the last time. It simply not worth it anymore. My time is more valuable than that.
I suggested that they have a way to be able to see all inactive terms at once and have a way to bring them up to minimum bid on mass. It would be easier to go in and find the ones that are too pricey and move them down or inactive than trying to raise thousands of them up to minimum bid.
Man I miss the banner days ...make a campaign and forget it....now you have to have someone check this sh*t every day. Well starting this week..I'm going to leave thousands of them inactive. I've done it for the last time.
Maybe if we all do that....they will get the message.
| 2:07 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just emailed them too.
They've now started attacking my plain vanilla campaigns for selling my software products which I developed.
This min bid thing has gone too far.
| 2:44 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't understand your comment.
Do you mean that you also have some sneaky/underhand campaigns that G attacked first?
| 2:50 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If the only way your business model works is for you to get $0.05 or $0.10 clicks from Google, you better find a different business model. |
| 6:00 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our ads have nearly always run in the #2-#5 positions. I don't think that has anything to do with our keywords being deactivated. I'm fed up with Google's arrogance. No other advertising medium is so unstable. With AdWords, we have no idea how many keywords will run or for how long. At least with Yahoo/Overture and MSN, we know what to expect. With AdWords, we have no idea.
| 6:14 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The real thing is they're trying to cleanup the advertisers base and they don't care if they affect a few advertisers. Whether "few" is a dozen, a hundred or a thousand.
| 6:33 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If that was indeed Google desire, to clean up their advertiser base, then the logical mode of operation would have been to contact advertisers that spend more than $15,000 a month, and let them know what Google's intent was/is, and more importantly how to improve your sites to avoid all the "hoop jumping".
I'm sure part of their desire was to clean up the junk sites, and improve user experience, but at this point sure seems like increasing the CPC across the board was the main thrust....
Oh well, I needed to improve the quality of our sites always, I guess I'll have to do it now, and not later. I will say that like others in not only this thread, but others, the new Google has many holes in it, and does not seem to be very consistent.
Thanks for you input.....
| 6:47 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Relatively speaking, the AdWords and AdSense programs are still young. Google is certainly entitled to (and should) keep experimenting.
Where is it written that Google is not allowed to change prices? In the AdWords User Agreement?
| 6:53 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Where is it written that Google is not allowed to change prices? |
Please, read again and read well. Nobody is saying that.
The complain here is about HOW they implement these price changes: unexpected, unannounced, unreasonable, unexplainable.
| 7:03 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Where is it written that Google is not allowed to change prices? |
I didn't say anyone had said it. "Where is it written..." is a commonly-used manner of speech that implies that something has not been written.
|The complaint here is about HOW they implement these price changes: unexpected, unannounced, unreasonable, unexplainable. |
And my point was that Google is entitled to keep changing things.
Lots of other companies aren't obligated to justify price changes, as long as no legally-binding agreements are broken.
| 7:09 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
And if some (hopefully many) AdWords advertisers who don't have the imagination (or decency) to have quality, original content on their sites (just junk ads surrounding junk content) end up getting eliminated as a result of Google trying to improve things, I think that would be great.
| 8:00 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What crosses my mind the most when I read any Adwords thread is Google seems to have separate and unique terms and conditions for everybody. Its quite likely their algo learns to charge more to those who are willing to pay more. Just because you pay such-and-such doesn’t mean the advertiser above you is paying more. They could be paying substantially less.
| 8:05 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes Car Dude you are correct, elimination of junk sites is in everyone's best interest. The problem is many of the changes that Google has implemented have negatively effected some very usefully sites, that are in no way junk. You try to explain that to Google and let the hoop show begin.....
| 8:18 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Do you mean that you also have some sneaky/underhand campaigns that G attacked first? "
No Demon, I have a lot of programming examples which contain programming code and discussion but are difficult to expand upon to an extent sufficient to have enough on page content to make the algorithm happy. I suspect the algo ain't happy with reading programming code either.
The idea was to get visitors to the site for the programming examples and then entice them into buy my consulting services. I can affort 3-4 cents to give someone a free example but I can't affort 20-30 cents.
| 9:38 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well instead of going through thousands of deactivated keywords today I imported them and moved them to MSN (it was a drag but at least that will end most of the nonesense of checking them everyday..I hope) I also increased our positions on Yahoo. Already our traffic is back to normal and so is sales. Actually we are going to save quite a bit of money this way... so that's good for now.
If Google doesn't want our money then so be it. Couldn't care less at this point.
| 7:44 am on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ah, I see. I have a similar problem with my multimedia gallery, almost none of which contains text that AS/AW can see.
I tend to direct AW to my main index page for each topic, where there is more text, and where I can lax lyrical if need be.
I suspect that now AW has decided that some of your campaigns are "bad", rightly or wrongly, the screws are being put on account-wide.
I just noticed that one of my broadest campaigns was starting to convert less well (though it does come and go), so I've turned it off and left a cluster of much more specific ones, which is fine for the reduced budget it is on right now.
| 10:39 am on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The other part that drives me nuts is if I search for 'Widget Programming Examples' (and 1000 variations) my site is always in the top 5 from 50million results on G search. I, and 3 programmers used to make a living off of programming widgets and now it is becoming difficult.
I typically send adwords visitors to the index page for examples and apparently that wasn't good enough since not all the technical words (and synonyms) were on the index page. I couldn't send them to the detailed example page since that page has only enough text to explain the example and a bunch of programming code.
One last point - many of these keywords have no competitors (who else in their right mind would advertise for free examples!)
| 12:04 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I'm screwed. "
My ecommerce site also has a Low QS. Tried every suggestion on this forum and some but nothing works. But this low QS stuff is not account wide for me. I am currently relying more on my affiliates who are sending good traffic to me. Also got some free publicity in a regional newspaper that helps. Some traffic coming form G Content and Site Targetted ads. But things have gone expensive and volume of traffic is much lower. I am learning to adapt.
| 2:46 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our sites are nothing but quality, original content. We've even won recognition from major media outlets and are referenced by other sites on the web. Our sites are updated weekly. We do not have any affiliate links at all. No junk at all. And still Google deactivated our keywords. In my opinion, it has little to do with wanting quality and more to do with good old fashioned greed.
| 2:54 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just trying to help out someone earlier in this thread I noticed that I had only limited connectivity to their site. (They couldn't be see at all from a large UK corporate but could be seen via Vodafone 3G for example.)
Clearly, if the AW "quality bot" can't see your site then you're gonna get dinged on bid prices.
A very hard problem to diagnose, but worth checking for if you can IMHO.
| 7:14 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Side note on this issue...
Was talking with Yahoo advertising support trying to get kinks out of my new ad campaigns.
The rep mentioned a large influx of support calls with new users over the last few weeks.
I wonder where they could be coming from? :)
| 7:49 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes we have been running Overture/Yahoo traffic for some time now. Since the split of MSN from Overture/Yahoo a few months back, the Overture traffic is compromised of 50% partner sites that in my opinion are not of the quality of the Google traffic. We are in the process of trying to get a handle on what traffic partners need to be dumped. I will say that our overall ROI has dropped since the Google massacre. We still get Google traffic but not like the beginning of the year.
Our Overture traffic has remained consistent, but again we wonder about the quality of sites such as 2006-deals.com, and all the second hand search engines they have partnered with.
| 11:29 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
ember - you said that your ads nearly always run in the #2 to #5 positions. That seems to destroy my previous theory.
But call me naive, ignorant, or whatever - I just don't think it is short term greed. I really think they are trying to improve the user experience. I think you guys that are getting "wrongly" wacked by this are simply the unintended consquenses of a less than perfect algorythm.
Man, I hope I didn't accidently drink the Google kool-aid.
| 11:34 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
WW- Do you have a Google rep? These people are pretty helpful. More than once they've given me suggestions to reduce my cost or increase my clicks for the same money. That's another reason I just don't think this is a greed thing.
| 5:28 am on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes since we spend a ridiculous amount of money at Google, they have assigned a rep to handle our account, and yes she is very nice, but has told us that affiliate sites in their "eyes" do not add value to the user. I tried to show how we do business, and do add value but her hands were/are tied as she doesn’t write the code that determines what a good site is and what is a bad site.
So, I have not contacted her since the July onset of these problems. I have been improving our sites, adding content, and doing "things" that improve our sites, but just never had the time to do. The keywords that were locked out, are still locked out, but seem like new campaigns have "less" restrictions on them and these keywords are more in line with what we had before the July disaster.
So bottom line, Google is Google, adapt and try to work with them as they do have the highest quality traffic on the Internet. At the same time, trying to get a handle on the entire Overture “partner” traffic and assessing the quality and ROI of this traffic. I like the Yahoo direct search traffic, but the other traffic is suspect as best.
Thanks for all of your input……
| 6:26 am on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I recently became a publisher and am getting ready to become an advertiser.
|Google has assigned a rep to handle our account, (who) told us that affiliate sites in their eyes do not add value to the user. |
Would someone please mention some types of affiliate sites that in their opinion really are of value to the visitor?
| 10:02 am on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some companies only sell through affiliates/distributors.
One of my companies has this approach with one of our products.
In this case there may be value.
| 1:03 am on Sep 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some sites offer unique valuable content. I don't think their site becomes worthless just by adding an affiliate link at the bottom of the page.
Other affiliates sites are just carbon-copies of other affiliate sites. Not too much long term value there.
| 3:04 am on Sep 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
you guys should try microsoft adcenter, there seems to be a surge in good quality, cheap traffic lately. Yahoo is also improvely lately as well.
Google is certaintly becoming too expensive, the Cost per acquisition is certaintly getting worst. Advertisers will only try #*$! months before they completely shutdown most of their adwords if its no longer profitable.
| 10:12 am on Sep 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As an affiliate I was knocked out of the game by G in mid July. Had 3 weeks of earning nothing until I rebuilt my life and my business with MSN & Yahoo. I have to say, business has been very good, in fact better that I ever did with G, my advice is get off the rollercoaster because there are (better?) alternatives thank goodness. Once it hits them in their pocket hard enough maybe they'll roll things back but their constant changes make doing business with them impossible. Yahoo and MSN can be a pain but believe me, it's better than the nightmare G at the moment.
| 10:50 am on Sep 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Like many of you, Google Adwords has been a huge roller coaster ride for us over the last 18 months. A year ago, we were spending in excess of $100k a month with them. As is the case with many on this board that like to fly under the radar, I am always hesitant at even talking on this subject.
We saw huge cuts to our campaigns and keyword massacres. Our "Adwords Rep" and I use that term loosely, seems very unconcerned and quite frankly does nothing but send us canned answers. She is no help at all. We used to have a wonderful rep but she was promoted and we lost contact with her.
We tried to adapt but saw huge cuts in our profits. Granted we road a fun road for about 2 years and made excellent money on our affiliate based offerings but as all good things seem to do, it came to a screeching halt. We did lots of juggling and thought we came up with a few ways to maintain profitibility; not like it was for sure, but acceptable.
Now, over the last 2 weeks I would say, I see many keywords reactivated and huge jumps in volume. That was exciting since volume generic traffic, believe it or not, has always done well for my client base. I have a few sites based on similar themes and under different accounts. Interestingly, the sites are similar but they are dealt with entirely different by Google. Using same keywords, one site may be told I have to bid 1.00 on the keyword but the other is happy with 0.25.
However, the glitch; the big jump in traffic over the last few weeks (granted on ly for a handful of keywords) has proven to be more of a headache than anything. My conversion rates have plummeted. I was highly suspicious of the traffic quality, not click fraud so I asked Google to look into it. Of course, as I knew from the start, it was a waste of my time. They responded that they saw nothing that was out of whack.
In any event, I must admit, I have not read this entire thread but I wonder if anyone else is seeing volume jump but traffic quality digress to being rated as garbage? Is Google now using some of the trash partners that are known for junk traffic? Other opinions?
| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |