homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.192.61
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 107 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 107 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
AdWords: Quality Score Discussion
tonynoriega

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 6:03 pm on Nov 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hear all the talk about this, but am i missing something?

Is this "Quality Score" viewable? Can i figure out what my score is somewhere...?

Or is this some mytholocial algorithm, that everyone claims to know, but really doesnt?

thanks

 

boredguru

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 9:09 am on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

My ads were being positioned on the first page for keywords "{city} Hotels", "Hotels in {country}". But now i am being placed on the 3rd page along with ads that are only indirectly related like Dental tourism in {city}! etc.

I think that the landing page requirements is one of the reason. This happened after the Google Ads-Bot visited the landing page.

I would like to give a few examples.

The problem (I think) is that the keywords are not present on the page. I rank well for "{city} Hotel" but not for "{city} Hotels". The reason being that the words Hotel and City is present on the page, but the word Hotels is not present.

And for the keyword "Hotels in {country}", I am on the 3rd page of Google sponsored Results. This is again because the user lands on "our" search page where the user selects the cities, dates, budget requirements etc. The user selects from 200 {country} cities. But of course the word {country} does not appear on the page.

Dear Sir/Madam adding these keywords on the page in sufficient quantities is not a problem for me technically, but it will surely not help with and infact will deteriorate the user's experience of our site.

If Google (search engine) were to advertise on Google Adwords for the keyword "Search Engine", will it be placed on the the third page too because the keyword "search engine" is not present on the landing page. Or will Google (search engine) as the advertiser add the keywords "The worlds best Search engine" on the landing page and lose the charm that is Google.

I do like Google and its simplicity. On my site you will see that Google bears a huge influence on the aesthetics of our site. But now to deviate from that simplicity (by adding unwanted keywords) to please a "Google" AdsBot is too horribly ironic.

A little about us (things that can be verified manually).

We are not affiliates and we don't link out anywhere. We are tied up with each and every hotel we have on our site. We do not show hotels that are not contractually signed with us.

Please do look into this matter as we cannot justifiably pay the same CPC that we are paying now for being on the third page. The visitors are not converting and we cannot pay more than this to be on the first page.

Of course we can add the necessary keywords to rank better. But is that something that Google really wants?

The above was a mail i sent to Google. Got an answer that was friendly but utterly unhelpful.

So i just went ahead and added the word "Hotels" and other keywords. And Lo and Behold i am back on position.

Of course it could have been coincidental. So i reverted it back to the old version. And i went back to page 3 in the SERP (sponsored engine results page).

After that i am reasonably confident that out of maybe even 1000 variables Google might be using, only a hand few are weighted heavily.

Sometimes it is not just about the Minimum Bids alone. You can move down or up based on your ad even though you have not changed your CPC, and i am talking about not just different positions on the same page but rather different pages.

I am feeling more and more like i am optimizing for google the search engine.

Here are a few rules (above and beyond the add the privacy policy, copyright and other requirements) i think might help.
1)The keyword being targeted should be in the ad copy.
2)The words on the ad copy should be on the landing page in sufficient quantity.
3)*******
4)PROFIT!

rbacal states a fact but in a too convoluted manner.

Adwords is now Google's paid search engine where you pay money only for getting listed and not for any particular position. So optimize my brothers and optimize well. For if you don't, you shall perish.

Wonder when the Blackhats are going to hit it and make Google take this to the next level. Will pure marketers have time and inclination to optimize their ads as we do for the search engine or will they flock somewhere else? Only time will tell.

jecasc

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 10:56 am on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wonder when the Blackhats are going to hit it and make Google take this to the next level.

Thats something I am worried about, too. The quality score like it is now cries for automation.

Normally a strategy to beat the QS would look something like this:

1. Let a script create a special landing page for every single keyword you are bidding on. The landing page should also include your later Adwords text.

2. Exclude those pages with robots.txt so they won't be indexed for the SERPS.

3. Create an extra Ad for every single keyword.

So all that Spammers have to do in my opinion is modify their available tools to spit out bulk upload files for Adwords.

What bothers me most with the Quality Score is that it is so dumb it does not even recognize synonyms. When widget and wodget are two words for the same thing, and on the landing page I only use the word widget my minimum bid for wodget will skyrocket. This is so stupid it makes me sick.

This was essentially what made Adwords such a good tool. I could cover a variety of synonyms without creating a single page for every word. Adwords now literally forces you to create a single page for every keyword. And you better cover those misspellings, too. In which way this enhances the quality of websites is a mystery that remains unsolved.

boredguru

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 12:17 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can actually use this QS "quirk" to get more conversions.

Keep the landing page same, but for the wodget keyword just add a string like &k=wodget in your landing page url. Based on the string passed make your landing page copy reflect that.

I have a feeling the conversion may increase.

Searcher 1 searches for "buy widget" and clicks on your ad. On your landing page you are promoting your widget which is what he searched for.

Searcher 2 searches for "buy wodget" and sees a page promoting wodget.

Of course this does not work if you are targetting mis-spelled keywords.

Dynamic landing pages are the way to go.
And as google's Ads-Bot sees landingpage.html and landingpage.html?keyword={keyword} as different, this will actually work.

jecasc

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:38 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I did a little resarch the last hours in highly competetive fields like hotel and tourism and the Adwords spammers are already there and have ousted high quality pages that had been there before.

Pages only created for Adwords with hundreds of links stuffed with keywords which lead to other pages with stuffed keywords. And in the center content area only "sponsored links". And if you take a look at the robots.txt hundreds of "Disallow" entries"

The more I think about Quality Score the more I get some kind of Deja Vu feeling. Essentially it reminds me of the old days when webmasters optimized for Altavista and the like a decade ago or so. Simple keyword stuffing, hundreds of different entry pages created automatically for every single keyword and so on.

If they want it that way at Google they can have it. I am only wondering if they will be happy with the outcome at the end of the day.

aeiouy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 2:16 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some good information here on the last page or so.

I have been contending that relevancy is the primary factor for this QS algorithim. Rbacal wishfully thinks the system is much more complex than it really is. The reality is you could have two sites that appear and act the same way for the user yet the underlying code is almost completely different, so it is not a matter of just taking good sites and parsing them for a baseline. That wouldn't work as 99% of all sites would be kicked out.

So we are left with more basic functionality and targets, just like the SERP indexing, and the stuff is easily gamed, and will benefit the spammers the most.

I think this may accomplish exactly the opposite of what Google intended, and I was behind the concept of the change initially. Money was at least a major factor before which cut out a lot of the crap. But now that auto-generated sites are king, money is much less a factor, which means spam is going to go up.

I will play the game however it is setup, so let's play ball, but it is a stupid game, and will decrease the quality of sites in the long run.

rbacal



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:23 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Rbacal wishfully thinks the system is much more complex than it really is. The reality is you could have two sites that appear and act the same way for the user yet the underlying code is almost completely different, so it is not a matter of just taking good sites and parsing them for a baseline. That wouldn't work as 99% of all sites would be kicked out.

So we are left with more basic functionality and targets, just like the SERP indexing, and the stuff is easily gamed, and will benefit the spammers the most.

The systems has been described publicly by google and by trusted third party experts, but I suppose they could all be wrong or lying. In any event if you find a trick that works for you, go for it, but I wouldn't count on it working for very long. The QS algo is "immature". No doubt it's going to be improved almost continuously.

As for gaming, you mention the SERPS's. I challenge you to build a new site and get ranked #1 for your keywords in the SERPS. It's true that some sites have rankings they don't deserve, but I wouldn't count on gaming any system indefinitely.

boredguru

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:44 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Pages only created for Adwords with hundreds of links stuffed with keywords which lead to other pages with stuffed keywords. And in the center content area only "sponsored links". And if you take a look at the robots.txt hundreds of "Disallow" entries"

As legitimate advertisers we can all fight this. Advertise only on Google search. No content and search partners.

Sure there will be collateral damage affecting legitimate content and search partners, but then anybody using Google is used to collateral damages. And they will either cry out loud or will route around Google coming directly to the advertisers (people really selling) or use another medium.

You see, to force Google the only way is to make the collateral large.

I advertise on adwords to target the Google's search engine users only. Any where else i want to advertise, i can go directly to them.

Of course currently lots of other good sites are not really receptive as they got Google adsense running, but if all advertisers stop advertising on those third party sites, then the game will be different.

Because unlike the stock market where demand can alone shoot up a stock's price without any regards to the basic profitability of the company (as they can resell the stock to the next guy for a profit), here the price is based on both demand (other's bids) and ROI.

As a side note, the Adwords was supposed to remove middlemen. But instead this is turning out to be a grat way for middlemen to duplicate faster and spread. Who is bearing their cost? Again i dont have a problem with legitimate sites. They really add value, but when they are outnumbered by other worthless sites, its going to be tough.

Currently as the end sellers who are the ones ultimately paying for the advertising (by passing it on customers maybe) this is the only way to fight.

I am not speaking against affiliates or search partners, i know some good sites that convert great for us. But the problem is for every one of them there are atleast 3 that also advertise on adwords, stealing our place and then our money. But one interesting thing i find is that the more targeted (towards our industry) the spam (contains only ads) site is, the visitors clicking from there convert better. Maybe they have already expended all the energy they have looking for the widget and at the first good source, they just grab it to leave and get on with their life.

So instead of quitting adwords quit search partners and content. Atleast you will be in business when things take a better turn. Adwords is still the best around compared to others, but i am a little scared as i am just entering into it and dont want it to lose relevancy now due to a purely selfish reason.

boredguru

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 4:02 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

The QS algo is "immature". No doubt it's going to be improved almost continuously.

Would you call the search algo mature now?

There is no algo that is mature enough to stump a person forever. Its just an algo. And what is mathematically constructed will be mathematically de-constructed.

And the more complex the algo becomes the more people of spammy intent will only succeed. As an online business, do you have time to do anything other than your online business?

This is an endless war which will ultimately lead to the dampening factor aka sandbox being introduced to the Adwords as the only means to fight back (wasn't that the example you just gave rbacal). I can understand it on the SERPS, but as a business when you spend money you expect accountability till the last cent.

I am quite comfortable with adword's ROI (did i just say that out too loud?), but the path that i am seeing is not something that many people will walk on.

I pity people who are going to come late to the game.

aeiouy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 4:34 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Boredguru makes the point. Why do people think they are using a more advanced algo for adwords than they use for search? The search algo is understood and manipulated all of the time.

The adwords algo is more of the same. The reason so many spam sites exist on the internet is because of the Search Algo. Now the number of spam sites will increase on the adwords side as well for the same reasons.

Boredguru touches on something else as well. Advertising is a means where businesses promote their products. Businesses do not expect to spend an inordinate amount of time to manage their advertising campaigns. It takes enough energy to manage and run traditional campaigns, but what Google is asking is an exponential amount of work comparitively speaking. I think it is really going to throttle their ability to grow their advertising dollars compared to traditional media as companies not fully vested find it more frustrating than fruitful to participate.

As mentioned then, only those who have the time to game the system will really come out ahead, and are those who you want to be catering to? Doesn't matter to me, the system works in my favor in a substantial way, but it does not accomplish Google's goal of a better user experience.

jecasc

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 4:56 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why do people think they are using a more advanced algo for adwords than they use for search.

Actually they don't. Thats my point all the time. The Adwords Quality Score Algo has more in common with an Altavista Algo from 1998 than with the Google SERPS Algo of today in my opinion. Because factors like ingoing links don't count the same way as in the SERPS Algo. Essentially it's back to counting words.

rbacal



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 6:55 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

The reason so many spam sites exist on the internet is because of the Search Algo.

And, of course spam sites are doing SO well by gaming the search algo that the only way they can actually get traffic is to game the adwords algo.

?

boredguru

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 7:58 pm on Nov 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

The reason so many spam sites exist on the internet is because of the Search Algo.

Let me rephrase that.
The reason so many spam sites existed on the internet was because of the search algo till they introduced the sandbox (unintentionally or intentionally does not matter)

Your POV rbacal is that adwords algo picks up the the sites quality faultlessly. And that anybody who is affected deserves it.

Well according to me, the adwords algo is not so intelligent and can never be. It has to be spoonfed. And when it can be spoonfed, just expect the not so legitimate sites to be spoonfeeding it too.

Ultimately it will be spoonfed so much crap, it will stop relying on everyones spoonfeeding. It will just go into a corner, sulk and then decide that it wont assign any "trust" value to any new site till they have proven their worth. Sounds familiar?

Googles search can be implemented in 2 ways. One is the complicated Google way. The other is the simple yet direct "Well you are new, call me when you are atleast a year old" way.

There are no bonus points for being complicated. The results are the same.

When a legitimate business has to pay $1 to be on the 5th spot, but an affiliate site can be on the 1st spot for 10 cents, you think its not worth their while to game the system?

It does not matter that they are making money of the free serps when you offer such a lucrative way to game the system even more.

And, of course spam sites are doing SO well by gaming the search algo that the only way they can actually get traffic is to game the adwords algo.

Yeah, right. I can hear them saying, "we are happy making money of free serps alone, we dont want to take you up on this great offer to game the system more".

What did you expect, people make more money only out of necessity or anywhere they can.

My whole point was that. Spam sites used to make money off the serps. Why make it easier for them to make money off the paid listings too?

mimmo

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 5:03 am on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

The the new QS algo (whatever that may be) is not perfect enough (will it ever be?) and webmasters are hit unfairly.

On the positive side: the fact that sponsoring search is not only about money, makes it possible for small businesses to compete with large businesses who have lots of cash!

By the way... we have one specific keyword in our campaings which is not on our landing page at all and it is not even a plural/singular case.... we are only paying the minimum bid for this keyword and no one else is bidding on it. We have been bidding on this keyword for long time. It gets significant visitors and solid CTR. So far it was not hit by QS minimum bid requirements.

datgrrl

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:25 pm on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is this happening to anyone else? We've been told by our Google reps that we should stop using exact match and tail terms, and just focus on buying head terms and setting them on broadmatch with a high max bid. Then we're supposed to use gobs of negative matches and focus on improving our landing pages.

I thought it was just us getting this advice, but a friend who runs a seriously major branded campaign got the same advice from her reps. They didn't say anything about not doing tail terms, but they did say that she shouldn't use exact match anymore.

This runs completely counter to what we were originally taught, that we should find zillions of keywords and tightly manage them using various match types to control the impressions.

Should I believe them? Or is this more disinformation being routed to the dismally-underinformed G-reps? I get so frustrated with the little zombies sometimes.

And if we're just doing head terms on broad match then how do I figure out what exact keywords to put on the page? Seems pretty simplistic to just run a DKI on all ads, and a referrer-grab/display script on the landing pages, but if that's what they want...

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:37 pm on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

I tried the dynamic page thing where you grab the searched words and display them on page.. Also added the keywords as a parameter on landing page for every keyword in the campaign.

Tried it for 4 months with zero improvement in QS. But something else might have outweighed the search word display to still kill my QS.

I also used a method to pass the Ad text to the page so the title of the page was the ad text - no help with that either. I learned a lot of programming though.

Maybe the way G gets to the page they don't see the dynamic keywords on page?

luke175

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 5:27 pm on Nov 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've already looked at numerous "black hat" sites and forums who know how to game the system. Their ideas wouldn't work for my site but for spammy MFA sites they will work.

Look at the results now, on most high-competition keywords there are already 3-4 MFAs in the top results.

Google makes more money from this, they don't care.

eWhisper

WebmasterWorld Administrator ewhisper us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:20 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is this happening to anyone else? We've been told by our Google reps that we should stop using exact match and tail terms, and just focus on buying head terms and setting them on broadmatch with a high max bid. Then we're supposed to use gobs of negative matches and focus on improving our landing pages.

I thought it was just us getting this advice, but a friend who runs a seriously major branded campaign got the same advice from her reps. They didn't say anything about not doing tail terms, but they did say that she shouldn't use exact match anymore.

For the first time ever - I also had a rep tell me the above. To focus on the root keywords, not worry about long tail, use broad match, etc.

I was amazed at the response.

I can also tell you that its advice that I don't think most should follow.

I would keep many adgroups with tightly themed terms, ads that correspond to all the keywords within an ad group and specific landing pages per keyword.

RhinoFish

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:44 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some of my long tail exact matches, which have been in place for more than 30 days, don't even show on searches. They're active, bid high, among words and ads in an ad group with excellent performance as well. It's as if my tail is so long that engine capacity (low likelihood / frequency of imps) ignores them. This is very contrary to the relevance and quality impetus everywhere.

Hearing this from eWhisper, I guess I need to trim the long tail a tad...

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:52 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Trimming the long tail.

There we go again.. another nail in the coffin of us bottom feeders.

Just for grins I turned on a long tail campaign switch off a few weeks ago.. in Oct it still got 3500 clicks a day.

I got 10 clicks.

eWhisper

WebmasterWorld Administrator ewhisper us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 2:04 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hearing this from eWhisper, I guess I need to trim the long tail a tad...

Err - I disagree with trimming the long tail.

I think that the long tail can be very very useful as long as it's in well themed ad groups with relative ads and landing pages.

Sorry if my statement above was poorly stated.

pdivi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 2:30 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Now the drones are programmed to dole out sketchy advice? Revenue must be lagging expectations.

Brace yourselves for another pricing move.

tonynoriega

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:35 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

So after the 3rd page of posts, im still searching for a good answer to start to mofify my campaigns a bit.....

1. Should i continue to work on adjusting the quality of my landing pages?
(...im guessing it will only help me somewhat just becuase its fresh data in relation to my SERPs, but not my QS?)

2. Include the copy from my Ad onto the page itself somewhere?

3. Take all of my keywords that are "exact" and make the broad?
(can i do both keywords? "exact" and broad?)

4. dump more money into my daily budget just to keep ahead of the junk campaigns?

thanks, im done whining....

pdivi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 3:49 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

tonynoriega, I think the most practical advice on the QS has come from Green_Grass. Somewhere, he posted a step-by-step on what he did to get rid of his min. bids. Maybe dig around a bit and you'll find it.

aeiouy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 11:05 pm on Nov 28, 2006 (gmt 0)


Maybe the way G gets to the page they don't see the dynamic keywords on page?

Not likely because any insertion is being done before the page is output, so they would have no way of not seeing it. In other words the final page is the only information that is sent out to anyone, regardless of how they are accessing it. They can't see the dynamic insertions because that is being done server-side.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:43 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Tony,

I can give you a list of everything that doesn't work. I've tried everything and none has worked for me.
Even tried more good content (novel idea), no adsense, multiple destination urls (a/b testing). Spent 12 hours a day for 3.5 months. Even asked google -'sorry, site sucks, please leave'... but what about the $0.65mill I've given you? 'thanks, now leave!'.

Ya, I did the server side thing to. Exact keyword and exact ad text displayed somewhere on top of the page at least once. I had an array in asp containing all keyword texts. Passed a number (array pointer) down to the page from the url in adwords... The page was "noindex" when receiving a url parameter - maybe that hurt. But i couldn't afford getting gigged for duplicant content with a bunch of identical pages separated by url parameter number.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:50 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

And another odd thing.

How many of you have had google setup an entire campaign (8 ad groups) so as to show 'how to do it right'?

Can you believe that their campaign - designed correctly got totally destroyed with the quality score.
Do you think they would have even bothered if they were sending visitors to a piece of poop page?

The quality score thing is 70% bull crud. It isn't a landing page thing. It is somewhat a 'style of business' or business model thing.

Thank goodness i'm a pansy.

aeiouy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 1:53 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sailor,

They simply changed what is right now. Thus what they said was right before is no longer right now. Seems to be a reoccurring theme with Google. I just roll with it, as there is not really any other choice.

The amusing thing is I actually think some Google engineers think their algorithms are smarter than people. Maybe some people, but not all people...

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 2:47 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

For many of us there is no 'rolling with it'.

It is lights out... shows over...
Yahoo, MSN can't bring the visitors. Yahoo doing the QS thing in Jan.

Can't invest anymore time in Google adwords.
I'll leave a little campaign open and maybe they'll see the light someday. At this point it ain't me.. it is them.

Gotta go back to work while i'm still able to work.
Just raised my consulting rate 50%.. phone still ringing - life is good.

I hope the b'tards are back dating their options.

mimmo

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 4:53 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

The quality score thing is 70% bull crud. It isn't a landing page thing. It is somewhat a 'style of business' or business model thing.

Indeed it would not be difficult for them to manually review the majority of the AdWords customers and put them into a business model thing... then depending on your business model thing, your land page, your QS and min CPC are determined by an algo.

QualityNonsense

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 7:31 am on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

We've been told by our Google reps that we should stop using exact match and tail terms

That's interesting; my campaigns that have been hit hard by $5 & $10 minimum bids have had 1000s of long tail keywords.

One was a new campaign featuring keywords along the lines of 'antique widgets year'. Pretty niche, yes, but the company concerned sells high value niche products and I'm looking for low volumes of very targeted traffic. Google's advice? Bid on 'widgets' instead.

Bad advice if you want any ROI on your ad spend, I suggested to the rep.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3155296 posted 12:11 pm on Nov 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sounds like G wants everyone to have a handful of campaigns and a handful of open match keywords bidding several dollars each.

Certainly would cut down on their overhead.

Its like msn - i give them 5,000 keywords from an adwords account and they approve 100 of them. Maybe that is telling me something.

This 107 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 107 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
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