hdpt00 - 1:59 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many advertisers want to set bids on a site-by-site basis? And of those who don't, how many will pay full retail for clicks that are likely to vary enormously in quality simply because clicks from different types of content (e.g., product reviews vs. forums) are likely to convert at different rates? The usual suggestion ("Have separate bidding for search and for content sites") doesn't make sense because publishers who deliver quality referrals aren't likely to settle for lowest-common-denominator earnings.

This is ridiculous, plain and simple. What google is doing is creating an unfair marketplace. If publishers can't take the time to install proper tracking on content that is their fault, it isn't hard and someone spending the type of money where smart pricing has a huge cost savings effect can afford it.

As it stands now smart pricing is bougs. Let people decide how much a click is worth, not software. Yes, they may have to deal with some low qualtiy clicks, lower your bids. Big freaking deal. Lamest argument I've ever heard.

Get out bed with google and get with the picture, I'm sick of this crap that it is good for the publisher. Free markets are the most effecient, google knows this so they are obviously hiding something. Let the people decide what they will pay.