MikeNoLastName - 2:55 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

>"* Is it because disabled sites had poor converstion rates for advertisers?
Any sort of indication would help us - because at least then we would have real criteria by which we could judge our own sites. For example, when I doubled CRT on one site by placing the ads in a much more prominent positions, I made a lot more money. But what if the advertisers didn't? Am I at risk of losing my account because of a falling conversion rate?"<

I think this is one of the most important issues mentioned on this and the prior thread! (yes I read almost ALL 500 posts over the last week).

As Advertisers get more and more detailed info, publishers get nothing new to balance the equation. Many of us publishers simply want to keep the status quo, but often become overly cautious and likely lose a lot of money for ourselves and G by being paranoid. For cripes sake you can't even get a correct direct report of how many adlinks topics are being clicked to help optimize placement! So we just took them all off!
Yes, maybe it would help scammers, but it would also help legit publishers further optimize their sites to increase conversion rates for the advertisers, which would far outweigh the negative since their indicating scammers DON'T convert... or at least so they say. Isn't that what G wants? Happy converted advertisers? We'll be happy to do it FOR you. Even CJ and other affiliate programs let you see your conversion data as a publisher (even if it isn't always accurate), which is still the one advantage THEY have over G and why we haven't left that option. With affiliates, if your impressions and clicks don't produce revenue with a particular advertiser (you're not a good match or their site sucks and doesn't entice visitors to buy) you scrap them and show a different one. So in that perspective whose interests is G really protecting here? Obviously THEIR OWN right to continue displaying ads at cheaper and cheaper rates for crappy advertiser sites which will never convert!

Since they're reading, To G: PUBLISHERS NEED MORE SPECIFIC DATA AND TO KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THE STATS THAT YOU USE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR LIVES.

As a side, if advertisers are now or soon allowed to know exactly where their ads are appearing and even more specifically target sites, and then to arbitrarily feedback negative conversion data, it seems it will make it extremely easy for competitors who are advertising to smartprice a competing publisher into oblivion. Likewise they could easily raise their own smartpricing by doing the opposite and advertising on their own sites... or is that what this is already all about?