| 4:01 am on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I find it takes about three weeks for AdSense eCPMs to rise to their normal level. Within that period Google is crawling the site for keywords, trying out ads, seeing the response rate, and iteratively correcting by swapping in higher response ads (all algorithmically, I presume).
This is why I will no longer sell out our entire inventory to another ad network for a month or two, as we are sometimes requested to do. I keep at least a quarter of the slots for AdSense. Otherwise, our income falls precipitously the first month we're back to AdSense.
So a one-day test on April 1 is not going to give accurate data about the income potential of Webmaster World.
Yahoo Publisher Network also claims to be iteratively optimizing ads, so I think we'll follow the same policy with them if we keep them, although we're not seeing eCPMs anywhere near what we're getting for AdSense.
| 11:04 am on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm still stymied and in a state of shock over the fact that some people just don't "get it" and haven't got even half a clue about "community" or what it entails, or what it might take to to run one. It's particularly puzzling (and disturbing) that some folks have no perceptual cognition of what being part of a "community' really means.
Re adverts here:
If companies bought direct advertising space on WebmasterWorld, or even access to announce their goods or services in a dedicated "commercial" forum, there could be the *danger* of some of them thinking that it somehow gave them the privilege of self-promoting all over the place because they were "paid advertisers" - aka customers. But no such thing exists with Adsense. The advertisers are Google's customers and couldn't for one minute think any site running their adverts through Adsense is "their" customer, or owes them a blessed thing.
All that aside, it's still amazing to me that some folks think that resources to help them make money should be free. I simply can't comprehend the mentality and wish someone would explain it to me.
| 11:33 am on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I totally agree.
I'd only add that it's not just the direct advertisers who might feel 'ownership', but the perception among members, especially the conspiracy theorists - we'd have 'advertiser bashing', as well as 'google bashing'.
Adsense - advertisers kept at arm's length - is safer and fairer to all; and I'll bet that nine out of ten 'objectors' have advertisng on their sites ... go figure!
| 11:55 am on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If only Brett, had blended better, filtered the ads better and done the whole thing with a more professional look, I am sure the 'objections' would have been fewer..
We really should have no problems with Brett, monetising WW..it is his right and privilige..
| 2:06 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> more professional look
But, uh, that was the point ... it was a joke!
| 2:30 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well....if it was only a joke , then why have this discussion.
Hidden somewhere in this joke, maybe, there is some 'intent' also.
Maybe for the future..
| 2:51 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But, uh, that was the point ... it was a joke! |
Was it? Tell me really, did you wake up on April Fools' Day and actually, physically laugh at this? Did anyone? Jokes are funny. At best this was a "prank".
I choose my pranks carefully. I choose ones that won't physically hurt anyone, won't cause anyone to lose a lot of money, won't have disastrous consequences like someone getting sacked. Pranks have to be accompanied by a certain amount of responsibility - they have to be thought through.
The larger the venue, and the more people likely to see the prank, the better it's got to be or it'll just look silly or juvenile. The more sophisticated the audience the more they are likely to question any hidden motive dressed up as a prank. The more sophisticated the audience the more likely they are to suspect a hidden motive behind the prank, even if one wasn't there.
How much of thought really went into this prank?
Don't get me wrong. I'm completely supportive of Brett's attempts to monetise the site, he's obviously looking at different options. I fully support him if he wanted to try Adsense first. But he, of all people, could have predicted that the suspicious ones here wouldn't believe his story about it being a prank rather than a test. So why did he do it?
Sorry, the idea of running Adsense as a "prank" was a complete turkey.
| 4:20 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> suspicious ones here
And they all got tweaked, didn't they?
There will always be people who see black helicopters behind every tall building ... to NOT play an April Fool just because some people will be suspicious of motive would be silly, indeed. In that case, Brett would never be able to take any action of any kind - someone will always read something into it.
| 6:17 pm on Apr 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>> How much of thought
geez, Brett and I must have chuckled about it for at least 20 minutes last week
I thought it was entertaining, to each their own
| 2:31 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is not like the ads were between posts or something. You had to move your head over to see them. They were on the outside of the site. Anybody who was offended by the ads is just being difficult.
| 4:42 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If you scroll through this thread you may not find that many other people rolling on the floor. |
The best part of the joke is that those that found it less than amusing are still carping about it days later.
Now THAT's FUNNY!
| 5:41 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
hehe, nice Bill
| This 102 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 102 ( 1 2 3  ) |