On top of this, the term getting all the clicks is a plural form of a popular keyword (the plural form almost NEVER got any searches before this), and it's getting in some cases over 600 impressions per day. The only thing I can think of to support their theory is that the partner automatically matches any related terms to THIS pluralized version and then attributes it to our account. Which would be silly but who am I to debate the Adwords process at this point?
So the questions I have on this basically are:
1. If the impressions from syndicated partners do not affect rankings, doesn't that mean that the CTR model is flawed? Or at least making the reporting skewed?
2. Why does this once-never popular term suddenly get all the impressions?
3. Who is this syndication partner?
I want to believe what they are telling me but it sounds to me like another case of "If you can't verify it, then you can't prove that we're wrong". Let me know if anybody has heard of this. Thanks.
1. If the impressions from syndicated partners do not affect rankings, doesn't that mean that the CTR model is flawed? Or at least making the reporting skewed?
This issue has been discussed here many times. Before the change in the pricing model it was possible to see a term with a CTR of over 3% get suspended. In disbelief many posters have lamented that their highly profitable term was off-line. The answers from AWA, and as published by AdWords, is that only the CTR from Google itself, not it's search partners, was the guideline that they used.
In response to all the complaints the system has now evolved into the "if you think it's profitable then raise your click price" model. It appears as the system settles out that this model, while somewhat flawed, is working.
In our case the one term that we wanted and couldn't keep the CTR high enough under the old system because of a dual meaning is now just too expensive to keep in under the new system.
<sites removed>
We are filing a fraud complaint with the Attorney General against one of these thieves. Google have not been able to stop them even through site exclusion, so we are likely going to have to stop using the content network completely.
I have been using Adwords for almost three years and I have the utmost respect for Google, but over the last couple of months their content network has transformed itself from a viable, profitable traffic source to pure garbage. Our conversions on the content network are now comparable to Miva, 7Search, and the rest of the 2nd tier PPC's or "Indian traffic brokers" as I like to call them.
[edited by: eWhisper at 4:07 am (utc) on Oct. 17, 2005]
[edit reason] Please don't drop links. See TOS. [/edit]
simple.
Why would Google, with it's bright people and avowed stance/branding on "relevance", allow domain parkers to be part of their syndicate? I've submitted an enhancement request to adwords support asking that domain parkers be booted off the network or that we be allowed to categorically exclude them. Please do the same if you don't like it.
It's worth a try. If nothing happens, then it would make me wonder if the intent is to wean us off of the old model.
use site targetting
That's only available for the content network I thought. We are only on the search network, a conglomeration of what I thought prior to this was held to a high standard of quality.
