Forum Moderators: martinibuster
So for example, you could remove ALL affiliate ads by keyword filtering out ads with the word "(aff)" or "affiliate" in them.
This would also be helpful for mistargetted ads for an entire topic. Rather than go and list each url one by one, simply choose a common keyword that is appearing in the ads (i.e. if coffee ads are appearing on a site about java scripts, you'd filter out ads with the word "coffee" in them). This wouldn't enable the publisher to do anything devious - it would simply enable him to remove incorrectly targetted ads.
Bid price and relevancy trigger placement. I think that is the way it should be.
This would also be helpful for mistargetted ads for an entire topic.
I'd love to see that. Recently a page on family and community was getting dating service ads. I suspect I could have blocked dating service ads forever and never ran out of them.
I finally solved the problem another way but it took a great deal of time to get it done.
Wouldn't filtering cause mayhem? many would try to filter for higher cost words......
Maybe a limit on how many words or phrases you could filter would help. They couldn't play the words endlessly then.
What I am advocating is a more efficient form of filtering out ads. I'm already filtering out affiliate ads on my own, using the site urls, but new ones keep cropping up. What I'd love to do instead is have a more efficient form of filtering that doesn't limit me to a URL, but to a topic instead.
I'm not suggesting Google get rid of affiliate ads - I am suggesting that they give the publishers better control of which ads they do NOT want appearing on their site (and if that's affiliate ads, so be it).
And yes, I do think a limit on this would be fine. Maybe associate it with channels and allow 5 keyword filters per channel.
As for this letting people target higher cost keywords, if it works, Google also gains with it, so I can't see Google not liking it as we would.
Anyway, I do not think adding preferred/blocked keywords would change the list of ads that would appear related to a page. If too many keywords are blocked AdSense would show PSA/default ads.
The point of adding preferred keywords would be to prevent blocking ads that would be blocked otherwise. For intance +PHP -Java, would block ads with keyword Java that would not contain PHP.
I finally solved the problem another way but it took a great deal of time to get it done.
Please share!
I pick the keyword by checking Google serps to see what words related to the topic of the page had plenty of ads available. I know some ads on Google serps are not on content sites but it still gives me an idea on suitable words.
Usually it then works if I put the ads in a different format as Jen has suggested. In this case it didn't so I tried another suggestion from this forum and actually renamed the file and reloaded it. That fixed the problem right away.
I don't think this would work if the key word or phrase wasn't related to the article. What I did just nudged the targeting in the right direction.
It was a real pain for a very minor page so I don't know if I'd bother again. I have back up Amazon ads and I could have used those. I think it was partly the challenge of it all. ;)
When i read a post like yours, as an advertiser I get all itchy to turn off content targeting again.
if they would simply bump up the url filter limit to 250 or 300, it would be sufficient in many cases
I don't want to enter 300 urls. Even 30 is over the top.
Actually you could say that it was my fault in the first place that Google couldn't match my articles with ads. I was adding adsense to an old website and at the time I built it I wasn't constructing my pages as carefully so that Google would know what the page was about.
It's just like SEO. Sure a lot of people cheat but a lot of novices just don't construct pages very well so that a search engine can even tell what the main topic is. I know I used to love writing really catchy titles before I learned about SEO and realized the title words better fit the page.
When i read a post like yours, as an advertiser I get all itchy to turn off content targeting again.
We are an Adwords advertiser that also offers Adsense on our sites. It really bothers me when we have to turn off "content" because of bad results. The idea of having regular web sites as publishers is a good one in my view and "content" does work on some of our campaigns so we are happy to use it. I do feel like this micro management by certain webmasters of Adsense ads is not a good thing in the long run of Adsense. We have also had poorly targeted ads on some of our pages, but over time Google has fixed this problem without us saying a word to them. Remember, no one has to include Adsense code on their pages, it's a choice. Just my 2 cents.
We have also had poorly targeted ads on some of our pages, but over time Google has fixed this problem without us saying a word to them.
Not all of us are so lucky. When mistargeted ads persist on evergreen pages, they can mean lost revenue for the publisher and for Google. (Plus, wildly mistargeted ads can make the publisher and Google look stupid.)
Remember, no one has to include Adsense code on their pages, it's a choice. Just my 2 cents.
On large sites where the AdSense code is built into a navigation border and displayed via server-side includes, it's not practical to remove it from a handful of pages that display mistargeted ads. (IMHO, only the smallest of sites can justify placing the ad code manually on individual pages.)
I contact google about it and they acknowledged that it's not targetting correctly, but said they can't do anything about it.
if they would simply bump up the url filter limit to 250 or 300, it would be sufficient in many cases
If bumping up the # is the only solution, that's preferable than the alternative, but I'd prefer to see a more flexible solution that scales better. With publishers generally limited to one AdSense account, a publisher can have multiple varying sites and must currently block an advertiser globally, even if the advertiser is a good fit for some sites.
On large sites where the AdSense code is built into a navigation border and displayed via server-side includes, it's not practical to remove it from a handful of pages that display mistargeted ads.
I understand that. However, if anyone thinks they are going to get very targeted ads on every single page of a site that might have tens of thousands of possible pages, isn't realistic. I don't think you're wrong in your wish to have Adsense deliver great ads to every page you have, but that has never been the case for us. We're happy with 90-95%. We would love 100% though, just like you. :)
However, if anyone thinks they are going to get very targeted ads on every single page of a site that might have tens of thousands of possible pages, isn't realistic. I don't think you're wrong in your wish to have Adsense deliver great ads to every page you have, but that has never been the case for us. We're happy with 90-95%. We would love 100% though, just like you. :)
The problem isn't ads that aren't "great"; the problem is wildly mistargeted ads. Those aren't good for the publisher, for Google, or for the reader. Google may never be able to figure out that an ad for "ATM equipment and supplies" doesn't belong in an article on how to use an ATM, or (to use a hypothetical example) that an ad for adult watersports toys isn't appropriate in a consumer medical article on barium enemas. In such cases, what's the problem with letting the publisher give the algorithm a gentle nudge in the right direction? (We aren't talking about letting publishers override the algorithm completely.)
wildly mistargeted ads
That's why I care about even a minor page. Face it, most people think the site publisher picks the ads. They can't even imagine how Google could be serving up the ads. When the targeting is way off we look ridiculous. Sometimes it's even contradictory to what the page article is about.
