Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Edit: Thanks ASA.
we're testing out new branding features
More like "unbranding" features. Why not just have a random string of text at the top of the ads so nobody can guess what company they're from, that'd be fun...
You'd get a lot less negative feedback if you allowed publishers to opt-in (and then opt-out) to these kinds of experiments. The way image ads have been introduced for example is fine - only add them if you want them.
I wonder, if google want to brand them selves as goooooooooooogle, why havent they registrered the domains that matches? (they are all taken). At least some percent will start typing goooooooooooogle.com in the address bar to find out what the ads are about.
One of the things we're looking at is what impact 'Ads By Gooooogle' will have on the performance of the Google ads. Repeat: this is a test. :)
Thanks ASA, it is reassuring to know that this is only a test. It is even more reassuring to know that you are listening in and will pass on an honest feedback of what the general comments are. A large number of web users are not very web savvy. They will associate the mis-spelling with webmaster error. Spelling mistakes subconciously cause the site to lose some credibility.
One common error I come across often is the use of "your" instead of "you're". Some webmasters cannot even apply the simple rule that if the word can be replaced with "you are" then it should be "you're" and not "your". Whenever I come across a page with a glaring mistake like this I immediately discount much of what is said on it because the writer doesn't come across as very literate.
While regular users of Google may be aware of the quirky use of the ooooos in the SE ...many don't. When they see "Ads by Gooooogle" on my site they could assume I've got a dodgy "o" key and couldn't be bothered to proof my page. The don't know what js is. They don't know you serve that block of text. Webmasters giving you real estate on their site are investing considerable trust in you. (True, it pays them handsomely, but it's still "considerable trust"). In some small way experiments like this serve to diminish that trust.
[edited by: Macro at 5:45 pm (utc) on Sep. 3, 2004]
Oh well, you cant knock em for tryin!