Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is this technically possible? If it is are there any negatives people can identify? One would be some added processing entailed in a look-up of the domain before sending out ads. Any others?
Such an approach could also prevent hostile jacking of AdSense code, such as some fool putting your code on a site that plainly violates AdSense TOS and then 'their friend' reporting 'the violation'. Taken to the extreme someone could register a domain in your name, set up a bad site, add your code and attempt to harm you. (I guess, with some effort, you could track payment for the domain, but amongst frauds, I can envision ways around this issue.)
At the very least AdSense ought to require a member to submit a list of all domains they own/control, unless there's some motive for not doing this? What could that be?
I believe quality control will be essential for the long term success of contextual advertising. I see an effort towards QC in the AdSense TOS. I see an interface for reporting bad AdSense practices.
However, I also see the other sites - the near zero content sites running AdSense and all the other flavors of "Get them onsite and get them off as quickly as possible". That isn't 'great content' unless one is to believe that AdSense tolerates the model simply because it's profitable or the definition of 'content' is so hard to cast that unless the site is 'nothing' then it passes the 'content test'. (While you're at it define 'content' for the purpose of improving the test. If the standard is so low, say so plainly and give some examples of 'how low is okay'. People believe it's okay 'to go low' only by inference since there are plenty of examples of 'low content' sites running AdSense).
Perhaps there will have to be 2 or more classes of members (if there already aren't)? Members who submit to a higher level of scrutiny and website criteria and those who don't?
I don't belong to AdSense but I've been studying it and considering signing up (if they'll have me, of course) and I care about the program succeeding if I'm going to attempt to add it as a revenue stream.
So, why not bind it to domains? One benefit: Advertisers could opt-in or out-out by domain. (What are the benefits and downside of this?)
Wouldn't advertiser feedback from a domain bound system be valuable? For example: Advertisers choose domains x,y,z but not a,b,c so the rate charged and the return for the publisher go up? (Is it possible this is already going on in the background?)
It's a very interesting program. I wonder how it could be improved.
I personally believe context advertising should be seperated out re: bid price different for search / premium / common publishers , although publishers would possibly lose in the short term it would help the business go forwards.
This is still very early in its lifecycle and i am sure like all businesses will evolve as the market demands
Many believe Google is the market maker THEY ARE NOT the advertisers are the market makers and driving force and will force changes in contextual advertising
steve
What would be the advantages and disadvantages of binding an AdSense account to a specific domain or domain list? That way, for any given publisher's account, AdSense would only be served to 'recognized sites'.
Is this technically possible? If it is are there any negatives people can identify? One would be some added processing entailed in a look-up of the domain before sending out ads. Any others?
Sure, it's possible, and it's a great idea. If the server discovered ad code on an unapproved domain, it could:
1) Not serve ads; or serve ads, but not pay anything to the publisher.
2) Flag the unapproved site for a manual check by the AdSense QC team.
If Google could remove the economic incentive for running AdSense code on junk sites, the quality of the AdSense network and Google's SERPs would be improved.
Manual pre-approvals would be even better if Google vetted the site for quality. Perhaps Google considered this and decided that pre-approval would be a waste of time without adequate monitoring. Sites can and and do change.
With regards quality of content - Google may be relying on tweaking the algo to starve low quality sites of traffic. If they can get a grip on that it would kill two birds with one stone.
Maybe the new channels feature - where you can name a domain as a channel - is a precursor to something else they're planning. But, they could internally allocate a channel to every domain in the account, the technology seems to already be there.
Automation has another approach that's viable: Current and future AdSense publishers have to preselect the channel they wish their specific domains to be entered into.
Automate by offering distinct AdSense programs, with distinct TOS, and requiring participants to sign up for the right program. Choose unwisely and the revenue (not the ads) gets turned off until you put your domain(s) into the right column. (You don't have to get the boot to be motivated.)
Frankly, there's an argument to be made for charging a site review fee for new members and/or a penalty fee if you select a classification that a manual review reveals to be wrong. (I shouldn't say this given my standing and the number of domains I am registrant to. However, such a program could have a 'seal of approval' that, once they've vetted your model or business practices the fee is waived for future sites assuming you have proven 1) profitable; 2) reliable.)
Google may be relying on tweaking the algo to starve low quality sites of traffic.
I sure hope so. A downside to AdSense is that it has created a large economic incentive to build these junk sites. To increase their income even more, several creators of these type of sites have posted on WW that they get better CTR if their content is poor, “forcing” the visitor to click on a targeted ad to look for what they thought they would find on the page.
Google is the enabler and therefore should also take some responsibility to correct the problem.
