Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It appears that Google is about to put a lot of faith into TrustRank for search and, who knows, may in the future use it for AdSense publishers too.
That would mean Google would have to combine their search bot data with the media bot data to determine the worth of an AdSense publishers site.
Is this the answer to smart pricing? Google may feel that sites having .edu .org and high PR links may convert better.
Is this a crazy conspiracy theory or posible?
Personally i'm thinking posible.
/edit/ typo
Quoting the Help Center [adwords.google.com] on Smart Pricing...
... if our data shows that a click from a content page is less likely to turn into actionable business results - such as online sales, registrations, phone calls, or newsletter signups - we reduce the price you pay for that click.
My philosophy comes from reverse engineering that statement a little bit -- the style of content on the page determines the value of the click. Surely there are other factors, but as publishers, that is the easiest for us to control.
Is this the answer to smart pricing? Google may feel that sites having .edu .org and high PR links may convert better.
While it may make a page more "trustworthy" in Google's eyes, TrustRank likely would have no direct effect on the conversions. In fact, student traffic is notoriously worthless to most advertisers. I don't feel it would be effective to price clicks based on TrustRank -- what is the value of non converting traffic, even if it does send visitors that came from reputable sources?
(edit - format)
To use an example, a reference site operated by librarians might have outstanding quality, but clicks from its page on widgets probably wouldn't convert as well as clicks from a run-of-the-mill product-review site.
In fact, student traffic is notoriously worthless to most advertisers.
I don't mean the worth of the traffic coming from .edu sites, I meant the worth of the site that has the .edu link is going to. Most .edu sites have high PR and pass it on.
I don't mean the worth of the traffic coming from .edu sites, I meant the worth of the site that has the .edu link is going to. Most .edu sites have high PR and pass it on.
Some people actually do rely on links for things other than PR :-)
On a serious note, maybe I was perhaps a little too specific, but I stand by my point -- the value (in a sort of existential way, the way that edu or gov sites are valuable) of incoming links often has little to do with conversions.
Some people actually do rely on links for things other than PR :-)lol :)
This is probably a better question for the AdWords forum, but it relates to this thread.
Now that some advertisers can choose which sites they want to run their ads on, what percentage of them would take a sites PR/TrustRank into consideration?
Now that some advertisers can choose which sites they want to run their ads on, what percentage of them would take a sites PR/TrustRank into consideration?
PR? Irrelevant.
TrustRank? Right now it's little more than a trademark filing, and most advertisers haven't even heard of it.
If advertisers have any say on where their ads run (as they will soon for site-targeted CPM campaigns, but not for page-targeted CPC campaigns), then they'll probably make their decisions based on personal knowledge of the sites, experience, and--in some cases--a gut feeling about whether the sites recommended by Google are likely to deliver quality leads.
IMHO
They cannot be seen to be contaminating their organic search results with information gained from the paid-results because then they may be seen as manipulating the results.
So it will never happen.
I agree with that 100%. It would be the downfall of Google if they even attempt to manipulate their organic search results based on AdSense/AdWords.
I am talking about a new formula for smart pricing. Right now Google bases their smart pricing based on a visitors activity, site conversion rate or what ever. Google will never release information for what that formula is.
However, what if smart pricing is not working? My thought is, would Google use the same technology they use to rate sites, use it for a new smart pricing? Basicly, a page rank system to determine payout percentage instead of their current smart pricing.
I think that Google very carefully separates their Adsense / Adwords division from their general search division.
Yes, this is why Google is schizophrenic. It used to be a pure search engine that had some ads on it. Now it is an advertising platform that offers a search engine and some other STUFF.
The desire to not disappoint Wall Street and keep quarterly reports better then 1 year ago have manipulated the "advertising department" into policy changes that have actually hurt the search department.
Now the search department has to implement it's own advancements (TrustRank) to keep down the spam sites that are growing exponentially due to liberal adsense policies.
Those who think the tech geeks in the search department are working in conjunction with the money group in the advertising department to maximize profits don't understand the mind of a self respecting PhD techno geek. Most of them are already rich themselves (Google IPO & $226/share) and would not put their own name, reputation and personal skills ahead of quarterly profits. They could care less about Wall Street at this moment.
Therefore, I think these 2 departments are in a Cold War with each other.
The advertising department understands how unforgiving Wall Street can be if profits stagnate and Google falls out of favor with tech investors (see inktomi stock, 100s of others).
The search department understands that if it loses it's core search dominance (forget blogger, keyhole, picassa, etc,) surfers, eyeballs and everyone's respect is going somewhere else.
IMO, that's what's going on these days inside of the Plex. At the moment, it's clear to me the money group is kicking the crap out of the tech group.
Departmental motivation aside, the groups should dialogue with each other more. ie: Nuclear non proliferation treaties, Peace Summit, and cultural exchanges.
Yes, I'm still talking about Google.
;-)
