Forum Moderators: martinibuster
"Once we believe a new idea is ready for testing, we have to implement the idea in our ad serving code using the very powerful development tools Google has provided for us. Naturally, all code designed to serve ads to our customers must pass a rigorous review and testing process before release to ensure that we continue to offer uninterrupted service. During the testing process, we typically run an experiment on a small percentage of traffic for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. We select the experiment traffic randomly so it is as representative as possible of overall traffic; no individual site should ever see more than a small percentage of its traffic involved in an experiment.Because most targeting experiments involve adjustments to the ad-selection algorithms, they are rarely noticed by anyone outside Google. However, we occasionally run experiments that affect the format or display of ads as this is the only way we can verify whether a potential change will provide an overall benefit to publishers, advertisers, and users."
my emphasis added
The question is, how much is a small percentage? Would it be enough to make a difference? I'm sure it would affect lower earning sites more than higher earning sites.
With that attitude we would still be driving model t fords, and displaying banner ads that were not targeted. Test away...
And then, for no apparent reason, things reverse, and I get a spate of tried and true advertisers back on my site (a lot of which are fortune 500s) for a period of time.(earnings go up)
This flux happens even though my traffic levels and new visitor/repeat visitor mix remain fairly stable.
What I wonder is (from under my tinfoil hat) could it be that Google's algo spreads the ads out and around within similar sites, so that all the poor quality ads do not all stick to one site for any length of time?