Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[google.com...]
Not sure if this should be in Google News or adwords. I guess this forum should really be the one for AdSense questions as it's about advertising.
Also, it seems that the site hangs in IE. Mozilla ( as usual ) works perfectly so use that.
Unlike the exising content targed ads you do not need 20 million visitors to put these ads on your site.
Hey europeforvisitors, I don't think you've ever mentioned your site(s?) names..
It's in my profile. In addition to the main site, my wife and I have several geographically targeted "sites within a site" that are identified in the top navigation bar (and which are a legacy of older, separate sites from our Mining Co./About.com days).
aravindgp wrote:
I have one more factor to judge a site along with PageRank..if a site is serving adwords that means it's approved by google , this means a lot in terms of credibility. Will the credibility of site go up if they serve Adsense adwords?
Well, it won't go down. On my site, I've been running ad-network banners (some targeted, some not) with affiliate banners for high-quality vendors who sell to my audience. I think those affiliate banners do more for credibility than anything else does, because the reader probably assumes they're paid ads rather than defaults that I'm running to fill up unsold inventory. Still, the Google ads certainly shouldn't hurt credibility, and--like affiliate banners--they have the advantage of being related to the site's topic, which is always a plus.
Sirius1 wrote:
i also see many not targeted ads...i dont know why google try something new here...i bet my live if they make a normal rotation like doubleclick they will have much better results because of there huge ad pool. also they can serve 300% more pages with ads. Because the visitors itself know best which ads they like to see.
I disagree strongly. After publishing Google AdSense banners on a portion of my site last night, I'm seeing a 0.9% clickthrough rate with an effective CPM of $3.33. That's a better clickthrough rate than I've seen with targeted affiliate banners and a better CPM than I've received from standard banners at FastClick or Tribal Fusion. (There's no telling if those figures will hold, of course, but logic would suggest that highly targeted text ads should do better than the run-of-network banners that most ad networks are serving these days.)
ADDENDUM:
I just got an e-mail from another member who wanted to know what I meant by "effective CPM." I should have made myself clearer:
By "effective CPM," I'm referring to my net revenue per 1,000 AdSense banner impressions--not the gross CPM that an ad network might quote on its site.
BTW, I checked my AdSense report again a moment ago, and my effective CPM is now up to $4.01. That's the equivalent of a gross CPM of $8.02 on a banner-ad network that splits revenues 50/50 with the Webmaster.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 3:29 pm (utc) on June 20, 2003]
Is there not a need to be able to run two seperate campaigns now for the same set of keywords - one for content, one for search engines. Perhaps there is a way to do this already?
I also feel the same . As the ROI in content ads are obviously less than adwords advertisers will want to pay less . So atleast google has to provide a way to specify separate CPC for search clicks and content clicks .
disabling content ads by default and providing more information on both in google is a MUST.
People need to know their choices, so that somebody who has no clue doesn'T overprice the bids for everybody else.
SN
As the ROI in content ads are obviously less than adwords advertisers will want to pay less. So at least google has to provide a way to specify separate CPC for search clicks and content clicks.
Is the ROI for clicks on content pages lower than for clicks on search pages? Is that something that can be demonstrated across the board? I should think the ROI would vary according to the topic and--just as important--how the reader reached the content page. (If the reader was searching for "french barge cruises" or "shelbyville hotels," he's likely to be a serious prospect whether he clicked the AdWord on a Google SERP or on the content page that he found in Google. In fact, he may be a more serious prospect in the latter case, because he's taken the additional step of reading about French barge cruises or Shelbyville hotels before clicking the AdWord.)
But let's assume that you're correct, and that the ROI on content-page AdWords is lower than for SERP AdWords. If that's the case, won't advertisers simply adjust their AdWord bids to compensate for the difference? In the end, the market will determine what AdWords advertisers are willing to pay for keywords, just as it does now.
I am not sure how much of the content page traffic is thro Search engines.
I have a question. Currently the program allows to place only one ad unit per page. Would multiple ad units be allowed to be placed on a single page in the near future?
Secondly,
However, you cannot run other text-based ads on the same pages as the Google AdWords ads. If you already you already display Google AdWords ads on your pages via an ad network, you can still join AdSense and run ads on your site through our program. However, you cannot display more than one set of AdWords ads on the same web page. This constitutes double-serving, which Google does not support.
I believe we must ask our current ad network (with whom we are publishers) to deactivate the google adwords program from their system. Correct!
Thanks and good luck.
Could you clarify what does and does not constitute text ads?
Browsing the websites mentioned in this forum that have implemented Adsense ads it looks like you don't mind affiliate text ads as long as they are not mimicking the google adwords advert.
I have relevant affiliate links in the text of articles on my website. Would these be considered text ads or could I use Adsense on these pages?
If this is not allowed, would it be reasonable to replace textual links such as "this product is availble from Amazon.com" with a "buy from Amazon.com" button?
I would also like to add a vote for customising the ads. The adsense block would fit in much better with my site if I could use the same link colour and background as the rest of my site.
As europeforvisitors says I think the algorithm works really well for most pages and it would be a lot of work to select keywords for all the pages. I do have some pages where the adsense adverts don't seem to be in context. It would be nice if there was an option to use selected keywords rather than have the automatic algorithm for specific pages where it might be better.
Thanks.
I guess a new business model is going to have to develop if Google doesn't improve their matching technology. People will be hired to tweak individual content pages so that they are better matches for the AdWords they want to see on their pages.
<added>Hey, I just got a click and made 11 cents!</added>
People will be hired to tweak individual content pages so that they are better matches for the AdWords they want to see on their pages.
That's an interesting idea--it could another opportunity for SEOs.
BTW, I wonder if Google would consider having AdSense look at meta keyword tags in addition to the Google database's information on page content when matching ads to pages? That could help a lot with the targeting, and Webmasters wouldn't have reason to use deceptive keyword tags (as they might with straight search) since the whole point of AdSense is to maximize clickthrough rates by serving relevant ads.
If you place the adsense javascript on an XHTML page unmodified, then the ads won't be displayed with Mozilla. It uses the nonstandard <script language="javascript"> instead of the standard <script type="text/javascript">.
Secondly, on one of my sites I have inserted a banner format. It looks like the system still has troubles figuring out the topic of the pages, so it shows some public service messages. So far so good, but it *also* displays two normal ads at the same time, which are targeted at either the file name or the general theme of the site. That means that Google kind of forces me to violate the rule about only displaying one unit on each page!
A nice start, but still some bugs to fix... ;)
From what I've seen on my mental health information site, the general theme of the site isn't a factor. They seem to be analyzing page-by-page.
I like the idea of tweaking the system, perhaps they could let us create an AdSense meta tag? GoogleGuy, are you listening?
<meta name="adsense" content="what this page is about">
PS, just got a second click - for 13 cents this time.
I have a question. Currently the program allows to place only one ad unit per page. Would multiple ad units be allowed to be placed on a single page in the near future?
I would be interested in the answer to this question, a mere 500 impressions later and I am ready to say goodbye to other ad agencies. It is true what Brett mentioned in one of the posts {Google is going to eat Burst, Fastclick and TribalFusion's lunch}. Before, I was happy with making enough to pay hosting and maybe lunch once a month from my hobby site.
I can't wait to get home today and switch Google to the skyscraper from the banner :)
Of course, I consider that my experience will not be the same that other site owners will have due to the topic that my site is about, and the fact that most sites on this topic are either trying to sell you something or signup for something. I just think that this worked out great for my particular website, and I am very happy.
What would I like to see:
More reports:
1-Which page is the one that is actually pulling in the clicks.
2-How about some geostatistics. A visitor told me that he noticed that an ad from a UK mortgage provider was shown and he is from the UK, that is very cool.
3-Being able to track individual domains, I guess this would be a subset of #1.
Edit: way too many typos
unbelievable!
Now the thing is, how do I make money.
Thanks
NeedScritps
Re: [#2663041]
A WikiWiki is a web site where every visitor can edit every page in a very simple way.
I think this is the original one [c2.com].
Many of my sites therefore are rich in surfer value, and light on selling. Some of my sites are rich in content, but as yet TOTALLY unpopulated with ANY selling.
This new Google gizmo MAY therefore fill a void, and save me the effort of developing, or having someone else develop, a product to address the particular market niche.
I do however, despite the excellent documentation, have one area which draws a blank:
>> You'll receive a portion of the amount paid for clicks on AdWords ads on your website. Although we don't disclose the exact revenue share, our goal is to enable publishers to make as much or more than they could with other advertising networks <<
That doesn't really tell me a lot.
You will glean from the above that a lot of effort goes into my sites (by the way, that's one reason why I get a little terse when they are jerked around in the index at the expense of flimsy content stuff). Because I do invest in them, I really do need to be able to project forwards. I need to be able to work out a likely ROI.
At the highest level for example... should I have a product developed? Or am I better off saving the development costs and serving AdWords via AdSense?
I can hardly make that judgement based on "we don't disclose the exact revenue share".
If this WAS disclosed, market research would quickly determine an approximation on income, given that I already have substantial traffic. I would then be able to make an informed decision.
Hopefully, GoogleGuy and others will see where I am coming from with this and the reasons I raise it. Any chance of a change in position on this from Google?
I frankly don't understand the reluctance of Google here to publish the percentage. Surely AdSense users will be able to work it out pretty quickly in any case, and it will be subsequently published on WebmasterWorld and elsewhere. Why therefore make it a secret? Why make decisions (for people like me) more difficult than they need be?
I'd love an explanation of that one.
By the way, I do accept their claim that their "goal is to enable publishers to make as much or more than they could with other advertising networks". Doubtless that is the case, I just feel that something more a little more specific would help (especially as I have no idea anyhow what competitors actually offer).
Having said all that, it certainly looks like a winning product to me. Congratulations to whoever at the plex thought it up.
oH well, its my top traffic site too :D maybe ill turn to other advertisement methods instead of the adsense.
With time, perhaps we may see more innovative additions to the program. My thoughts are penned below:
1. I think it would really help to provide some more customization in the ad design et al.
2. Another issue is the fixed height of the skyscrapers. In cases when only 2 ads are displayed, it shows a huge white block below the ads, if placed on a different color background. I think the premier partners have been offered a lot of customization. It would help if there is no fixed height or rather the height should adjust with the number of ads shown.
3. I have noticed loads of PSA's on crawled pages when there are no targeted ads to serve. It would really help if we have the option to place our default ads in place of those PSA's. I would prefer placing the codes of other ad networks.
Any thoughts, GoogleGuy :)
I was wondering how could Google get rid of the double serving problem, and it occurred to me that a solution could be arranged in the form of a third ad code. This new ad code would be able to show a total of 6 links instead of 2 or 4.
Taking into consideration that competitive topics/keywords have more than 4 advertisers this would allow a publisher to maximize its potential revenue through the program and help those small sites achieve the minimum payout sooner.
Being that a webpage is usually ranked for several keywords it would also help by presenting more targetted choices to the user.
For example, a page about small business loans might qualify for both commercial loans primarily and then qualify for related keywords such as factoring , CPA services, loan advice… This theoretical third code will pull the first six links from the first keyword then if less than 6 were found go down the line. You might want to limit it to the first couple of keywords to control the computational power and keep down the speed. You could also set it up so that the remaining links are filled with public service links.
Furthermore, you might want to allow even further customization by creating a 2-4 and a 4-2 code where the best fit will either go to the banner or the skyscraper according to how the publisher wanted to emphasize the program.
Just some ramblings, feel free to use them at no charge :D
Ps Googleguy tell them about the typo in the rejection email "www,google.com" , as oposed to .
Was a fair comment though. No search engines :)
Mack.
Also, if we can tell the theme to Google, bonus. SSI would be the best way! Maybe allow people showing more then 30,000 pages a day to do SSI instead of Javascript. Our ratio is 0.3% right now, and I am sure I can get that higher if it was more targeted and themed to the site.
This is due to the fact that that adsense uses IFRAMEs to display ads.
[google.com...]
>You are attempting to view the ads in a browser that >doesn't support the <iframe> tag we use to display ads
I can hardly make that judgement based on "we don't disclose the exact revenue share".If this WAS disclosed, market research would quickly determine an approximation on income, given that I already have substantial traffic. I would then be able to make an informed decision.
I agree that it would be nice to know what percentage we're getting, but in the end, the effective CPM (i.e., revenue per 1,000 impressions) is the easiest way to compare apples (AdSense) with oranges (CPM ads), pears (other CPC ads), and peaches (affiliate commissions and referral fees). And it's easy enough to calculate AdSense's effective CPM by dividing revenue by thousands of impressions.
Come to think of it, why doesn't Google add an "Effective CPM" or "RPM" column to the AdSense report? That shouldn't take a programmer more than five minutes to do. :-)
And that was without me doing anything but plopping the code in.
I used the 468 by 60's, not the skyscraper but I plan to overhaul my site layout to maximize this potential (if I continue to use it).
Looks like a good show so far. I am getting about 22 cents a click and decent clickthrough ratio.
Impressive because many of my dynamic site's pages have not yet been cached and are serving public ads.
That being said I will probably drop the service over a few major qualms.
1) Google needs to cache the pages MUCH faster. On my site a few thousand pages are generated every hour. The bulk of their visits are in the first hour and if it takes an hour for google to get a bot to the page I lose the overwhelming majority of my traffic.
That wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for:
2) Google does not allow me to specify default ads. I love the technology Google deployed but they need to allow us to serve default banners or text ads of our choosing instead of the public service ones.
We webmasters want to sell out our inventory. Targeted ads and all are nice for the advertisers but Google neglects very simple things to help us webmasters sell our inventory.
Allowing us to specify default banners in just one.
Now that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for:
3) Google does not allow us to serve their ads through any ad management system. I understand this and there are sound technical reasons that this should be so. But it is still a fact that exacerbates the situation.
I sold ALL my ad inventory before. Now even with this exciting new service I am dissapointed because Google ties my hands behind my back and expects me to trust them completely.
Thus far this is not a reasonable request because Google does not allow me to sell out my inventory.
IMO they should fix this at number 2. I understand why we can't serve up the ads with an ad system. But I'll give up on this service if default ads are not made available.
But that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for:
4) Google does not allow other text advertising. This is one more position that reduces my ability to sell out my ad inventory.
-----------------------
Conclusion.
The technology is sound, the idea is a good one the quality of the ads might take the internet to a whole new level.
But if you want to sell out all your inventory Google needs to allow you to specify defaults (by my calculations I'm gonna lose a few thousand impressions a day because Google will serve up public service ads while their bot takes its time to get around to me (and this is while the service is young!).
Google also needs to clarify it's position about other text ads.
I'd accept not running another similar program. But if they also mean a CJ.com link then their service is simply not worth it.
I wrote this for one simple reason.
Google ads can already help you make a bit more money. But if they let you determine a default with less than half a brain you can sell out your inventory every single day.
GG, I never whine about the dance and I love Ad Words, and AdSense.
But without defaults I fear I will either quit altogether or use google on "afterthought" pages.
Please pass on this request. If I could serve defaults I'd actually design sites around AdSense.
What exactly does this mean
"You also agree not to display any other text-based or content-targeted advertisement(s) on the same Web page in connection with which an Ad Unit or any Ad is displayed." Does this mean any page with a manually placed buy this product at Affiliatesite whatever text link can not run this ad format?
What does this mean?
Google shall not be liable for any payment based on (a) any fraudulent impressions generated by any person, bot, automated program or similar device or for fraudulent clicks similarly generated on any Ads, as reasonably determined by Google; (b) Ads delivered to end users whose browsers have JavaScript disabled; (c) Ads benefiting charitable organizations and other placeholder or transparent Ads that Google may deliver in the event that a Site is improperly configured to comply with Google technical requirements; or (d) Google advertisements for its own products and/or services.
The above makes sense except for the part about Google not having to pay for Google Advertisements for its own products and services. Why have this clause? This needs to be explained better.
If google would allow small sites to use a semi cobranded version of google image search or regular search or google groups that would be yet another revenue opportunity in which ad words could be displayed.
A percentage of ad revenue or control over footers or headers for a percentage of the time or a fraction of screen space would suffice as revenue for the publishers.
[edited by: firstmark at 10:33 pm (utc) on June 20, 2003]
I'm talking about something like [google.com...] (completely fictitious URL to make my question clearer)
