Forum Moderators: martinibuster
If a spammer can build a site with 100K pages on <a given keyword> and fill it with Adsense, then buy cheaper relevant Adwords to bring in the traffic, at which point the surfer finds no content and clicks thru.
Is the entire concept not heading for being seriously, internationally, terminally discredited?
Finally is anyone *actually really genuinely* making money from this and not just 10,000,000 tiny operators taking $10 a day?
[edited by: jatar_k at 8:42 pm (utc) on May 12, 2006]
[edit reason] no specific terms thanks [/edit]
That is both the advertisers, publishers, Google's and even the entire internet users' business .... :P. There is no perfect algorthm nor perfect management control of a business.
[.... 2:It's a Competitive Ad Filter ..... ]
Anything (including the ads display) on the website are refering to the direct responsibility of the owner, yes, not Google.
There is no reason not to block spammer ads. If you don't block and other publishers block those ads, then you are more likely and frequently to get rotation of trunks. We may receive a similar earning after appling blocking ads, but we keep the image and quality of the web contents to the valuable users/ customers.
I really wish Google was a lot more discriminating about what sites they allow in the program. Almost all CPM networks quite picky about who they accept, but Google will take pretty much any ol' site.
Google is picky - when you first apply and show them your first web site.
The problem is, they do not bother to "approve" additional sites that webmaster put their Adsense code on. I thought this was odd after I was approved into the Adsense program.
The first site one applied with can look wonderful. Once approved, the unscrupulous ones can slap the code on any site they like...
However, I think you really have to have a quality, high traffic site to achieve this over time.
That's it exactly! If you already have such a site why not try adsense? It's working well now and later you can move on to other income possibilities.
If you are just beginning I wouldn't build a site or sites depending only on adsense as it could take a year or two and a good deal of work to get up to where you do well with adsense. If you decide to go ahead better to build good sites, build good traffic but be open to changing income possibilities one of which might be adsense.
1:It's Google's business, not yours
There is not one logical reason to hand over the keys to their business to a faceless horde of publishers and allow them to manipulate the AdSense program as they see fit. Google has sophisticated algorithms to do this and have always leaned toward applying scalable automated solutions that are under their strict control.
There is a difference between handing over the keys to the office containing all the IT equipment and cheque books, and simply taking on board input from partners without actually allowing them in the office. My point of view is that I know my visitors a lot better than Google ever will. I know how they got to my site, where they came from, why they are here, what they look at, their age, their educational level and what they really want from my site. Now whilst I don't expect Google to let me pick ads, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think that in some ways my input into the choosing of ads is not of value, or likely to make Google more money. Google don't care if I make money, but they do care if they make it. Obviously by increasing their income I increase my income.
Webmasters with this level of knowledge can make a valuable contribution, yet they are so full of the "Our technology ..... yada yada yada" to listen.
Yes, we all appreciate there isn't any other way for this to work other than algorithms. I would argue that whilst they cleary are worked on all the time, they will never be able to work properly in every single case. I'd also argue that they lack one aspect, and that is a key issue to the problems we see with MFA's - specifically the ability to learn. You will recall a while back I removed my block list to see what would happen regarding targeting of ads, and to see if quality scores has made a difference. The result was that in a few hours, ads that have paid well for six months got removed, and the same MFA's that caused me to start blocking in the first place were put back again! Now if the algorithm was able to learn, that would not have happened. It shouldn't have happened anyway because the pages had no content and quality scores should have priced them off.
I did have a conversation with Adsense support over the issue of learning, and they simply did not have an answer to that. They avoided the question despite several attempts at getting an answer.
So our input could and should be sought. By denying the ability to help fine tune the system, they are missing out on a huge opportunity, because lets face it - "Our technology... yada yada" actually doesn't work that well. With our input it could.
There is only one Captain of the ship, and it's Google. Afaik, the Google AdSense program does not surrender control of any part of it's operations to an outside party. In fact, if you think about it rationally and in a dispassionate manner, no reasonable business would ever surrender control of a vital portion of it's business to masses of strangers.
That's not what anybody is asking, or expecting. To have google listen to what we are saying and allow us to help in fine tuning is not "handing over control".
It's a Competitive Ad Filter
The filter is for blocking websites that may be in competition with you. Although it's also handy for blocking irrelevant or inappropriate ads, I doubt it was ever Google's intention to allow users to weed out low CPC ads.
What the accepted use of it is has changed over time. That may have once been the case, but Google now accept that the filter is used legitimately to block low paying MFA's. They have acknowledged this in correspondence, and at one point ASA (the previous one I think) stated in this forum that blocking MFA's was fine, the concern was that there was some way to measure any changes that happened as a result of putting ads in the filter so that we could remove them easily if income dropped.
Is AdSense Doomed?
If AdSense is ever doomed, it will be when they stop using algorithms and allow untrained and self-interested publishers to make the decisions of what ads are shown.
David's about to do his impersonation of the nutter walking through the mall on a Satuday wearing a sandwich board saying "The end of the world is nigh" :)
No, I don't think adsense is doomed, but I do think it's forgotten why it was a rapid success and is in danger of imploding.
Remember why Google flattened all other search engines? It came on the scene as something that was easy to use, fast and worked well. A very simple idea that did what people wanted and worked.
Remember why Adsense had a meteoric rise? A simple idea that worked well. As well as showing relevant search results it would show relevant ads for goods and services, and in the early days this is what happened. The user experience was enhanced because you could click the ads that showed on search pages and most of the time they added to the experience. OK, there have always been targetting issues at times, and there have always been some that have gamed the system from day 1, but by and large the ads were well targetted, relevant and added to the surfers experience. Consequently they clicked ads, and everybody was happy. The percentage of irrelevant ads and shysters was low enough to not matter.
However, Google really have forgotten why adsense worked. Currently if you do a search, the majority of the ads that show simply lead to other pages of ads leading to yet more pages of ads. This is not a good surfer experience, and like it or not people WILL learn not to click the pointless ads. This is not good. Genuine ads are decreasing in proportion - most ads nowadays are for people gaming the sytem as opposed to paying into it.
Also, as has been pointed out here by many, this is not a sound business plan for the future. I think that we are in a "bubble" right now, and bubbles burst. And this one certainly will unless Google can keep the percentage of arbitrage ads and sites down to an acceptable level, which they have failed to do.
</sandwich board man rant>
I guess one way of looking at it, is that if we are policing our sites to ensure that the cheats are kept at bay, and prevented from profiteering from our sites, then any partner in our business should respect that, and comply with our requirements, or at least to an acceptable degree.
I for one, am saddened by the amount of people who post on this forum questions saying ' is this allowed' or 'is that allowed'. If people are so anxious of hurting Googles feelings, then they should opt out of AdSense, or else they will forever be worried about controlling factor influencing their site, their work,and their future.
There is a difference between handing over the keys to the office containing all the IT equipment and cheque books...
I agree with that statement 100%. Who would not?
and simply taking on board input from partners...
David, this is what my post is addressing:
We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
My post is addressing the issue of control, and who gets to wield it.
My point of view is that I know my visitors a lot better than Google ever will. That will be a really effective tool to curtail MFA's.
This is where your argument becomes debatable. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm only saying that a reasonable person would agree with you, and another reasonable person could raise a reasonable objection that as a non-objective party to that observation, that observation is open to be colored by self-interest. So it's debatable.
Someone could also reasonably argue that Google's access to vastly more data than you have access to (including the data from advertisers and referrers across thousands of websites) gives them a greater ability to judge the big picture (macro) and scale it down to apply it to the individual website (micro), and actually test it and verify the results. That's something an individual advertiser generally cannot or will not do in a truly scientific, double-blind, objective manner. But Google can.
By denying the ability to help fine tune the system...
Dave, you can call it "fine tuning" but ultimately that is bending words to soften the reality that it is asking to influence the ranking process, which is what I posted about. Here is the statement again:
We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
By allowing millions of publishers to influence the algorithm (essentially give hand tweaking power outside of Google) is contrary to Google's business practice. Even Yahoo, with their MyWeb project, does not allow user votes to influence their algorithm because anytime you surrender a piece of the algorithm it becomes open to manipulation in ways that may not benefit the organization. Surendering control of core business processes simply isn't done.
We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
You as a business want to control the ads and the income, but you are butting up against Google who as a business also wants to control. What is difficult to do is to step back and distance oneself from self-interest. So while one may view their need to control their livelihood as "fine tuning," what it boils down to is control of the ads and who is going to wield control.
If one allows oneself to be honest and objective about it, one would see this as a control issue and realize that Google will never delegate ranking control, not even for so-called, "fine tuning" simply because it makes no business sense to trust the judgement of fallible and subjective entities. It makes far more sense to test rules that lead to specific outcomes (in this case earnings) and apply them objectively.
That may have once been the case, but Google now accept that the filter is used legitimately to block low paying MFA's.
Please post a URL for that.
Tell you what Dave, here's a link to the AdSense blog and what they say about filtering low paying ads:
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
Tip 2: Don't believe the myth about blocking 'low-paying advertisers'Our auction system automatically selects the best performing ads for each page to help you earn the most possible money. This is especially true with our new expanded text ads. By filtering ads you think are low paying, you could actually be cutting out the most optimized ads and decreasing your revenue potential. Each ad that is filtered is one less bid in the auction, lowering the price for the winning ad on your site. You benefit most when there is a larger pool of advertisers competing for a place on your site. Additionally, when we calculate the auction, we take ad clickthrough rates (CTR) into account - an ad with a $0.25 cost-per-click (CPC) with a 5% CTR is more valuable than an ad with a $1.00 CPC but a 0.1% CTR.
Learn more about how the auction works.
Tip 3: Don't go overboard with filters
Only filter URLs when absolutely necessary. As mentioned, each URL you add to your filter list may cut into your AdSense revenue potential, so it's important to think carefully before deciding what to block.
Some publishers worry that competitive ads will affect their bottom line and they may overuse filters, limiting the ad inventory available for their site. Our advice? Test it. Some publishers don't use filters and sell at the same levels after adding AdSense to their pages. This might not be true for all publishers, but you should test first so that you know the actual effects before unintentionally reducing your AdSense revenue.
The above quote is from September of 2005, and was linked to from a post from January of this year [adsense.blogspot.com], Dave, advising publishers to "filter in moderation."
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:42 am (utc) on May 14, 2006]
The bubble is the weakness where Google would receive double or more impact when it explores if Google doesn't take measure to control its growth. Who knows if the OIC's eyes are filled only with the brust of its stock price, and when everyone is talking about how to make money for it, it would be about the time to explore.... :P
Advertisers: RIO is poor, my ads didn't bring quality targetted customers to my website. I pay more but I don't know where my money is going.
Publishers: eEPC and eCPM are poor, ad slots just like a toilet filled with trunks.
Users: I was being fooled into looping game trap, the search result and ads are almost useless to me.
Would these the signs for the "Judgment Day" and the explore of the bubble?
Our auction system automatically selects the best performing ads for each page to help you earn the most possible money. This is especially true with our new expanded text ads. By filtering ads you think are low paying, you could actually be cutting out the most optimized ads and decreasing your revenue potential. Each ad that is filtered is one less bid in the auction, lowering the price for the winning ad on your site. """
The problem is not one of low payout, the problem is of attempting to maintain an environment where clicking on adverts brings about positive reinforcement for the clicker ie, clicking on adverts produces relevant results.
High or low paying adverts won't matter anymore when no one clicks because the adverts have been poisioned through and through.
Our auction system automatically selects the best performing ads
There is actually anecdotal evidence to suggest that this does not always happen. Consider the the cases where publishers find mistargeted ads due to ambigous keywords. Maybe Consider the the cases where publishers suddenly find two badly written ads on a 300x250 block that result in a very poor ctr.
If the system were truly capable of selecting best performing ads, in such cases the system should have knocked these on the head. Yet there are accounts where the system has retained these ads instead.
Input is one thing. Taking that input and allowing it to influence the auction is another. And this is where semantics come into play. Are you asking to give input for consideration? Or are you asking for CONTROL of what is shown on the AdSense network?
No - asking for control of what happens on the network is a ridiculous idea. That's never going to happen, and I can't think of any reason it should. I'm asking for better input on what Google show on my site. That's not unreasonable.
David, this is what my post is addressing:
We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
And you keep repeatedly hitting me on the head with it like a bit of stale haddock! But that quote is not from me.
My point of view is that I know my visitors a lot better than Google ever will. That will be a really effective tool to curtail MFA's.
That's stitching together part of my quote and part of someone elses quote. I object M'lud! Strike it from the record!
Someone could also reasonably argue that Google's access to vastly more data than you have access to (including the data from advertisers and referrers across thousands of websites) gives them a greater ability to judge the big picture (macro) and scale it down to apply it to the individual website (micro), and actually test it and verify the results. That's something an individual advertiser generally cannot or will not do in a truly scientific, double-blind, objective manner. But Google can.
You'd have thought so, but as many people have pointed out the technology often fails in respect of poorly targeted ads, MFA's replacing ones that pay well etc etc etc. The technology has to be seen to work before people are going to believe this.
Dave, you can call it "fine tuning" but ultimately that is bending words to soften the reality that it is asking to influence the ranking process, which is what I posted about. Here is the statement again:We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
Yes, I never said that as previously noted.
Fine tuning is an appropriate term. I'm asking for input into what is shown on my site. In practice, that's all any of us CAN ask for - therefore an appropriate choice of wording.
By allowing millions of publishers to influence the algorithm (essentially give hand tweaking power outside of Google) is contrary to Google's business practice. Even Yahoo, with their MyWeb project, does not allow user votes to influence their algorithm because anytime you surrender a piece of the algorithm it becomes open to manipulation in ways that may not benefit the organization. Surendering control of core business processes simply isn't done.
Yes, I do take your point, but if you were to take that to a logical conclusion, the competitive ad filter should not exist at all. That's doing the same thing surely?
I don't think that me having input into what is shown on my site is influencing the ranking process. Market forces can do that - I, as an individual can't. If the market demands lots of arbitrage ads, then that's what Google will supply. However, if a lot of webmasters demand to not have them, then market forces will (or should) prevail. If MFA's dissapear as part of this, then nobody (apart from the owners) is gonna miss 'em.
We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads.
Yes, I never said that as previously noted.
You as a business want to control the ads and the income, but you are butting up against Google who as a business also wants to control. What is difficult to do is to step back and distance oneself from self-interest. So while one may view their need to control their livelihood as "fine tuning," what it boils down to is control of the ads and who is going to wield control.
Well, they DO allow us limited control already, and all people want is the ability to have the limited controls that are likely to be given to actually work. My argument is that the input webmasters can give would actually HELP Google - not hinder. Example, if I provided the demographic information from my site such as ages of visitors, interests etc. that would help copnsiderably to target appropriate ads. Other ad providors actually do ask this information. Google just say "Our technology ... yada yada yada".
If one allows oneself to be honest and objective about it, one would see this as a control issue and realize that Google will never delegate ranking control, not even for so-called, "fine tuning" simply because it makes no business sense to trust the judgement of fallible and subjective entities. It makes far more sense to test rules that lead to specific outcomes (in this case earnings) and apply them objectively.
But the technology doesn't work very well in many cases. Having limited input from webmasters they could use / discard at will could help, yet they don't even think to ask!
That may have once been the case, but Google now accept that the filter is used legitimately to block low paying MFA's.Please post a URL for that.
It's in reference to email conversations with adsense support, and one posting from ASA here sometime last summer that I will try and find. I can't quote emails but I can summarise. Naturally you will get the "Our technology" line from adsense support. You will also get the tacit admission that blocking MFA's is known to work, and regarded semi-officially as legitimate.
Tell you what Dave, here's a link to the AdSense blog and what they say about filtering low paying ads: <snip>The above quote is from September of 2005, and was linked to from a post from January of this year, Dave, advising publishers to "filter in moderation."
Yes, I have read this, and in cases where webmasters aren't aware of what they are doing and the risks, then it's good advice. But as we all know in this forum the technology has it's flaws, and doesn't work well for Google and consequently us. Therefore if we can help, Google should make use of what we can offer. The technology has to be seen to work. Whilst it doesn't, these debates will always exist.
<gallic shrug>
The golden principle is: Technology means nothing if it does not benefit to the users.
Who cares what sophisticated algorithms behind, Google better tells me nothing about their sophisticated technologies, I only want it works out, it is just
that simple.... :P
[webmasterworld.com...] message 62. It's actually a library thread on the topic of the text quoted by Martinibuster.
Hi all -
I'll do my best to respond, particularly regarding the Inside AdSense post which I believe contains good advice for the majority of publishers. However, my perspective on filter lists is based on experience providing support to the overall publisher base, so these are general observations and may not apply to specific cases such as david_uk's.The reason AdSense offers filters to publishers is to give you more control over the ads appearing on your site. We know you work hard building the content and reputations of your sites. With this in mind, it sounds like david_uk is using filter lists exactly as they were intended:
1) He is judiciously blocking ads from *specific* advertisers that, for a variety of reasons, he does not want appearing on his site.
2) He has *tested* the results of his filters to ensure they are not negatively impacting his site's revenue potential. To quote Bryan from the Inside AdSense post:
This might not be true for all publishers, but you should test first so that you know the actual effects before unintentionally reducing your AdSense revenue.
So david_uk's experience is different from the one described in Inside AdSense. As an AdSense Support rep, I can assure you that I've worked with many publishers who overuse filters without performing any testing on revenue impact because they think they know what their users will click and which ads pay the most. By removing some of their filters, many of these publishers experienced revenue increases.
The important thing to remember is that the algorithm takes a wide array of information into account each time it selects ads to appear on a page of your site, and it's usually right about which ads will perform best. Of course, technology cannot fully replace the expertise each of you have acquired when it comes to your own users. This is why we provide filters.
Lastly, I want to reiterate that testing - and by this I mean testing over several weeks rather than on a day-by-day basis - is extremely important to filtering smartly.
-ASA
I can assure you that I've worked with many publishers who overuse filters without performing any testing on revenue impact because they think they know what their users will click and which ads pay the most.
That's all well and good David, but my post is about Control, it's important to emphasize that. So before you respond yet again, it's important for you to consider what it is I am discussing.
David, this is what my post is addressing:
"We then have the real control in our hands to really block MFA or spam ads."And you keep repeatedly hitting me on the head with it like a bit of stale haddock! But that quote is not from me.
My original post was in response to that quote about control. Your response to that post failed to take that into account, which is leading us to discuss two different things. I am trying to get you in synch with my point. Which is why I am hitting you over the head with that quote, so that it is painfully clear what I am responding to. ;)
No - asking for control of what happens on the network is a ridiculous idea. That's never going to happen, and I can't think of any reason it should.
Well gee-whiz David, that's all I have been arguing for. That contention is the heart of my post, so I'm not sure what compelled you to argue against that. So do we really disagree? David, that is my entire point, that control over the network, even if you call it "fine tuning" is not going to happen. This is why I had to hit you over the head with the quote I was originally responding to, so that you didn't miss the point for a second time.
Yes, I do take your point, but if you were to take that to a logical conclusion, the competitive ad filter should not exist at all. That's doing the same thing surely?
This is all on a micro level, and doesn't affect the entire network, nor influence the algo.
If the market demands lots of arbitrage ads, then that's what Google will supply.
True.
However, if a lot of webmasters demand to not have them, then market forces will (or should) prevail.
Webmasters should wield control?
But the technology doesn't work very well in many cases. Having limited input from webmasters they could use / discard at will could help, yet they don't even think to ask!
David, do I have to hit you over the head with a fish again? ;) In my first or second post, and again here, I am strictly addressing the issue of control, and whether Google will allow publishers to have it.
David, opening up a channel for feedback is a great idea and I fully support that 100%. It's a brilliant idea. Data mining the filter information and giving excessivley filtered sites a yellow flag may be a helpful solution. I think you and I agree a lot more than you may have originally thought. I am not sure what compelled you to think otherwise. ;)
I think you and I agree a lot more than you may have originally thought. I am not sure what compelled you to think otherwise.
I think we might have been talking at cross purposes - hence my bewilderment at being hit on the head with someone else's dead haddock.
And haven't we come a long way from "Is Adsense doomed?" :)
asking for control of what happens on the network is a ridiculous idea. That's never going to happen, and I can't think of any reason it should.
Well gee-whiz David, that's all I have been arguing for. That contention is the heart of my post, so I'm not sure what compelled you to argue against that. So do we really disagree?
Not sure we ever did - I've never wanted to control Google, but it would be nice to have some input into my site.
This is all on a micro level, and doesn't affect the entire network, nor influence the algo.
Which is all allowing minor input from webmasters could ever do. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
David, do I have to hit you over the head with a fish again? In my first or second post, and again here, I am strictly addressing the issue of control, and whether Google will allow publishers to have it.
My point has been that they already do allow some personal input. Probably to the limit they ever will. All most of us want is for that input we are allowed to work, and for Google to come out of it's ivory tower in the clouds and talk to us occasionally. Listening might be nice as well BTW.
Now where was that fish I had around here someplace?
- Google Co-op is a way for users to help us improve search...lets people ..... label web pages and create specialized links related to their unique expertise. ..... everyone can contribute to making Google search more relevant and useful for the entire community.
While it might not be strictly applicable to Adsense, it might not be that big a leap either.
Just my thoughts.
Yours?
Got a competitor who you don't want to rank so well... easy, just organise a few hundered bots to go and downrank their page or mess with their adverts :(
Great idea in theory but quite open to abuse.
which is often to the detriment of publisher websites... just this week, on my site about widgets, i put up new pages with the term "las vegas" on 'em... guess what, i started getting completely off-topic ads about las vegas, and my ctr dropped, as compared to similar pages with the exact same structure and content.
since my filter is already full of the garbage mfa's that adsense won't stop sending me, how am i supposed to get my adsense back on target?
how come i don't have an adsense "ignore" list, where i can tell the algorithm to not consider certain terms in it's targeting?
i had two options:
1) remove "las vegas" from the pages, which means that adsense is exercising editorial control over my site.
2) get rid of adsense on those pages, which is exactly what i did... ypn now has those pages, and adsense has lost still yet another advertising opportunity.
>>>David, opening up a channel for feedback is a great idea and I fully support that 100%. It's a brilliant idea.<<<
no, it's not... based on all the negative feedback that adsense has gotten over their mfa mess, and their abject failure to fix the issue, a feedback channel would be a complete waste of time... besides, you are ignoring the fact that adsense reps read this forum on a daily basis... they get more feedback than they can handle as it is.
Sure..there are problems, but its not Google alone. We are all part of this network and responsible to make it better. You make money and Google make money. This make us partner.
Worry about MFA sites? Then use them to your advantage.
Sign up with AdWords and make a site target to all MFA in your subject. (They are cheap! Their value drops every day)
Divert the traffic to your own site with valuable information and make your visitors happy. (Those visitors have a higher conversion rate, because they are hungry for products and information, so you don’t loose money, if you have a solid website!)
Filter all MFA with competitive ad filter on your AdSense.
If we all do this. All MFA sites will disappear in time. More advertisers will signup with AdWords and you get more $$ for your Ad space on your site.
For the MFA publisher, AdSense and its ilk will produce lower earnings through organic rankings as time goes on, but it is not "doomed" in the wider sense. Using PPC arbitrage should work, but if not careful, could be a costly error.
The publisher's earning is not a good reference indicator, we should consider the advertisers' ROI and the users experience on the effectiveness they can find the information they need from the AS ads.
If the effectiveness of the AS system dropped to a certain level, ie. reach a critical point low level to "deliver the appropriated ads to the right users", it will break down. The result is advertisers go for some other advertising channels, users very likely not to click on the AS ads. Finally, publishers are forced switching to other advertising channel too.
Finally is anyone *actually really genuinely* making money from this and not just 10,000,000 tiny operators taking $10 a day?
$10 a day can be a car note. If you already have a working site and can easily throw adsense onto it, why not get the $10/day and have car for your troubles?
Making $100k/year from adsense is probably as likely as making $100k doing anything else. If you work hard, work smart, and have some luck it can happen. Without all of those 3 elements it is unlikely you will make that kind of money doing anything.
this site is a good sample of what u looking for.
previously: they have large font keyword. word that u key in to search for. then the google ads appear on bottom of keyword. so user without options will click on the ads link.
now: no more google ads inside here. not know y.
if its generating big revenue, and its not there, then can say somethign not right.
[edited by: jatar_k at 4:25 pm (utc) on May 17, 2006]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]
