Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example, I would imagine 0 - 0.5% is underperforming, 0.5%-2.0% is about average and 2%-5% is doing great and anything over 10% is going to raise some flags. What do you think?
AFAIK, we were talking about pages with no external links. Not pages with no internal links whatsoever.I was just going by what you posted.
Assume I have a high quality authority page on apples with no outwards links - not even to my home page - except for Adsense ads.
As far as CTR, I barely notice mine except for when I inadvertently placed a leaderboard and skyscraper on a large number of pages and watched it skyrocket before I checked the pages to see why. I am trying to figure out how to maximize the payout per click though. It seems like that is the most important stat IMO.
Google is well aware people are constantly tweaking to find a higher CTR, and they can tell why a CTR has jumped, even if it is significant, by checking the site, click through stats, among all the other ways Google has to investigate this kind of thing.
I think Marcia is right on the money. People are much more open about their CTRs in non-public forums, and I have been told plenty of different publisher's CTRs on a wide range of site types, because they wanted to know how they compared to other sites (this includes ecommerce and informational sites). Yes, it is a small sample, but probably much larger sample than most publishers here have. And most do fall into that 3-5% range Marcia talks about, although like any program, some are doing far better, while some are doing far worse. Regardless of it being an ecommerce site or an informational site, 3-5% is definitely average. But just because it is average doesn't mean a publisher can't aspire to even higher CTRs.
I firmly believe that 3-5% is a perfectly acceptable CTR for an ecom-oriented site - on an average
I'm sorry Marcia, that qualification doesn't make "average CTR" any more relevant. It's still a useless statistic when measured across different sites.
How about measured over 22 sites and 1 with a Premium service Marcia isn't far off the mark on Average 3-5% on a site.
of course we can all quote the exception, dead end sites leading the surfer nowhere and giving them the 2 options to close the browser or click the AD's , I think TheDave was talking about normal and healthy not freaks.
DaveN
It has worked quite well. The average visitor now looks at four pages, double the previous average. The result is that our AdSense CTR has gone down, although revenue has stayed more or less the same. However, revenue from CPM advertising is climbing and, more importantly, our information-oriented site is better serving those who come to it looking for help on a particular topic, which ought to build long-term brand equity, no?
Wouldn't you expect a lower CTR on sites where the average visitor looks at a large number of page, and a larger CTR on sites where the average number of pages viewed per visitor is lower?
How about measured over 22 sites and 1 with a Premium service
That makes the statistics of average CTR across sites even more worthless! If half the sites were getting 0.5% and the other half were getting 10% that will give you a waste-of-time statistical average figure that is useful for nothing. The more the deviation between individual sites the less value the average serves as a guide to other webmasters. And I know of deviations from <0.5% to >15%. The average figures you propose don't help other members in the forum, don't help people who lurk for advice, don't help you as a guide for your own sites.
Marcia may have spoken to a fair few publishers to come up with those figures herself but as I've stated in the thread referred to below:
That isn't exactly the biggest of samples. Self selection, small samples, unverified figures and an unscientific aggregation of those anecdotal results do not make for an anywhere near reliable "average ctr" figure.
Jenstar, you proposed an average figure in this thread: [webmasterworld.com...] There it was claimed to be 1.5% - 3% (msg 2). You explain: "I am not referring to just what has been posted on webmasterworld because I have had plenty of discussions with other publishers off of the boards as well".
Now you say
<quote> And most do fall into that 3-5% that Marcia talks about </quote>
After your "careful research" you concluded that it was 1.5% - 3%. Now you agree that it's 3% - 5%. That's a big jump. Are you suggesting that "average CTR" - whatever this worthless figure means - has doubled over the last month and a half? Or are you suggesting that most sites fall in the 3-5% bracket, but the average is 1.5% - 3%?
I think this serves to demonstrate how useless this "average" figure is... or as Shak so succinctly says: averages mean jack... :-)
<edit> spell check </edit>
[edited by: Macro at 10:20 am (utc) on Jan. 20, 2004]
He asked what we thought. We have told what we thought. What we think and believe is NOT open to debate. We are simply responding to what this thread is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is really no point getting argumentative, antagonistic and contentious over it. Again, what we think is not open to debate, it is our opinion and we are entitled to it. This is not a technical discussion since we are not privy to the confidential data.
So how about let's stop contending with what everyone says they think and give more people a chance to tell what they think, if for no other reason than out of showing respect for the member who started this thread.
How about let's cut the noise and allow TheDave to get the responses he asked for and allow everyone to enjoy this discussion.
Anyone else have an opinion to share with us? I'm sure we'd all like to hear from more people.
I've answered the question "what you would consider to be a normal, healthy CTR" by saying that there isn't such a thing.
Everybody is entitled to what they believe is an "normal, average CTR". Just as some of us are entitled to believe that such a thing does not exist.
Anyone else have an opinion to share with us? I'm sure we'd all like to hear from more people
There is a definite trend of higher CTRs. There are plenty of people who work very hard to achieve higher CTRs, and my average reflects this. Since higher CTRs usually traslates into higher $$, why wouldn't people want to tweak this to earn higher CTRs.
There are many who once sat firmly planted in the lower CTR and are now sitting in the 3-5%. People have complained about earnings going down, but many have had their CTRs rise, even if they aren't bragging about it on the boards. The same page but different ad style, colors and placement can make several percentage points difference. And many people have a better idea of what works, but by posts here and through their own experimenting.
CTR is dynamic, and the average will change, and it *should* be changing (and if anyone is stuck in a low CTR, changing and tweaking should be done to find that higher CTR). I commented on the change I have noticed.
We can talk averages all day, but what is a healthy normal CTR for one person might not be for another.
Without any work, of course!
Maybe I need that CTR Patch thing! :)
The CTR is just clicks/impressions (not uniques!) - so maybe because my visitors are browsing through a lot of my site the CTR will be reduced dramatically. (say each unique visited 10 pages, my true CTR would be multiplied by 10)
I think I may experiment with some positioning and colours to try and boost figures :)
W.
Wonderboy, you probably have a lot of good content that makes your site sticky. That's more valuable than a percentage or two of extra CTR. Like most webmasters the part of the Adsense program that is probably most important to you is the bottom line i.e. the value of the Google check. For that you need to be able to see the wider picture. EFVs message #2 and #21 are what will get you that bigger check. And it looks like you're already on the ball. Personally, I'd let others fret over CTR and I'd concentrate on creating the good content that will get more links and millions and millions of new visitors even if the CTR is only 1%. That's preferable to a 50% CTR with a grand total of 1000 uniques a month.
It's good, common sense advice from these members here that has put me in a position where - within six months of my first post - my websites earn me enough to kick my day job if I so desired. And I thank them for that. I have no personal vendetta against anyone - just a desire to see others benefit the way I did and not get sent off-track. I don't believe anyone here gives them lies, or damned lies but, crikey, they do get the statistics :-)
Darn! I was hoping to come back to this thread this morning and find the answer on how to magically turn a 0.9 CTR into a 9.0 CTR.
Changed my colors 2 weeks ago CTR went from 0.9 to 3.0 consistantly
W.
