Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example, a click on an ad for digital cameras on a web page about photography tips may be worth less than a click on the same ad appearing next to a review of digital cameras.
[edited by: markus007 at 8:08 pm (utc) on April 1, 2004]
<added>
Yes, but everything works perfectly as far as I can see
Except their release date - which was first scheduled for last year, then had several delays and is still in what.... beta?!
[edited by: Macro at 4:37 pm (utc) on April 5, 2004]
Posted by Adsense Advisor:
So, you may find that your revenue goes up, goes down, or stays the same. It may take some time to see a pattern emerging.
it appears every single person on this forum has taken a big pay cut.
I've not - reasonable pay increase.
But then its an odd niche I play in, and the improved targeting has probably massively outweighed any cost reduction. CTR is at least 50% higher.
Overall, it seems inevitable that it should go this way.
I wonder to what extent Google realise that these policy changes shape the type and quantity of sites gaming their algo in the future.
Making a rod for their own back or steering us into a corral?
A bit OT but jaxomlotus didn't you post something many moons ago saying that A*sonar would be fully operational by mid Jan? Their plans keep getting put back so much I could be forgiven for thinking they were being run by M*crosoft/MSN ;)
<added>>>Yes, but everything works perfectly as far as I can see
Except their release date - which was first scheduled for last year, then had several delays and is still in what.... beta?!
:shrug: it doesn't matter much to me if it's got a beta tag on it or not. It's still displaying ads and is earning more revenue than Google currently does. Don't get me wrong, I used adsense up until yesterday - adsense paid far more than ad_sonar did until that point. But now it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. I can't help but wonder what made Google decide tampering with the formula was a good thing. Were advertisers leaving them in droves? If so, how does this help? As an advertiser I don't want to pay less for a "low-quality" click - I don't want to waste any money at all. I'd rather pay for one high click than a dozen low ones. If a site is turning out bad clicks, why not just exclude them from the network? Why waste the time and money of everyone involved? As far as I can see, that just can't be the reason.
So what was the problem with the old scheme? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
[edited by: jaxomlotus at 5:20 pm (utc) on April 5, 2004]
I don't think there's enough data to make any firm conclusions. Thurs-Sun are my lowest earning days of the week in any case.
Compared to my all-time averages, this is how the last four days work out, where x is the average.
Thurs. April 1
EPC 0.68x
CTR 1.00x
EPM 0.67x
Fri. April 2
EPC 1.11x
CTR 2.5x
EPM 2.71x
Sat. April 3
EPC 1.32x
CTR 1.17x
EPM 1.54x
Sun. April 4
EPC 0.54x
CTR 0.42x
EPM 0.21x
I had two days up and two days down.
Now I'll compare those same four days to my March averages.
Apr. 1
EPC 0.96x
CTR 0.85x
EPM 0.80x
Apr. 2
EPC 1.58x
CTR 2.13x
EPM 3.25x
Apr. 3
EPC 1.88x
CTR 0.99x
EPM 1.85x
Apr. 4
EPC 0.77x
CTR 0.35x
EPM 0.25x
Two up, two down. My average for the four days is up compared to March.
EPC 1.42x
CTR 1.01x
EPM 1.41x
They are also up compared to my all-time average.
That said, four days worth of data isn't statistically significant, so I don't feel comfortable drawing any conclusions yet.
