Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Revenue from WebSearch ads may be offset at the end of the month by fees applicable to WebSearch.
How did I miss mention of fees when reading the TOS/overview?
Edit: the same clause appears in the revised TOS, with no further mention of the word fee other than for returned checks or cancelled payments. No mention in the FAQ, nor the program policies.
ASA, what fees?
google is starting this one off on the right foot.
If a publisher is generating a large amount of searches, but is getting a small number of clicks, Google will cover some of this cost with a fee to be deducted at the end of the month.
Large amount? Small number?
Actual numbers or a minimum CTR would be appreciated if possible.
Now, you might want to strongly suggest that the WebSearch faq be changed because, in fact, the words "The program is free," are, beyond misleading, factually incorrect.
And you know, that "may have an" undisclosed "amount deducted" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. To me, it makes Google appear like one of those fly-by-night companies that I've all learned not to do business with.
A bit of transparency -- as heralded in the IPO filing -- in doing business with publishers would go a long way.
Strategically very Good Move by Google including WebSearch in Adsense.I am sure google is on the verge of becoming the gigantic Search Engine (distributed search engine) from giant standalone search engine.
However, few minor points to make this move to be win-win for all.
1.Making a rule saying that if a publisher is generating more searches then clicks we would charge you is a broad statement,a specific measurable "more" needs to be defined.
2.Charging a certain fee is good but if it could be like , a publisher falls below 0.x% CTR(like in adwords 0.5%) then warning stating that your generating more searches then clicks in adsense search performance tab may be alot more helpful.After all I am sure you also saying that it's very small percentage of people who might fall below this, then may be making this CTR obvious would be lot more better and it will atleast stop this mass speculation of "google is charging us for WebSearch".
Aravind
I say so what if Google charges for web searches? They SHOULD - by having it on your site you are providing a valuable service to your visitors. If your visitors aren't clicking any ads then why should Google be obligated to continue to provide a service to you for free? If you don't like the rules, don't use WebSearch. Pretty simple.
If you don't like the rules, don't use WebSearch. Pretty simple.
Can't argue with that at all. And, until Google fully discloses exactly what the rules are, I ain't using WebSearch.
But IMO the charge for searches is badly implemented. First of all, it should be transparent. I don't see any reason whatsoever the details can't be published. It's unfair to expect publishers to participate in a programs for up to a month before finding out how much the clawback will be.
Second, it's "bad optics" as they say to show earnings in your reports that isn't the publisher's money to keep. This charge could just as easily have been incorporated into the revenue share algorithm.
I think it's fair to say the program is free. What does it cost you to join or to use it? Zero. That's free in my book.
Must disagree as it does cost. It costs as pointed out in this thread: [webmasterworld.com...]
Plus until the actual numbers of how many searches and clicks etc are required before you start having to pay an also undeclared amount in fees - it is costing everyone.
I am amaxed to be honest by how many seemingly large sites have not had a search system on their site. We have tens of thousands of pages and even I need our search engine to find stuff, plus we frequently link from one page to a direct search page to help our users find info on a particular subject, something you cannot do at present with this system.
I would have to ask why any significant or large site has not yet implemented its own SE.
Sure seems to me this one was rushed out of the plex without a lot of preparation including the code issues.
AdSense was launched without sufficient preparation, too. That's just the nature of the Internet business. Because things can be fixed without waiting a year or two for version 2.0 to be released, there's a tendency to release products when they're only 95% ready and fix them on the fly.
What does it cost you to join or to use it? Zero. That's free in my book.
To join is free.
To use it? Nobody knows until some undisclosed fees are -- or are not -- applied. There's no way to know going in.
To use it? Nobody knows until some undisclosed fees are -- or are not -- applied. There's no way to know going in.
AdSenseAdvisor has already said that any fees charged to low-performing publishers would never exceed the search revenues of their sites. So AdSense search is free.
Granted, a few publishers won't get net revenues from AdSense search, but that doesn't mean the service isn't free.
It costs control over your own site searches and whatever fees there may well be.
Fees of any sort means it is not free.
ADDED IN
It is not that difficult for webmasters to set up a se on their site and include AdSense in that. There are no fees for that so unless this websearch facility is paying more than AdSense it could cost a lot.
I still contend that -- to be absoltutely transparent -- fees of any sort should be disclosed in the faq. As it reads now it is incomplete, misleading and just simply not good business practice. Maybe one of G's lawyers should put another eyeball on it.
And, if there are fees, what the heck are they? Talk about buying a pig in a poke. It's impossible to answer the question, "Can this a be viable, somewhat profitable solution for my site?"
Well, it's too pretty a day here to get too caught up in this. Think a few hours of R&R are in order.
I think it's fair to say the program is free. What does it cost you to join or to use it? Zero. That's free in my book.
I'll sell you a car, it will be free at first but you have to make payments that i will not tell you the amount until they are due.
AdSenseAdvisor has already said that any fees charged to low-performing publishers would never exceed the search revenues of their sites. So AdSense search is free.
What on earth is the point of using a system where you expect to make money if you do not? You seem to indicate that the overall results of the program are up in the air depending on what the fees are.
A site search with adsense is free, as it costs nothing to operate on the publishers end, except of course processing power, and if you are being charged for processing power or do not have any to spare on your own server i think that is worth being addressed first.
People have the option of using a site search with many beneifits outlined in other threads, or this program where you are charged an undisclosed amount and have no sense of profit whatsoever until after "Fees" are deducted.
You have no idea if your site will fall into the low performing category. Adsense has not outlined what that means, or what the fees will be. It is possible you may think you are doing well and violla, end of the month comes and all your earnings are taxed by google to allow them to promote their brandname and make money of advertisers while you send them your traffic.
AdSense was launched without sufficient preparation, too. That's just the nature of the Internet business. Because things can be fixed without waiting a year or two for version 2.0 to be released, there's a tendency to release products when they're only 95% ready and fix them on the fly.
This program does have a lot of issues that should have been addressed. The above statement is simply stupid. Code issues and payment terms should have been layed out right from the start.
I am not sure what internet you are using pal, but products that are poorly organized and contain bad code are just garbage. This falls into that group of garbage.
Above the technical issues with this program, the simple method it uses to send traffic to google.com, tack ads all over the page despite often limited search results, and pay out a very low EPC. I stated this when we were all talking about this weeks ago, that EPC would be very low to cover the cost of searches. This is the case, but now in addition to low EPC, google hangs the possibility that your earnings will be further reduced at the end of the month. It certainly is worse than i thought it would be.
There is a tendency for poor companies to introduce things before they are done. Next time I see my father (a surgeon) I am going to ask him to just replace half of a hip and fix the rest "on the fly".
That will go down as one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
I will say one thing for google. They may have the hightest concentration of phd's on the planet but they need to substitute at least one of them for someone who knows something about customer relations, pr and the "human" side of things.
added: and the undisclosed fee, together with the undisclosed AdSense payments per se is another slice of arrogance on their part that will jump up and bite them on the arse in the years to come. Webmasters are like elephants...we never forget.
This program does have a lot of issues that should have been addressed. The above statement is simply stupid.
?
Too much whining
This program is new, not available anywhere as far as I know. There are not much data to set up all concrete rules so it goes by trial-and-error approach. I will try something new as long as it did not cost me a cent. If you don’t like it, just wait and see. Don’t write too much garbage.
Some of you might have a reason to be upset if Google had banned AdSense ads from search-results pages at the same AdSense Search was introduced. But Google didn't do that, so why get worked up? Use it or don't. It's your choice.
BTW, some of us don't generate a lot of internal search traffic, so it makes perfect sense to outsource search to Google and make a few bucks in the process. (As the editor and publisher of a content site, I find it much more productive to write new articles than to play around with search scripts or use third-party solutions that don't work as well as Google and aren't as familiar to readers. If your situation is different, then by all means use the solution that works best for you. But don't assume that what's best for you is also best for everyone else.)
If you don’t like it, just wait and see.
I agree, with a few tweaks I'm sure it will be a good thing for us.
BTW, some of us don't generate a lot of internal search traffic, so it makes perfect sense to outsource search to Google and make a few bucks in the process. (As the editor and publisher of a content site, I find it much more productive to write new articles than to play around with search scripts or use third-party solutions that don't work as well as Google and aren't as familiar to readers. If your situation is different, then by all means use the solution that works best for you. But don't assume that what's best for you is also best for everyone else.)
A few things,
How does it make more sense to outsource a search and make probubly less than could be made with a site search? Small sites would also have less PR I would think, and as a result googlebot would come around less, making it take a lot longer to get new pages in a google search, maybe a couple weeks in some cases.
So, How can this be benefical for small sites? You have the potential to make less while having a hard time getting pages in the index in a timely manner.?!?
As far as "not wasting time playing around with search scripts and writting content......." You seem to spend a heck of a lot of time writting content for webmasterworld FOR FREE. You are not getting paid to write here, so why not use some of that time to configure a site search? I don't know why anyone would think it would take such a long time, as hundreds of free solutions are available on various script sites that you jsut drop in and configure a few lines, and you are done. A 10,000 page site can be configured with a search tool in a manner of a couple of hours. I think lots of us spend more time here during a week than just a couple hours!
It is not that I do not think this solution is not good for many types of publishers, it is that I know it is not. The program as a whole is flawed as a means of providing a search feature where you can earn revenue. Beyond that, I think that this program has implications that will negativly effect text based google ads in the future. Disadvantages have been discussed in length in other threads including this one.
The time it takes small sites to screw around with this, and still not be able to customize it to even look like your site, a simple site search can be implemented with adsense, where you can be earning more per click (on avereage, various keywords will change that), not send traffic away to google, and build your brandname.
I still have not heard one good reason to use this product for any size site, small or large, I do see, however, tons of disadvantages.
As far as "not wasting time playing around with search scripts and writting content......." You seem to spend a heck of a lot of time writting content for webmasterworld FOR FREE.
You, too. You spend a lot more time venting anger about services that don't interest you, though. :-)
You are not getting paid to write here, so why not use some of that time to configure a site search?
Because most of my readers don't use internal search. They didn't use internal search (or network-wide search) when I was part of About.com from 1997 to 2001, either. Different audiences behave in different ways.
I don't know why anyone would think it would take such a long time, as hundreds of free solutions are available on various script sites that you jsut drop in and configure a few lines, and you are done.
Yes, I know. I've used a couple. They weren't as useful to my readers as Google SiteSearch is. I get thousands of visitors a day through Google search, most of whom aren't technically savvy, so it makes sense to give them a search tool that makes them comfortable. And if they've come from Yahoo or MSN, so much the better: By introducing them to Google search (which has been very good to me), I'm doing myself a service.
FWIW, somebody here was complaining that Google SiteSearch doesn't update often enough. That certainly hasn't been my experience: New pages are usually in Google within 24 hours.
I still have not heard one good reason to use this product for any size site, small or large, I do see, however, tons of disadvantages.
Many of us obviously don't share your opinion (or your indignation). Again, different strokes for different folks. If you don't like it, don't use it. But why get mad at people who don't agree with you? Just because you don't like a product doesn't mean other people aren't entitled to make their own choices.
Analawalla wrote:
I think the conclusion is that WebSearch is for sites that are more interested in offering a search tool than in making money or keeping the visitors on their site.
Yes and no. I'm very interested in making money, and I make quite a bit of money--I just don't see much revenue potential in search for my audience, based on 8+ years of experience with content sites.
As for keeping visitors on one's site, that may be a topic of obsessive interest for many owners of affiliate and e-commerce sites, but it's far less of an issue for content sites (including Google, which wouldn't exist without free links to third-party sites).
Here's my stab at what they SHOULD have written:
Google reserves the right to adjust payments to Publishers based upon the CTR of their AdSense WebSearch searches on a monthly basis. This means that Google may, at its discretion, pay a higher percentage of advertisement share revenues to Publishers with particularly high search CTRs, and correspondingly pay less to those Publishers whose site visitors execute a large number of searches but click on very few AdWords ads.
Notice there's no "fee" mentioned in this? In contrast, it's in line with the way many affiliate programs work; publishers may get 90 cents per click for very high-converting traffic and 2 cents per click for very low converting traffic. Furthermore, with some affiliate programs, publishers' revenues may be zeroed out if conversions are poor enough.
Why couldn't Google simply do the same thing? If a publisher (perhaps suspected of fraud) has visitors making 4,102,385 search queries on his or her site in a month but only nets 12 AdWords clicks for Google, then I can totally understand Google paying out a very, very small (if any) CPC. That's not a fee. That's a sliding-scale / variable-percentage payout, which IMHO sounds a lot less ominous (and confusing) than a "fee."
What do you think?
