Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I found out that sometimes blocking the sites actually bring down the eCPM and CTR. Many times it happened that when i removed some of the sites from block list my eCPM and CTR went back to normal.
Now to my latest observation.
When I try to find out the sites through google adsense preview tool i get the urls of the advertisers.I tried to block only those advertisers whose URLs contained some kind of tracking mechanism.
Meaning the I blocked URLs such as http://example.com/track.asp?q=google or something similar. I did not block the straight forward URLs. And then PHEW. The results were very good. eCPM rose to more than 40% and CTR by 30%.
Now my question is
1)Do you agree with my conclusion that those advertisers who are tracking the clicks coming from google on their site are paying much less than those who are not.
2)By blocking only these advertisers may boost your revenue with same no of impressions?
Please give me your opinions on this.
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:42 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Examplified URLs. Added Paragraph Breaks. [/edit] [/edit][/1]
tried to block only those advertisers whose URLs contained some kind of tracking
You know that you may fill up your 200 allowed listings this way, one advertiser could have limitless urls, best block by domain advertiserwebsite.com
Is tracking url related to low pay?
I don't think there is any relation between tracking url and low pay, large and small, high paying and bottom feeders could use tacking urls.
This thread might be interesting to you
[webmasterworld.com...]
You know that you may fill up your 200 allowed listings this way, one advertiser could have limitless urls, best block by domain advertiserwebsite.com
Anyway thanks.
Any other opinions.
there's no particular relationship between the URL and the bid amount. I don't even know why you'd hypothesize there would be one
What I am trying to find out is
1)If there is no tracking URL like http://www.example.com?q=google then are these genuine advertisers which are having certain product of their own.
2)As far as MFA advertisers are concerned or some portal advertisers they are trying to keep their CPC to minimum so as to get maximum benefit from the click.
In case of genuine advertiser this is not the case as he can spend even say $1 to get one click because he is going to sell his product.
Ofcourse my experience is limited to the industrial products to which my site belongs to.
So in my site when i see advertisers who are manufacturers of industrial products (I check actual websites of advertisers quite frequently through preview tool) there is a chance that these people have simple url like http://example.com/product.htm
Where as if I found some portal or MFA sites 8 out of 10 times they have some kind of URL like http://example.com?q=google etc.
And ofcourse i am not saying that this is THE rule but there are chances that people who are genuine advertisers (Manufacturers in my case) are having better CPC rates and simpler URLs compare to those who are really professional in this adsense and adwords game.
What i hypothesize is that there could be a link between the simple url with genuine advertiser and complex url with MFAs or not so much genuine advertiser. (Again this could be limited to some particular products or industry)
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:43 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] example.com is the standard for examples. Thanks. :) [/edit] [/edit][/1]
I don't think you can (or should) try to guess what sites are low paying and block them. Firstly, I've found on my site that sometimes Google chooses to pay peanuts for advertisers that otherwise pay well if Google feels that the click isn't one that will convert. By blocking that advertiser on the basis of a couple of low clicks, I'm blocking all the $2 clicks from that advertiser as well. And believe it or not, blocking genuine advertisers is only going to let a lesser paying advertiser (maybe an MFA) occupy the space. It's bad enough that Google replace decent ads for MFA's without us doing it for them!
Genuine MFA's do not apply to the above, and I'd advise you to only block persistant MFA's that you see on your site. I personally don't block them the first time I see them as often they don't get shown again anyway. I don't block every mis-targeted ad for the same reason - they are frequently only shown the once. Nor do I block on the basis of what the preview tool says - It is a sample of ads, and not necessarily ads that ever have been, or ever will be shown on your site.
To me, an MFA is a site that exists only for the purposes of adsense arbitrage. Genuine sites I will always leave on the site, even if they are slightly poorly targeted. In my early days of blocking, I found out that you can go too far with blocking. Therefore I adopt a very conservative stance with blocking, and to be honest that's what works for me.
If I am a savvy webmaster, would I attempt to track my source of various advertisers for the landing page, to monitor success and cost?
If I am a new or unseasoned webmaster, would I have multiple advertising venues and attempt to track them in such detail?
So, the theory goes -
* unseasoned webmasters will have fewer advertising venues, and
* are less likely to track individual advertising campaigns,
therefore
advertisement URLs with tracking suffixes tend to come from more seasoned webmasters, who can not just track but optimize pricing costs (and in turn payout prices) to their benefit.
I think this would be a weak causation since we know of URL rewrites, dedicated landing pages and such. But... who knows?
Which begs the next question, what are the trends within URLs for advertisements?
This might be industry specific too...
[edited by: Tapolyai at 8:18 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
agree,
because I prefer my pages to have ads from seasoned advertisers that know how to write good ad copy that convets well on their seasoned sites and earning us all a whole lot more than an unseasoned advetiser trying her luck on a $100 per month budget. I'd choose the mega campaign manager any day of the week, but who said we have a choice in the first place!
[edited by: Hobbs at 8:27 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
None of these sites are MFA, none have any advertising on them at all other than for the clients who own the sites.
So in theory, you'd be blocking out my expensive clicks, and I'm sure there are others like me.
The problem is that AdSense has been ticking over successfully for years, and there just aren't that many suckers out there. People bid aggressively because they can make a profit doing so, not because they're newbies who don't understand how to tell whether their business is profitable or not.
And now compare this with this
<SNIP>
This is to my understanding is MFA site.
In this URL check out this <SNIP>
I translate it this way that
1)This site webmaster knows google adwords in and out
2)He is keeping a track of each and every click coming from google and to my knowledge its much obvious that he is going to pay very less as his site do not have anything else other than adsense ads and some article like information.
Hobbs
I prefer my pages to have ads from seasoned advertisers that know how to write good ad copy that convets well on their seasoned sites and earning us all a whole lot more than an unseasoned advetiser trying her luck on a $100 per month budget. I'd choose the mega campaign manager any day of the week, but who said we have a choice in the first place!
I fully agree with hobbs that we do not have choice. But then we are thinking because we do not have direct choice.
Even i would like to have good seasoned advertiser on my site but here i am talking about MFA site advertisers and not good campaign manager. As i said earlier i checked the actual website many times and from that i came to this hypothesis that there is a possibility of this happening.
Which begs the next question, what are the trends within URLs for advertisements?
Now any experienced webmaster will understand the difference in these two.
Again let me repeat that I do not come to the conclusion immediately as soon as i see URL. But then looking at URL with tracking code is a good starting point to the suspicious sites.
Quite honestly I really don't think that blocking url's in this way is going to help. You said at the top of post 1 that sometimes blocking decreases earnings
All the folks please try to understand that this is one of my many ways of trying to block the MFAs and not seasoned advertisers (Hobbs)and (Netmeg) working for the actual companies.
[edited by: martinibuster at 7:17 am (utc) on July 29, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit] [/edit][/1]
Looking at the URL's though I'd agree that the first one is clearly a genuine site, and the second I would personally class as an MFA because it is purely short articles taken from elsewhere on the net designed to play the arbitrage game (though better than some are to be honest). Therefore my way of dealing with this is to look at the sites landing pages and block based on what I thought of them, rather than what the URL contains. If the site is of use to your visitors, then it should stay. If it's clearly an arbitrage game ad, then it's unlikely to offer anything to your visitors so block it. Unfortunately, as we only have a limit of 200 you might have to decide on what ones are the worst offenders and block them only.
BTW, thanks for saying I had a balanced view. I'm generally the rabid loony in the corner foaming at the mouth and dribbling a lot ;)
