Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Tell me please why Google will allow free ringtones to target my keywords and write an ad lead in that fits my widget site perfectly? Until they click on it....And it is not just ringtones :(
Yesterday morning before daylight I took down four really bad ones and my income, ctr, and epcm took an immediate rise. Today I noticed around 3 pm they were trending down again. Just took the time to check them out and killed 11 more. WHERE THE HECK ARE THEY COMING FROM? Did someone let the crummy crawlies out of their cages?
Come on Google, tighten up on the advertisers for the content network.
Ann
But having said that, income going up and down is something we all accept and something I don't really moan about. My problem is when they target utter crap ads instead of real ones. Bearing in mind they DO have proper ads, and the site is currently number 2 in a google search for my main keywords I think poor targeting is bad practice and I don't mind telling them so! I recently removed all ads from my site for about a month for this very reason. Since restoring the ads slowly, targeting has improved until the last week or so.
Come on Google - what did you to to wreck the system this time? Go on, 'fess up!
I'm wondering why some have a problem with this and others don't.
Lots of reasons.
The more ads you show on any page, the more likely you'll get the fleas showing up.
The more legit ads that are "topical" the less likely you get flea'd.
Perhaps the most important is that the lower the amount you usually receive for a click on the page, the more likely you'll see fleas, since flea bids are at the bottom end.
And obviously flea MFA's target some sectors and topics and keywords more than others.
I don't fill up my pages with ads so that can't be the reason.
Mostly the issue I have about the ads is what Google is letting go through as legitimate. Ads that are perfectly targeted to my keywords, plus they have a nice read promising them more info or widgets or whatever BUT when clicked on does not have a single reference to my page subject---only in the ad. And THAT is getting worse.
Ann
Sorry Rbacal,I don't fill up my pages with ads so that can't be the reason.
Sorry back at you. I said "lots of reasons". You mentioned ONE. There are others I didn't mention.
Simple-mindedness (focusing on only one factor) won't get you very far.
Help me out tired of the bad ads 0.01 1 click and even saw three clicks and 0.00 revenue, can you believe it.
Any way you advice on this matter.
.info
.biz
about
etc....
However what happens is that google gives me a error message. Do I actually have to go these sites check if they are 1 page and then change them. I found a few
click4free.co.uk
dailywealth.com
Both one page ads so I put those in the filter, they said it takes a few hours to block, but yesterday I had 3 clicks and .20 and today 2 clicks and .70.
Help on the Filters
What you saw on page one is a form of filtering that would give the publishers more control than we currently have. Unfortunately, that's not how it currently works!
You must enter the offending URLs (as they are identified with the Preview Tool) into the filter in the 'nnnnn.nnn' format. Anything before or after is unimportant. If the URL you wanted to block was http://www.example.com/stuff/stuff.html, you would enter 'example.com' into the filter.
If the ads you are seeing in the Preview Tool are obviously offensive or plain bad targeting you can simply enter them without checking, however, in order to prevent blocking a real advertiser you should check the site (again, with the Preview Tool) by visiting it.
A good place to start might be with these:
ebay.at
ebay.be
ebay.ca
ebay.ch
ebay.co.uk
ebay.com
ebay.com.au
ebay.com.cn
ebay.de
ebay.es
ebay.fr
ebay.it
ebay.nl
tw.ebay.com
yahoo.com
Be aware, however, that not every ad you see in the Preview Tool will necessarily be shown... so try to use the tool to track down only those ads you've seen or your filter may fill up pretty quickly.
Also, if you've got ads that are earning you $0.70 with just two clicks, I can't imagine that you'd want to block them... unless, I guess, they were offensive and/or misleading.
Chapman