Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It is 2 by default plus two each for each empty slot in a four ad skyscraper.
-gs
Yes I know, silly question, blame it on the heat
Shak
Nope, it's more than that; I had four related searches even though the skyscraper was full.
Someone can't count.
Your assumption is correct. That's what upsets me. They are showing related search links for free - and directly competing with the related search links that I get paid for (per click) by another search engine affiliate.
In addition to that, they are seducing readers away from my site with related searches, when I get paid by the impression (and therefore page view) by other affiliates.
I wouldn't mind them taking my readers elsewhere - providing they pay for that service, just as any advertiser must do.
Content sites probably dont mind as much, sites that are trying to sell you something probably do mind.
all my sites are content sites and I do mind placing "Related searches" links in the banners. This is the one and certain way to lose readers for ever - they just go to related searches, find another sites with similar content and never come back to my sites....
it is immoral and evil that Google does not provide a way to switch these related searches off!
if they are so similar in that one can completely replace yours, then why do both sites exist? Surely one is a complete waste of space?
This would be little concern if either your site is the best in the field or by its unique style and content in a very specific niche. Being precoius about competing sites is no long term strategy. People will find them anyway if they are any good. If they come back, you now have a reader with more loyalty. If they dont come back, you must improve your site or they never were really a good fit for your niche/offering anyway.
If they come back, you now have a reader with more loyalty. If they dont come back, you must imporve your site or they never were really a good fit for your niche anyway.
NS
I am not the only webmaster improving my site. You must remember that every webmaster who knows his craft will strive to build a better site.
I dont claim to be the best although I hope to be.
So competetion exists and will always exist.
You cant guarentee that you will be number one always in the SERPs or in quality.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
My point was that almost all serious buyers or enthusiasts in an area will know your competitors anyway. Search engines make that easy on the web, as do discussion boards and PPC, linking and the open nature of the web. Being precious or shy about them is probably not worth spending much time over. The best brands in the world INVITE prospective customers to have a look at the competition and compare, but in the end usually focus on what is UNIQUE about their brand benefits compared to others through positioning.
This is traffic extraction 101 folks, very underhanded and despite what Google may say they knew exactly what they where doing when they did this.
This is Google taking advantage of webmasters beyond any other slimey network ive seen in the last 4 years. My sites are now extensions of Google basically. laff.
Anyone remember what killed AltaVista? MS/Yahoo/OT is on the way and G knows it. This is a attempt to take millions of websites and turn them into extensions of Googles Search.
Heck Bill would be proud of this, this is why I am so ticked right now, I so respected Google...
Dazed
I like the way you put across your words.
I agree that we were getting an easy ride with adsense. Just launch a new site and start earning.
I guess, it is back to basics now. Good old fashioned way to doing a business.
Work hard, Build great websites and the money will come.
Off to adding fresh content to my sites :-)
What happens if the brand name related search has sent a site a C&D for using their name? Will google be responsable for the trouble? Publishers need the ability to remove related searches.
[edited by: korkus2000 at 12:56 pm (utc) on Aug. 7, 2003]
To keep people using their search even when the people are not directly thinking about it is worth a price.
The way I see it is all they have to do is pay publishers and webmasters and small fee when someone clicks on these links and almost everyone will be happy.
Would anyone be that upset if you were making money on these as well as the ads?
Dig around the posts on this topic, there are many examples of both.
I would add Adsense to even more pages on my site if Google would PAY me to advertise for them. One of the reasons I don't wear Designer Labels is that I'm not giving away free advertising to anyone.
This for many teaches people to search as well as other things so if you were doing well on a search for X because the user did not know to search for Xy then you could also end up losing future eyeballs and revenue.
I would opt out even if they pay. I am not a search engine so related searches are of no interest to me at all.
I am assuming that NO payment is due to the webmaster/publisher when a user clicks on the related searches and is taken to Google results page.
This is the root of all evil in the perspective of a content-related sites. AdSense is made for content sites, so competition is out of question.
I would think, Google might give some % of bucks made from the clicks on the Ads displayed in the SERPS, when someone clicks on related searches, since your site is response for making the user go to the google SERPS, thereby clicking on a Ad shown in that page. This would be a win-win situation for google-publishers-advertisers. More searches and branding for google, better visibility for advertisers and some bucks for webmasters for making a good site that a user visits as well as, users gaining confidence in your site, rather than getting annoying utterly unrelevant ads and pop-ups and other sleazy techniques.
I agree very much to the GG's idea of trying to reduce banner blindness. I use to COMPLETELY ignore all the Ads in any websites, before AdSense. Now i try to see for text ads that are relevant.
Since Google in the past is highly rational, i would think there would be some form of benefit made for publishers when anything from your site is clicked for google.
One thing for sure, G is trying to make Ads as useful as search results, and i always thought that is how Ads should be :-)
Lets hope so. Adsense is a one helluva idea that G wont spoil it that easily and turn webmasters against them. Patience :)
Just a thought.
If Google wanted to level the playing field they could serve up those related searches with no Adwords showing on the related serps.
Not really. Just getting people to use Google makes them $$ over the long term.
Okay, here it is :) They could move your PR up or better yet give you better rankings in search for using the Related Searches...
Surely "related searches" or "other people who searched for X also searched for Y" options would be much more useful on actual search results, rather than on static pages where the meaning of "Related Searches" may not even be clear.
Couldn't have said it any better.
Still to heck with loss of clicks and generated revenue, I might just dump them on a bunch of test pages to mine some good related search phrases.
1. If a webmaster refers a visitor to a Google SERP, and that visitor clicks on an AdWords ad, the webmaster should get a kickback.
2. Make Related Searches optional. If they are indeed profitable, webmasters will surely turn them on.
Tom
Google - You have been invincible atleast untill now. Kindly don't make wrong moves like these.
If Google insists on having the related searches forever, it would be like 'One step forward and two steps backward' for those publishers who still intend to stay with adsense.
Bad news spreads thick and fast!
Don't tell me this is the Beginning of the End!
1. If a webmaster refers a visitor to a Google SERP, and that visitor clicks on an AdWords ad, the webmaster should get a kickback.2. Make Related Searches optional. If they are indeed profitable, webmasters will surely turn them on.
That sounds quite reasonable to me.But technically the first option could be quite complex to handle, right? may be they could pull it off!?
However, the first thing they should do is make the Related Searches optional.
Competetion must have been Just waiting for such a moment - Google making a mistake like this.
AdSense certainly will be vulnerable to competition now that it's paved the way for (and built credibility for) contextual text ads. I can envision a very real opportunity for a targeted text-ad network that focuses on the most profitable subject categories (travel, computers, finance, etc.) and lets advertisers buy ads on handpicked content sites. (Think AdSense without the spidering technology, but owned by a targeted ad network like Tribal Fusion.)
IMHO, AdSense has two weaknesses that compromise its appeal to advertisers on the one hand and publishers on the other:
1) Google isn't very selective about the kinds of sites that run AdSense ads, and that's likely to make some advertisers (especially corporate advertisers) uncomfortable.
2) Google relies entirely on technology for targeting of ads, and--as we've all seen--Google's quest for scaleability has been at the expense of fully reliable matches between ads and content.
A targeted text-ad network that used only selected sites wouldn't have to rely on scaleable technology for ad matching: It could let publishers supply relevant themes and keywords for each page via special meta tags or a "publisher control console." This would work well for information sites with "evergreen" content where the effort to supply keywords for, say, a few hundred or a few thousand static pages would be rewarded by higher CTRs and revenues day after day, month after month, and (in some cases) year after year.
Such an ad network wouldn't have to be huge to be successful. It could do very well in a limited number of high-profit niches, simply by cherry-picking the best and/or biggest content sites in those niches and approaching the kinds of advertisers who are bidding on Overture and Google keywords.
