Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Prior to starting the blog, I had been blocking URL's for ads that appeared on my site and were misleading, MFA's, etc. out of a concern my visitors would become frustrated and not be as likely to click in the future.
The blog is getting good targeting, but it's revealing a number of misleading, MFA and related "junk" ads/URL's that I haven't seen before and thus weren't blocked.
There have been a few times when I've seen an entire skyscraper filled with ads of this type.
Trying to get rid of these ads really is like playing a game of whack-a-mole.
Sometimes I wonder if it's even worthwhile to bother with putting anything in the competitive filter.
FarmBoy
I have just decided that people aren't dumb and can see it is Google and not my personal recommendations on all the ads. Therefore, I have decided to leave them on there and let Google do its own thing and ruin its own reputation....I am quite frankly tired of running down those bad ads and have better things to do with my time.
Although I like Google and, money wise, they have been good to me but I do believe they can afford to hire some intelligent programmers to get rid of this stuff. Oh well, it's their foot and their gun so if they want to shoot themselves in the foot then I say more power to ya. My voice wouldn't count anyway...hasn't so far.
Ann
Have you went as far as clearing out your competitive ad filter?
My first choice is not to have these ads appear on my site.
Since that doesn't seem to be an option, I'm wondering if maybe the best approach might be to leave them alone, let them thrive and see if it drives up overall revenue.
FarmBoy
Yes, I have and the figures go back up...go figure
Do you mean your ctr and ecpm increased after clearing out your competitive ad filter?
I may have to try that myself.
Update edit:
Well, I just did it. I just turned out all the rabid, malnourished, lame, mange infested, etc. URL's. We'll see what happens.
FarmBoy
Ann, Same thing happened to be so in my first attempt I also cleared my filter. but couldn't take .01 ads so when again and added MFA's to my filter again.
Surely the earning went down but in a couple of days things started improving and I am happy I use MFA.
It is boring job but does pay to remove MFA.
Do you mean your ctr and ecpm increased after clearing out your competitive ad filter?I may have to try that myself.
Yes, but what happens if you run a maximum of one adblock per page and you see that the only ad(s) being advertised are MFAs?
Yes, but what happens if you run a maximum of one adblock per page and you see that the only ad(s) being advertised are MFAs?
That's a valid point, except that even if YOU see some MFA's and block them and then don't see others, that certainly isn't a guarantee that OTHER PEOPLE aren't seeing other MFA's when viewing your site.
My experience with the blog as I pointed out in the OP showed me there were a lot of MFA's out there for my content that I wasn't aware of. I thought I had them all blocked.
The bottom line is viewing your own site can give one a false "sense of security" as far as MFA's are concerned.
Another way to look at it is Google has a lot more information than I do and they don't seem to be concerned with someone having only one adblock per page and showing only MFA's. If Google isn't concerned, should I be concerned?
My initial reaction is "Yes" - but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm correct.
FarmBoy
I find it hard to believe that a visitor, so disgusted with landing on an MFA, would be less likely to visit your site in future.
I agree. But that's not my concern and I believe others have expressed another concern also.
Someone sees a link for "5 best widget sites", clicks and doesn't find a list of the 5 best widget sites. No big deal.
Later, he sees a link for "Compare lawnmower prices here", clicks and doesn't find lawnmower prices compared. A little frustration sets in.
Later, he sees a link for "Colorado Ski Trips", clicks and doesn't find information on Colorado Ski Trips. More frustration sets in.
The process continues.
The visitor may not get mad at the site owner and he many not use that as a reason not to visit the site again, but as a result he may become less likely to click advertising links at all, on my site or another site.
And as you found out, they've been paying your bills.
I don't know that I have made such a discovery. I've been blocking all that I found. I have no idea how much revenue was being generated by those I was yet to discover.
FarmBoy
My experience with the blog as I pointed out in the OP showed me there were a lot of MFA's out there for my content that I wasn't aware of. I thought I had them all blocked
Yes I agree, however as many MFA's might come and go, the big players do not and there are certainly more than 200 of them.
Another way to look at it is Google has a lot more information than I do and they don't seem to be concerned with someone having only one adblock per page and showing only MFA's. If Google isn't concerned, should I be concerned
Yes, but what does that information hold? google knows something that we don't. Is it:
MFAs provides more ad inventory thus more revenue to the honest publisher?
or
MFA's should remain in the equation because in the scheme of things they are are often both advertisers and publishers? A good source of double or tripple dipping perhaps? With a self perpetuating path going from MFA advertiser > Honest Publisher > MFA publisher > Possibly another MFA etc etc etc?
Anyway, MFA isn't exactly the end of the world.
They're content-poor, but otherwise 'mostly harmless'. And as you found out, they've been paying your bills.
I don't know if you have read many of the previous posts in this forum but those where your last two points have been a source of contention.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 2:00 am (utc) on April 4, 2007]
Does this mean MFA's are consistently outbidding "legit" advertisers?
FarmBoy
Does this mean MFA's are consistently outbidding "legit" advertisers?
Thats a good question that might present a paradoxical reality if true. On one hand for lots of publishers, purging the URL filter leads to a spate of MFAs and a subsequent drop in earnings, while on the other hand they must be theoretically outbidding "legit" advertisers since their ads are the ones on display - often in the top or sole spot!
That also challenges the conventional line that Google always strives to show the highest paying ads first. If that was the case, then why is it that when a site gets overrun with MFAs, in most cases its earnings also seem to drop at the same time?
That question also has for its minor premise an assumed notion of such a thing as "legit" advertisers. Could it be that the lion's share of legit (or best paying...) advertisers are in the search network anyways? Could it be that ridding the content network of MFAs would markedly reduce Google's ad inventory?
Since clearing out my filter a few hours ago, I'm seeing MFA's all over my pages.
Funny about that.
Isn't it always the case? You unblock an MFA (in my case out of desperation to juggle filter space)and it's back in circulation within a couple of hours. Yet when you block an MFA it takes up to 48 hours to stop appearing and in some cases surfaces again weeks later.
If that was the case, then why is it that when a site gets overrun with MFAs, in most cases its earnings also seem to drop at the same time?
Is that an established fact? I seem to have read some reports of increased earnings after clearing out a filter and allowing MFA's to run free.
As for my own test, I'll have to let some time pass to know.
That question also has for its minor premise an assumed notion of such a thing as "legit" advertisers. Could it be that the lion's share of legit (or best paying...) advertisers are in the search network anyways?
That's certainly possible.
But I saw a lot of relevant legit advertisers on my sites (content network) and now they are gone since I have unleashed MFA's. That leads me to believe the MFA's are outbidding the legit advertisers who are on the content network.
FarmBoy
Surely visitors aren't going to blame you for where the ad takes them
Very untrue, they will resent your site for sending them there, and your ctr will suffer too.
I've experimented with blocking vs. clean filter for years, and my primary monitored metric is EPC, and on the longer run CTR.
My conclusion is that it does shock the system to once in a while clean your filter, EPC does see a short lived jump, and soon you will see everything in an even worse nose dive.
My advice is to keep a list of the most frequently blocked offenders close and always block those no matter what, experiment with others, but don't have high hopes for Google to sort this mess out anytime soon.
My advice is to keep a list of the most frequently blocked offenders close and always block those no matter what...
Is that the secret to high earnings? Is that working for you?
The answer is yes, and even if earnings dropped for a while when Google did an overnight algo change, I have the high traffic to sustain "high earnings", this is the experience from many years of testing and blocking MFA.
In theory, shouldn't that result in an almost immediate increase in my epc?
FarmBoy
My first choice is not to have these ads appear on my site.
This is one reason why I like AdLinks. At least the crappy ads show up on Google's site, as Google ads, not on mine.
If you can't use AdLinks, removing ad blocks from three to two or one also reduces or minimizes MFAs, at least the ones which aren't bidding for top spot.
If Google took MFAs seriously, and the worst ("best" sites especially), it would set up a hotline (online version) to report/flag them, just like most blogs/craigslist/whatever.
Not solving the MFA problem is evil. Don't be evil, Google!
p/g
If Google optimizes in this situation, it may make sense to send ALL of the high price advertiser's ads to Site A, since it has no other inventory to deliver there. All of the MFA inventory can go to site B. Total revenue is maximized, but Site B revenue isn't maximized since it got none of the high priced clicks.
That's a really exaggerated hypothetical, but it suggests a mechanism in which sometimes blocking low-quality ads may increase revenue despite Google's optimization algorithm.
Is that an established fact? I seem to have read some reports of increased earnings after clearing out a filter and allowing MFA's to run free.
I never implied any knowlege of "established facts" here, since almost all of what we discuss here is speculative. But, empirically at least, it seems to me that a vast majority of publishers seem to report decreased earnings when purging their filters. I guess there are exceptions to every rule, and none of us know with any certainty what "rules" G applies to us.
Here's a scenario where blocking MFAs could increase eCPM, even though Google theoretically optimizes the ads for maximum revenue. Imagine there are two sites: Site A, that has blocked every MFA possible; Site B, that blocks nothing. Now imagine that there is an advertiser willing to pay a premium for clicks, but has a tight daily spending limit.If Google optimizes in this situation, it may make sense to send ALL of the high price advertiser's ads to Site A, since it has no other inventory to deliver there. All of the MFA inventory can go to site B. Total revenue is maximized, but Site B revenue isn't maximized since it got none of the high priced clicks.
Good analogy Rogerd, and it also relates to what I suggested above, that ridding the content network of MFAs could markedly reduce Google's ad inventory; having the largest ad inventory in content is what gives Google the competitive margin over other contextual advertisers, ie, Kanoodle, Yahoo, etc.
but Site B revenue isn't maximized since it got none of the high priced clicks.
That doesn't take into account CTR. There are myriad possible outcomes to your scenario Roger, and the one you cited is just one of many.
For instance, the high priced ads going to site A may have a lower CTR. So if site A has ads averaging forty cents per click getting clicked twenty times per day ($8), versus site B receiving 10 cent ringtone/whatever ads getting clicked 120 times a day ($12), which site is doing better?
Roger, you can take site A and B with the base values you assigned to them and come up with a variety of scenarios, all of them just as valid as the other. Difficult to champion one scenario over another.
First off, a disclaimer to note I have no business interests in so-called MFAs. I feel compelled to state this because there are always knuckleheads who like to wag their heads and cluck their tongues, insinuating these things (always indirectly), against anyone who disagrees with them. It's none of your damn business, but for the record, I have no vested interest in MFAs or ringtones or any of that. What I find annoying is the one knucklehead in the peanut gallery who is totally wrong by posting how revealing of personal interests these posts are. No, it's not revealing of anything except you're a knucklehead for thinking so. I'm looking at this dispassionately, without any personal interest in it at all.
From the posts on these boards, it just seems that the ones who complain most often about low earnings and MFAs are often also filling their filters to the max level, while also crowing that filling the filters jacks up their earnings by 20%. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to be up AND down at the same time. Something doesn't smell right to me.
From the posts on these boards, it just seems that the ones who complain most often about low earnings and MFAs are often also filling their filters to the max level, while also crowing that filling the filters jacks up their earnings by 20%. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to be up AND down at the same time. Something doesn't smell right to me.
What happens here in my case is that I have found that adding URLS of misleading MFAs to my filter seems to correlate with an almost immediate increase in earnings, but it only lasts for a while until a new crop of ones appear soon after. The problem is that everyday more and more MFAs are created, eventually exceeding the amount allowable by the 200 URL limit.
This has been said time and time again, but one way for us to better measure the effect of blocking MFAs is if Google would let us filter by advertiser.
if site A has ads averaging forty cents per click getting clicked twenty times per day ($8), versus site B receiving 10 cent ringtone/whatever ads getting clicked 120 times a day ($12), which site is doing better?
Site A will do better with repeat visitors that trust the site and click more on the long run than Site B who might see a temporary jump in earnings, and then get bit in the ass with both smart pricing when visitors press the back button, MFAs that don't report conversion, and visitors that will learn to avoid anything that resembles an AdSense ad block.
the ones who complain most often about low earnings and MFAs are often also filling their filters to the max level
You should know better than to make such wild generalizations, it is almost like you are labeling those that report downturns or block MFA as low earnings unworthy publishers? And your previous version before editing your post said they are MFA owners that complain most.
It is a disservice to new members to advocate against blocking, the least you can do is allow for members to exchange their opposing views without calling any of them low earners or MFA..
I remember when this was a friendlier place to argue and differ.
It is a disservice to new members to advocate against blocking, the least you can do is allow for members to exchange their opposing views...
Did I delete someone's post while I was asleep? hehe.
Look, I'm just stating my impression of the filter-fillers. I'm not saying that's the truth, just stating what it looks like from where I sit. No need to accuse me of restricting discussion because I happen to be exchanging an opposing view.
No need to accuse me of restricting discussion because I happen to be exchanging an opposing view
accuse you?
I am simply stating that generalizations and labeling is not constructive in any discussion.
Did I delete someone's post while I was asleep? hehe.
MB, as you are the moderator of this forum, I am unable to properly respond to your note of sarcasm for the second time without this thread getting closed, (first time was when you said "Is that the secret to high earnings" with insinuations.)
Suddenly this is becoming an alternate universe, and from your "knucklehead in the peanut gallery" post, I am sensing this has to do with more personal issues that I hope you sort out soon.
In general, I'm content to let Google's algorithm do its stuff. I block competing ads on some sites, and rarely an off-topic ad that I think might irritate my visitors, but I've never spent much time worrying about MFAs. I know Google wants to make the maximum amount of money, and their computers can keep track of a lot more ad variations across tens of thousands of pages than I can.
The irony is I also opened an AdWords account today and during the process there was a notation that my ads wouldn't start showing on the content network right away because they have to be reviewed. I don't know if that's sad or funny.
FarmBoy
