Is there any way to filter low paying ads?

[mydomainoffer]

Is there any way to filter low paying ads?

[mzanzig]

You can use the competitive filter to filter ads. The big question, though, is: Which are the low paying ads?

(Answer: Only Google knows, and they won't tell you. If you want to find out anyway, it's quite difficult and almost impossible unless you have little traffic and a channel for each page/ad and a click-tracker installed.)

[jchampliaud]

Is there any way to filter low paying ads?

Just because an ad is low paying today doesn't mean it can't be high paying tomorrow.

[europeforvisitors]

Q. If you filter low-paying ads, what will they be replaced with?

A. Not higher-paying ads, and probably even lower-paying ads.

[eflouret]

Frankly, this low paying ads filtering thing is driving me nuts.

Google clearly states that the ads being shown on your page are the highest paying ads for that page.

So, if you start filtering ads that are showing on your site, you will be giving place for lower paying ads.

The only reason for filtering ads is to prevent unwanted ads (unrelated or competitors, for example) from displaying on your page.

If you wanted higher paying ads, you should modify the content of your page (although more factors than that are involved) to trigger different ads.

Also, if you add more adsense blocks on your page, then you will be showing lower paying ads on those blocks. You either can remove those extra blocks to prevent your visitors to click on lower paying ads, or you can place them in locations that don't compete with the highest paying ads, which are shown in the first block rendered by the browser.

Can anybody tell me once for all if I'm wrong? I keep hearing this filtering thing everywhere and nobody can explain why filtering ads would eliminate low paying ads.

Thanks.

[norbiu]

I tried filtering with #*$!. It generates a list of URLs which are related to your website. To tell you the truth, I still haven't noticed a PPC increase.

My PPC dropped from last year from .35 - .40 to .10 - .15. And yes, I'm desperate :)

[matrix_neo]

The better option is to optimise your pages to serve better paying ads. It is nothing to do with google.

[jason207]

well adsense delivers the best converting ad not the highest bid, an add paying 10 cents clicked 20 times actually pays more than an add that pays a 1.00 and is clicked once. In adwords as your ads/keywords gain positive history your cost per click goes down. So every ad has the potiental to become a low bidding ad.

what i am seeing lately on the adsense side seems to be alot is riding on the user, where they are from, how they got there, from where they came, possibly even click and conversion history. They have a good base of what a user does and who they are, and if i had access to that data, i would be trying to use it somehow and its a safe bet g is smarter than me.

on the adwords side, i have noticed my cost per click going steadily down the past few months on content, a new 2-3 cent bid can get alot of coverage fast when it used to be 5-8 cents to get rolling. Interestingly site targeted ppc seems to cost more. Also geo-targetting looks to be promising, though im not sure of the accuracy, you can get targetted to quite specific places not just countries.

What i would deduce is the google is trying to take away the ability for a publisher to influence the system outside of creating good content. Which isnt a bad thing really, while gone are the days of reprinting a personal injury attorney story from an article site, getting the crumbs from badly managed campaigns and in the process running off advertisers. We have the era of more and more advertiser control allowing campaigns that bypass the shady side of the content network and reward the good sites by directing more of their budgets to those good sites. if a company was spending a 100 bucks a day, but half was going to sites they didnt want it to, now that company can dump the whole 100 into the good sites, and as a site converts, they are just going to spend more on that site. thus g and the publisher are making more money and g has a person out telling others how great adwords are. The way i see it most low bidding ads i get paid for are probaly an advertiser that wouldnt be an advertiser if the bid wasn't a few pennies.

[eflouret]

Jason207 said: "... well adsense delivers the best converting ad not the highest bid, an add paying 10 cents clicked 20 times actually pays more than an add that pays a 1.00 and is clicked once..."

So, one way or another, Google is showing the best (paying/converting) ads for your page.

In theory, filtering those ads will result in lower paying/converting ads being shown.

Then, why I keep on reading posts and articles about webmasters who increased their earnings by filtering lower paying ads?

[jason207]

Then, why I keep on reading posts and articles about webmasters who increased their earnings by filtering lower paying ads?

same reason i see posts and articles about people dumping their filter and raising earnings, since there is no hard data to analyze its all guesses, say you clear your filter, a day or so later, a certain datacenter raises your ranking on a long tail result say from 12 to 9 and drops you on another from 9-12 so traffic levels may appear the same, but the "keywords" may have drastically different values, causing ecpm and per click price to change up or down just as drastically. Or another scenerio could be geo-targetting, a datacenter difference between regions can bring in or exclude advertisers and change their bids up or down. the publisher not being able to see the whole picture assumes it was their change that made the difference, not one of a million other varibles or a combination of those varibles. and sometimes its actually the list, blocked ads can force fresh ones to show to cure ad blindness on regular visitors, and an emptied list sets loose a bunch of dynamically inserted keyword ads, that generate clicks out of humor.

I think g is basically trying to force the publisher to worry about creating content and not gaming the system, and the one thing you can't fake at all is users and user history. with the clickbot a thing, it appears that can tell if its compromised machine clicking, and they don't have to be 100%, this user has gmail, the toolbar, desktop and g has been "tracking" their data for awhile and can target ads to their behavior and location pretty accurately and thus they can charge premium prices for this user's clicks as they know it will be legit and can offer advertisers widget enthusists in widgetville only. no g toolbar etc, no real search history , or whatever other flags they want to use, eh better safe than sorry better discount what this user is doing. Or it could be a gang of monkeys in the plex who randomly hit buttons to determine a clicks worth.

Point is google has made a system that no one will probaly be able to figure out all that is going on(im not sure that even they know 100%) and instead of trying to game the system publishers are better off creating new content to put ads on. more new content == better internet && more ads == more money. In the long run everyone makes out, users get a better interent, advertisers and publishers make more money, google gets their piece of the pie, the branding plus even more priceless data to use elsewhere.

[inactivist]

Then, why I keep on reading posts and articles about webmasters who increased their earnings by filtering lower paying ads?

Correlation is not causation. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.