Forum Moderators: martinibuster
as a result, my ctr dropped one percent and so my earnings are worse than normal.
sorry, but wasn't that predictable? less eye-catching link text = less clicks. that's the logic behind it, isn't it?
why do they do this, this is annoying..
did anyone of you notice that, too?
:-)
Because they can.
No I havn't seen it, but you just gave me somone to blame if the CTR drops today. Thanks!
i still wonder why it should make sense to implement a new low profile text style? maybe it looks slightly more attractive from a design aspect, although i can't say that the text ads looked ugly before let alone did trick people into accidently clicking.
from an earnings point of view, it's utter nonsense. what is that supposed to achieve?
although the new text style seems to be consistent and does not rotate with the old format, i hope it is only a failed test.
thinking about it, the reason why my ctr decline is so remarkable might be, that i have a dark background and bright ad text with definite emphasis on the link text (bright color). unbelievable how a small change can have a huge impact..
to the other folks with bright background/dark text leaderboards: look closely at the link text = first line, not url-text! the difference in text style is not obvious at a first glance. it's slightly smaller.
so those few of you with dark background/bright text color settings might note a considerably lower ctr, whereas publishers with bright background/dark text might not even notice a difference in ctr and earnings?
confirmation from anyone?
[edited by: moTi at 12:17 am (utc) on May 16, 2007]
hopefully googles' a/b testing takes the effects of the changes on different color settings into account.. might have a big impact.
