Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For this day (17 May), does it mean that they will pay for April 1-30 earnings, or for May (1-18) also?
Hobbs, there are MFAs that look better than any of the sites in our niche. 2 large articles surrounded by VIVID images of simmilar to subject widgets and 3 large block of text ads by G. I almost got scared thinking one of my competitors is pooling a skiny on us. I showed it to my friend who is a Graphic designer(and has no clue about MFA) and he was very very impressed with layout.
I just send you sticky, you tell me.
Why should the advertisers that are happy to advertise on my sites loose the option to do so? Good question. Have not had any complaints from any them, none.
The clicks I buy usually cost between 1-5 cents.
My income from clicks on my sites are mostly low paying in the 1-10 cent range, smartpriced.
CTR is around 20-60%. So the margins are good but not that good, the math is tight.
Yet, some publishers are obviously happy to be getting thousands of clicks per day from my sites at a very low cost. They will now be forced to buy these clicks elsewhere presumably at a higher cost. They will not be happy about that.
Something for the AdWords forum this is really.
There could a vested interest for MFA owners to spread FUD hoping the AdWords would experience a major pull out by legitimate advertisers worried that their non MFA business model would get them banned. Then Google would panic and extend or cancel the June 1st deadline.
Unlikely. Remember the hue and cry on the AdWords forum when Google introduced landing-page quality scores? Google ignored the screams and threats from unhappy advertisers, the victims of Google's new quality scores finally shut up (mostly) or went somewhere else, and AdWords/AdSense revenues continued to grow despite the loss of advertisers who were deemed incompatible with the AdWords user experience.
It probably is if it makes a profit.
Ie if your EXTRA traffic earns more than it costs you.
Why should the advertisers that are happy to advertise on my sites loose the option to do so?
If the advertiser wants to advertise on your site via Google and it's OK with you and Google, then there's no reason the three of you shouldn't be able to do that.
And I doubt many publishers would have a problem with that.
Where the complaints come from is when you advertise on another publisher's site and the publisher thinks the ad diminishes the experience for his visitors, frustrates his visitors, etc.
To ask your question in a different way, why should I have to allow you to advertise on my site if I don't choose to? Sure I have a filter, but it has limitations and even without limitations, finding the ads I don't want to appear is a daunting and random task.
This is why so many publishers complained to Google. And who knows, maybe even a few advertisers also complained.
In a sense, your loss of the ability to have advertisers appear on your site if they want to is the gain of publishers who won't have to experience your ads on their sites. Evidently, if there is any substance to this thread, Google has decided it's better to please lots of other publishers than to keep some publishers like you happy.
Besides, if there are lots of advertisers who knew they were advertising on your site via Google and were happy with the experience, they'll probably beat a path to your door to strike a direct advertising deal after June 1.
Have not had any complaints from any them, none.
How would advertisers know their ads are appearing on your site? How do you know advertisers haven't complained to Google? How do you know advertisers haven't complained by turning off the content network?
FarmBoy
They are, as a group, shrewd, snide, rude and resentful of not just Google, but most other publishers, whom they regard as fools.
I am not refering specifically to posters here, more so to people I have met in real life that are running scam type arbitrage websites via Google Adsense/Adwords and other PPC programs, they made me feel like an idiot for publishing about a subject I enjoy. Like I was wasting my time on my "cute" little hobbyist site. I have met in person many so called publishers that feel the same way. By talking with them I got the impression that they feel their "business model" is the only way to truly profit from Google Adsense. Not true, you don't need to scam visitors to make good money from Adsense.
Netmeg, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about, Google isn't after people like you, they are after the ones who think the only way to make money from Adsense is by tricking the system.
To ask your question in a different way, why should I have to allow you to advertise on my site if I don't choose to? Sure I have a filter, but it has limitations and even without limitations, finding the ads I don't want to appear is a daunting and random task
As with publishers who have worked hard to build up organic traffic or the trust of return visitors; why would they want low paying or misleading arb ads diverting their valuable traffic to sites like ten-more-best-ads.info
[edited by: Scurramunga at 1:30 am (utc) on May 23, 2007]
my 2c (for that click) :-)
Quote from the referenced article:
The Web, he says, is becoming cluttered with parked pages. The model is amazingly efficient -- lots of money for little work --but Ham argues that Internet users will soon grow weary of it all.
FarmBoy
ten-more-best-ads.info
Have all these junk ads been removed yet? Has that annoying schemer who reg'd hundreds of domains to beat the 200-max filter finally been crushed?!
Maybe it wasn't one of the "top" ideas after all, lol!
p/g
