Forum Moderators: martinibuster
with that, they mimic their ad link feature and sneak it in our ad boxes although i deliberately only want to show content ads. not exactly nice..
Google just loves to have 100% control over their little boxes on our sites. Nevermind ASKING US IF WE WANT TO BE GENIUE PIGS! >:(
I really wanted to click that one but I never go anywhere near the ads even though you can right click.
(*except when they overlap on to the Ads by Google graphic - spotted on one of my 250x250)
[edited by: GrantNZ at 12:19 am (utc) on Aug. 12, 2007]
Google just loves to have 100% control over their little boxes on our sites.
It's their box. If you don't like ceding control to an ad network or rep firm, why outsource your ads?
Because nobody is going to do small direct deals with me. Obviously.
Because nobody is going to do small direct deals with me. Obviously
Don't sell yourself short, many here had advertisers BEFORE AdSense came along, me included, maybe you need a better business plan, work on it.
Because nobody is going to do small direct deals with me. Obviously.
Still, you've made a choice, and it's unreasonable to expect Google to change how the network operates just because you aren't happy being a guinea pig.
If anyone figures out a way to disable it, please share!
I was tempted to click on it and see whats going on! ;)
it's unreasonable to expect Google to change how the network operates just because you aren't happy being a guinea pig
Rubbish, any company shuold give you fair warning of any changes they make to their service to you before launching it. Then you can decide to continue showing their ads or not. In a production enviroment you simply should not expect to be treated as a guinea pig.
It is OK for Google to use one out of four text links in your leaderboard to say "More links".
It is OK for that More Links to take you to a page where the visitor gets links without any publisher ID for tracking.
It is OK for all four text links to point to such a non-earning page as long as it is only for one hour every week.
It is OK for all four text links to point to such a non-earning page as long as it is only for one day every week.
It is OK for all four text links to point to such a non-earning page as long as it is only on every alternate day.
And it's OK to do all that without advance notice so that the only time you realise you've been screwed is when you check your stats/get your funds. Because you can always leave Adsense at that point if you don't like it.
I think you extended EFV's logic very well. :-)
Standard disclaimer: Any statement on any development, e.g. revenue trends, is only refering to my sites. I know that Adsense is a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I know that any party can terminate the contract at any time without the need to provide reason. I know that Adsense may not work for everyone, and that it might make sense to not use Adsense for certain niches.
And where is the assumption that a publisher won't get paid coming from? When AdLinks leads to a second page of ads, the publisher IS being paid for the generated lead for any clicks from that page. Why would this be any different?
However as a site owner I expect my suppliers to follow a practice of informing me of any changes that might be made and then it is my decision, based on the consequences of these, to continue with the relationship. Could you imagine your ISP suddenly overnight upgrading your PHP4 to 5, breaking a lot of your code without warning?
What if Adsense suddently decided that popups/unders were suddenly a good idea, and your site started serving them without any prior warning?
It isn't hard to inform publishers of changes both via the email they hold on record and in the Adsense stats area.
But, come on, did you really expect a bunch of geeks (Google) to know what reliability, trustworthiness, politeness, soundness, and things like that mean? And, yes, certain people (one or two) here would defend Google even if they started serving porn in "their" iframes on our sites. Don't let them upset you.
John
Lack of control....unclear revenue sharing practises, and many other things are among those that have made us plan the removal of all Google ads from our site.
Didn't you read the AdSense contract before you agreed to it?
When an ad box says "Ads by Google," wouldn't you expect Google to determine the most effective way to monetize the space in the box, whether or not you agree with that decision?
It seems to me that your real problem is outsourcer's remorse, not whether there is or isn't a "Show more" link in a 728 x 90 ad unit, and that you'd be happier (though possibly poorer) if you did your own ad sales. Ad networks are for people who want a set-and-forget solution, not for people who are obsessive about control.
John Carpenter's grievance at loss of control over what are essentially experiments carried out on his website is a legitimate one, and one that has been expressed by others in this forum.
BTW, for the record, I don't always like Google's choices, either; that's why--as I've said in the past--I don't use AdSense on my site about freelance writing. Sometimes, outsourcing just doesn't work.
there's nothing wrong with pointing out that outsourcing and surrender of control go hand in hand
I agree with you that a publisher has to give up a certain degree of control when he participates in an ad program.
However, Google seems to demand a high degree of freedom loss.
- Publishers do not know the revenue share (and no, I do NOT mean the average figure from Google's earings report)
- Publsihers do not know which ads have run on their sites
- Publishers do not know exactly which ads are running or will run on their sites
- Publishers do not know which ads got clicked
- Publishers are severly limited in controling the ads that actually are shown (just a crap filter of 200 slots)
- Usually, publishers do not get any advance notification of changes to come, which is true even for major changes
I'd also point out that experimentation within the "Ads by Google" box is inevitable, and it isn't realistic to expect Google to notify and obtain consent from every AdSense publisher before trying a "show more" link, a font change, an increase or decrease in the number of ads per unit, etc.
Such tests can be easily performed within a closed user group (aka "Beta Test") with test users that agree to the tests. The experience of the testers leads to improvements until the product is ready for the market. The product may then be communicated in advance to the public users. That is the normal way. It just is not the normal way with Google who just throw up something and see what happens.
I agree with the OP that running TESTS against live sites without consent is not a very good practice, and I do not understand why doing so is "inevitable". It is not.
A publisher may not like having to make compromises in the interests of "scalability," but that's the price we all pay for turning ad space over to a network.
No, no, and no. It could be done differently. Very much so. Just because Google does it like this does not mean it is "natural" or "inevitable".
Sometimes, outsourcing just doesn't work.
BTW, "Outsourcing" is a term typically used by BUYERS, not by suppliers. When I am selling ads to Google (i.e. I give them the real estate, and they pay me for it), then I feel like a supplier in the first place. Sure, you can turn it around by saying "I am paying Google for finding advertisers", but that is not the money flow I am seeing. I am selling my ad space to Google, and I get paid for it.
Standard disclaimer: Any statement on any development, e.g. revenue trends, is only refering to my sites. I know that Adsense is a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I know that any party can terminate the contract at any time without the need to provide reason. I know that Adsense may not work for everyone, and that it might make sense to not use Adsense for certain niches.
it isn't realistic to expect Google to notify and obtain consent from every AdSense publisher
The tricky thing about notifying publishers ahead of time about tests is that our product teams need to get an accurate sample, and combine the numerical data they gather with your qualitative feedback.
The new "Ads by Google" logo style, for example, received a very negative response at first, but improved publishers' CTRs and earnings. If we had only tested it on publishers who liked it, we wouldn't have heard from all of you that didn't. It was your negative feedback that forced us to rethink the design several times instead of immediately launching it across the board.
Still, we definitely understand the frustration of feeling like "guinea pigs." Know that we'll allow you to opt out of tests or features whenever possible, and that we do everything with your best interests in mind (and are pretty good about admitting we were wrong when the evidence proves otherwise!)
Thanks for your patience,
-ASA
