Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
1) Substantially better reporting: including which advertiser got what keywords (it's ok to have the different geolocations combined) - The preview tool is far below par (IE only -please!- and you only get a sample per click and you need to click a zillion times to get all geolocations
2) Better banning tools
- display URL, redirect URL (both!) if I don't want ebay, I don't care they have a zillion affiliates
- per advertiser (once up to no good, always so)
- per keyword targeted (if my site is not about it at all (e.g. look at the member having dope ads by default)
- per keyword in the ad copy (e.g. I'd instantly drop in there "free" "screensaver" etc.)
3) Minimum price per click (if you don't have inventory, fine let me run my alternates, but I don't want sub US$0.01 clicks (that even less in EUR ;-) ). If Google wants to be a marketplace, then let those selling space also determine a bit of the price setting.
I'd like to be able to have ONLY the referral ad I choose to display on my pages.
As we all know, this has been a problem since the beginning with referral ads. You choose to have ONLY a certain ad display and no "filler" ads... and you still get dozens of others displaying.
Google appeared to have worked on this interface, but it is still QUITE BROKEN.
It is very sad for me... it has cost me thousands of dollars in potential revenue. I refuse to risk other ads displaying, to protect my reputation as a webmaster -- and I have missed out on some great income.
When the program first expanded to include hundreds of referral products to choose from, I made $600 in just a few days off a particular product.
But I refuse to risk showing inappropriate referral products/ads to my visitors.
Google -- won't you PLEASE fix this problem? Perhaps they need it demonstrated to them? How come nobody talks about this anymore? Have you all given up completely?
Just today I had one selling something completely irrelevant to my other choices for a $0.01 conversion price! Of course I wouldn't normally touch it with a 10 feet pole. I checked the site and they even had adsense ads on it, so it was obviously arbitraging referral traffic on top of it!
Every time I experiment with referrals I soon get disgusted with the unselected advertisers showing up, I remove my referral ads for a few months thinking this pressing issue would normally be taken care of by now, I try again later and it's still there! This isn't some second tiered program like clickbank here, it's google!
Anyway... that thread is well timed with my current frustration, so sorry for the drama.
For the rest of adsense: yes, min CPC price decided by publishers please. If a page lets in the low ballers I'd rather use my alternate ad programs or nothing at all rather than lose traffic for pennies.
If you look at the AdWords counterpart in the sister forum, AWA solicits wish lists regularly (weekly), and talks about requested changes as they are implemented.
Google AdWords Features I'd Like to See, #10 [webmasterworld.com]
"I am extremely glad to see a new 'Features' thread start. . . I'll certainly pass your comments along as usual, in the weekly Advertiser Feedback Report."--AdWordsAdvisor [webmasterworld.com]
"There is an empty section of the Advertiser Feedback Report just crying out for AdWords feature requests. ;) Still roughly three hours (or maybe even more) for your late-breaking ideas. Many thanks, AWA. [webmasterworld.com]"
Is there such a thing as a Publisher Feedback Report?
Thanks for taking the time to provide us with your feedback.
We do compile regular reports based on publisher feedback. These reports are compiled from the feedback submitted via our Feature Requests and Suggestions form ( [google.com...] ), publisher emails, suggestions made and solicited on our AdSense Help Group, and those provided on Webmaster World.
While we cannot implement all ideas submitted, we do bring some to fruition. As you are aware, these things do take time, so please bear with us.
We are looking at how we can best communicate when we implement requested features. This is a work in progress, and I'll keep you posted.
I have categorized the requests you have made here, and will now communicate them to the relevant product teams.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Welcome to one of the outer circles of customer-communication hell as mentioned elsewhere!
I've had site targeting turned off for a while because I was getting horrible ugly nasty crappy embarrassing ads from what I think that many of us would call MFAs.
Rather than risk having those again, I'm keeping site targeting off for now, though I'd love to re-enable it. I've set up almost all my channels to be individually targetable for when I can re-enable it.
One major problem is that blocking bad ads/sites by URL is no good because:
1) I don't even get to see all the ads (eg because of geotargeting).
2) The display URLs are often, unfortunately, misleading, and other ways to try and get the real URLs of those bad ads that we can see are cumbersome, browser-specific and dangerous (eg can lead to false clicks on the ads).
3) Blocking individual ads is whack-a-mole given domain kiting and other techniques which make it easy for black hats to generate tens of thousands of domains if they want to, every day if they care to.
4) Given (3) any finite-size by-URL block list won't help much.
5) I use AS rather than (say) Y! so as to not have to spend my life policing the ads on my side, picking keywords, etc.
6) Some players seem to deliberately use URLs that are hard to selectively block in your filter.
7) You don't really have a 'bad advertiser' filter at all, after all; it's meant for blocking competitors!
One obvious, simple, and oft-proposed solution is to allow blocking by advertiser, ie block-by-ID and 'block all ads by these advertisers' filters such as implemented by other ad networks such as Casale Media. (Put one flashing ad past my no-flashing-ads tickbox and you're history!)
There are far fewer black hats than bad URLs/sites to block IMHO. That would begin to level the paying field.
Plus of course, you could pay human attention to those advertisers blocked by an unusually large number of publishers...
ASA, Please consider disentangling targeting from CPM:
I'd like for my site to be targeted by PPC but not CPM, right now targeting means CPM.
Would be great if we could specify targeting type per ad unit like we do now with text/image/both ads. Above or below it put
Targeting: All/EPC/CPM and let the default be 'All'.
Let me give you a example, several months ago our Adsense rep told us to place ads as close to text as possible since that is were our users are reading.
3 weeks later we got a warning email from another division in Google saying the ads were to close to certain parts of our text and that ad serving would be stopped if not fixed.
I think the first and most important question we should ask of the new ASA is how reliable is the information ASA provides here?
And the second question is how reliable is the information we get from other AdSense employees/support personnel.
When a publisher has two or more large, very diverse sites in their account, 200 channels is NOT enough.
Channels should be limited to 200 per site, subject to a ratio of 1:1, one channel for each page, maximum 200 per site.
- I'd like to be able to block ads on a per site basis. I have some family/kid oriented sites, and some of the ads might not be appropriate for THOSE sites, but they would be perfectly fine for some of my other sites. But right now, if I block, I block for all.
- If any advertiser is blocking one of my sites from displaying his ads, I'd like to know about it. Don't have to know who, I'd just like to know. It would mean I'd probably need to do some work on improving that site.
- It's already been said several times, but referrals are a mess. I'm coming up on the peak season for one of my sites, which means 70k visitors per day, and last year I tried to run referrals and it was a total waste of time and space. Either do it right, or pull it until you *can* do it right.
- Fix the Google referrals buttons. They don't display properly on my sites, and I don't know why. I sent screen shots and examples to support last year, and they finally told me they didn't know why it was happening and had no estimate on when they would know. And I never heard back again. In what universe would that be an acceptable answer?
- Better integration with Google Analytics, and some AdSense Blog advice and tips on how best to use GA and AdSense together.
- FIX THE CODE SO IT WILL VALIDATE - or else let us do it.
- 200 channels per site would probably be a good start. Many of my sites are specific to region or state, and so I have to have channels for each of those, plus I track placement, size, and color options, not to mention urls - I'm at the end of my rope as far as channels, and since we're not supposed to create more accounts, what am I to do?
I have added your new and seconded requests to my list.
Juan_G mentions the Holiday Wishlist on the AdSense Help Group. The requests made on this list have been presented to our product specialists for further review and investigation, and we will be providing updates on the wishlist.
farmboy has a question about the reliability of information provided by myself and our support team. As I'm sure you can understand, I cannot comment on specific cases, but am happy to clarify our policy. While integrating your ads with the content of your site can prove successful, your ad implementation should not be misleading or confusing to the user. If you have any concerns about an implementation, it is important to err on the side of caution. If you have an account manager, you can run your implementation by them. Finally, if you have any concerns about the reliability of the information I provide, just let me know.
Keep your feedback coming:)