Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
If the medium payment per click form one AdSense account is around $0.17 and I get significant traffic form social bookmarking like StumbleUpon or Digg then it looks to me that payment per click become 3 times lower ($0.04-$0.06), does this make sense?
Would Google pay me less per click by considering this incentivized traffic? Because when a user bookmarks a link it could generate 50 or more times page views and those visitors just bounce from the site.
Edit: payment per click seems to be lower account-wide and not just that one day or two when the traffic increase take place.
[edited by: adrianTNT at 12:37 am (utc) on Mar. 14, 2008]
In terms of sites like Stumbleupon and Digg, that traffic won't pay as well for the main reason that it's not very well targeted and is not worth as much to advertisers. But in the long run, more exposure and more return visitors will mean more earnings overall.
Knowing that others have the same issue I will try to remove these "bookmark" buttons and see how it goes after a month or so.
One page which used to be pretty anonymous on the net now ranks as #1 and has done for the last 6 months or so purely because of its success in digg.
So its not the income that makes it worth getting dugg for, but the search engine positioning, and the greater awareness by net users that your site exists.
To me that is more important than dollars, as it has long term effects.
There are lots of possible reasons why this happens. One might be that Google has a "budget" for each site -- a certain amount of inventory it expects you to offer each day. If you go way over that, it doesn't have enough high-paying ads allocated to fill the inventory.
Another factor is that the traffic from Digg-type sites is more jaded and less likely to click on ads. They're browsers rather than seekers, maybe.
One might be that Google has a "budget" for each site -- a certain amount of inventory it expects you to offer each day. If you go way over that, it doesn't have enough high-paying ads allocated to fill the inventory.
My experiences do not coincide with that. I have seen large spikes in traffic from being listed at the top of serps for keywords featured on yahoo's home page. I didn't see anything difference in ctr, epc, etc. Everything was just way higher across the board.
I think this traffic scenario described is less likely to click/convert.
I have been hit by digg and stumbleupon, and as the traffic peaks the ecpm drops off.
This is a far different scenario to that of long term gains, or high ranking in serps.
In those cases the ecpm is static. In this case over about 5 days, it drops as the page impressions increase.
As the flood dissipates and the impressions decline to 'normal' the ecpm is crawling back up.
Traffic from StumbleUpon and Digg are mostly users that view the one page and leave, that would mean that Google ads will have many impressions without clicks.
So while Google will try to show ads that pay well stats will show that those ads do not convert well so Google will start showing other ads too (ads that probably pay less) and that could be the cause for lower payment per click after getting traffic form these sites.
It is the same thing/theory as removing ads that do not convert well in order to get paid more.
So StumbleUpon and Digg generate impressions only, and many impressions without clicks causes smaller payment per clicks.
I suspect there's many reasons for it. For one thing, my site is regional to my state - and usually my ads are too. I suspect that when my traffic grows, some of the advertisers might be excluding me because they think it's not relevant to them, or because my site's growth in traffic (clicks) is outstripping their budgets without commensurate conversions. Google probably has some brakes in place for traffic that grows very quickly as well.
But in general, I assume that as my traffic goes up, I will have to make up for the epc and ecpm in volume.