Forum Moderators: martinibuster
There must be thousands of other publishers with stories like mine. Why wouldn't someone at Google monitor publishers? If someone suddenly stopped sending $20,000 a month of business to me, I'd pick up the phone to see what happened. I think Google is missing out on vast amounts of money because it doesn't monitor or support its publishers.
It's like working a big gold mine with nothing but a few guys with picks and shovels. I can't understand why they don't start squeezing some serious profit out of their current situation before someone else does. If I was a shareholder, I would be frustrated.
I think other companies like MSN can and will eventually take advantage of this situation by offering a similar service in a more businesslike manner. Mark my words. : )
What are you using for ads now?
Brandon
It sounds like they're making some progress on the 302 hijacking front, although the fix may be causing other problems.
If they fixed a handful of our problems (due to their mis-info/bad algo) they could pay for an employee or two.
Sure they can and they do as long as the G rep likes your posts. (that's on the serp side - not adsense)
Sure they can and they do as long as the G rep likes your posts. (that's on the serp side - not adsense)
He must be mad at me, then, because my Google referrals dropped 75% in late March.
MSN, on the other hand, has been sending me a lot more referrals lately. Must have been that fan mail I sent to Bill Gates. :-)
Google cannot correct
You're right as far as that goes. That's why I finished typing the rest of that sentence.
They can and do make manual adjustments that move sites up and down, in order improve the overall search results. But when AdSense sites are treated differently from everybody else, Google is suddenly in a conflict of interest and ALL their results become discredited.
europeforvisitors
Yes, it’s a 302 hijacking problem. I also suffered from the www vs non-www and upper-case/lower/case problems. I don’t expect my site to recover soon.
sailorjwd
Right, what would it take for a human at Google to get your site re-indexed, 5 minutes? I feel your pain.
jomaxx
I’m not suggesting that Google should manipulate the SERPs, or help publishers beat competitors. I think Google should help publishers becomes more successful, within the established guidelines that apply to everyone. In some cases, an AdSense rep might suggest a more efficient ad format. In other cases, such as mine, an AdSense rep might be able to fix a glitch caused by Google.
I think the AdSense folks should write a program to flag publishers who are doing a lot of volume, or who are seeing drastic increases or decreases. AdSense employees could then review the reports and contact serious publishers to help them however they can. That’s not rankings manipulation. It’s just good business. Overture does this sort of thing quite well with their advertisers.
Here’s one more suggestion. On the next Google retreat, everyone should watch Jerry Maguire. For most people, it’s necessary to watch it two or three times before they truly understand the "Help me help you." line. If the key AdSense people grasp that simple but important concept, they will start making some serious profit.
Google is a multi billion dollar company, they only care about their big clients with 20 million users a day.
One big publisher worth thousands of us.
About google and yahoo upcoming adsense progrem, everyone said the same thing with yahoo and MSN new search engines but google is still at the top bringing most of the free traffic to webmasters worldwide.
yahoo and MSN search results full with ads that make sure that you want get a high trffic without paying.
Google is a multi billion dollar company, they only care about their big clients with 20 million users a day.
Just because this might be true doesn't mean that it makes any sense. An efficient company sucks in as much money as it can, from wherever it can, as long as the return is greater than the investment. That is why public companies exist. It's pretty obvious that Google would realize a good return on investment if it hired a few reps to service publishers.
Its inability to support its publishers indicates less than perfect management. I'm not trying to bash Google - just making an observation. That's my 2 cents worth (no pun intended).
I decided to close down that website, even it made me over 10k a month but to split my risk, I had to build more websites with more content and so I hired 2 freelance guys to write new content.
I also talked to a few friends that have several PR7/8 websites and after my link was implemented, several weeks later my new websites started getting traffic from Yahoo, Google and MSN.
Now thinks looks better and I should return to my old revenues within 3 to 4 months.
I understand that you would be annoyed at what has happened but there is a factor you are overlooking. Just because you no longer get $20,000, doesn't mean Google loses it's share. There is a good chance that your lost income is being picked up by other publishers.
In fact, the change may have been to Google's advantage. We will never know. We only know it has cut your earnings, which sucks for you. But Google may not care so much becuase they are still getting the money from other sources - they may be getting even more. They would also argue that they are 'improving the system' and this will help some and penalise others.
In my particular case, I don't think this was an improvement for Google. There does not appear to be any usefulness to Google's inability to deal with 302s, www vs. non-www, etc. These are unintentional Google glitches that result in inferior SERPs. the fact that I had some 302s and I use CF doesn't make me a bad publisher.
In any event, I just brought my case up as an example. There are lots of other publishers who could benefit from a little TLC. In a perfect world, expert publishers would cooperate harmoniously with Google. In reality, publishers have faults and so does Google. Most companies understand this. That's why the have service reps and help desks.
