Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I began to wonder exactly how/if these sites made me more money than advertisers selling products or services related to green widgets with orange stripes. I'd allowed them to stay purely because Google reccomends that you don't block sites. They state that blocking sites may lead to lower payouts and not enough ads to serve. Ultimately, if they earn me the most money then I'd be OK with that. I have very few banners on the site, so the presence of the scrapers in the ad block isn't a problem. But I began to suspect that they wouldn't earn me more money than genuine advertisers. Although Google's technology is no doubt impressive, it knows nothing about my site, my site's visitors, how they get there, what they are looking for from the site and therefore what they might be looking for from advertisers. Thank goodness Google allows webmasters some choice in that we can block advertisers!
The conventional wisdom is that an ad that gets 11 clicks at $0.10 is better than showing an ad that bids $1.00 but has 1 click. Therefore, what I was seeing is genuine advertisers being sqeezed out (despite the fact that they may bid higher than the scrapers) in favour of the scrapers. In addition, it struck me as totally absurd that Google should decide that webmasters buying traffic from other webmasters was likely to be the most profitable ads to show!
Somewhere along the line, somebody has to flex the plastic and buy goods and services off of the advertisers. There has to be something that the person from the Royal Mail can shove through your door. Shunting traffic around between webmasters with nobody buying anything is a bubble - bubbles burst.
Somebody here recently mentioned that scrapers convert better for advertisers than real sites, and claimed to have research to back this. I wouldn't argue for or against that viewpoint, but the fact Google gives them priority over genuine advertisers who bid higher does rather confirm it to an extent.
I'm not saying that buying site traffic is not a legitimate use for Adsense. I am aware that many people here do it. My point is that by prioritising scrapers over advertisers actually selling goods and services only encourages the proliferation of the very sites they are trying to dump, as they give Adsense a bad name!
It's also an extremely short sighted policy. It's pure "Bubble mentality". The cycle of webmasters buying traffic from other webmasters *is* a bubble - it's not supported by anything, and could quite easily float away out of control. I'd like to think Google is attempting to manage the bubble they have created, but I have my suspicions that it's completely out of control. Somewhere along the lines, Adsense *has* to be underpinned by genuine advertisers selling goods and services, and people flexing the plastic to pay for them. Yet seemingly Google freezes them out (despite bidding higher) in favour of advertisers that sell absolutely nothing. It's a bubble waiting to burst.
So, what I've been doing is to look at advertisers sites and if they are a directory, scraper, adsense on landing page or I don't think my visitors would be remotely interested in them I block them. This is absolutely against the conventional wisdom of letting Google decide.
How has this affected the statistics / earnings?
I've done two sets of data. One from the 1st to the 10th July, and one from the 11th to date. There may be some distortion in the earlier figures due to the 4th July holidays. My site does best when corporate America is at it's desk surfing instead of working. Weekends and public holidays are usually very slow. Traffic was very low over the entire 4th July weekend with an enormous spike on the Tuesday. Otherwise the data is probably similar enough to make comparisons. In addition, the site-wide figures may be distorted to a minor extent due to minor experimentation with various ad blocks being added/removed. Therefore I'm concentrating the major comparisons on one banner that accounts for about 80% of the total revenue and had no changes made over the two time periods apart from booting the scrapers.
Overall, clicks and ctr have declined by nearly half. However, epc is up 124%, and overall earnings are up by 27%. eCPM is virtually unchanged. I personally think eCPM is over-rated - it doesn't necessarily have any relationship to the bottom line earnings figure. I personally prefer to look at overall site traffic activity, clicks, cpc and ctr to assess what the trend is. eCPM is a figure I look at in addition to the other stats, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
As to the main banner that earns approx 80% of the revenue - no changes made except dumping the scraper ads:-
Clicks were down by 51.3%, but as impressions were down by 4.8% it may be that in reality the clicks were down by less than the 51.3%. CTR was down by 48.8%. This might sound bad, but I still have a ctr of 8.4% on that banner, just now it's clicks to real advertisers.
But to balance the downturn in the above, epc was up by 128.8%, ecpm was up by 17.1% and bottom line cash figure was up by 11.5%.
In conclusion, I'm gratified that in my case, concentrating on advertisers offering genuine products and services have increased my bottom line cash figure by somewhere between 11.5% and 27%. It may well not have the same effect on other sites, so my only bit of advice is if you try this, set up a spreadsheet that allows you to track the effect it has on impressions, clicks, ctr, earnings, epc and eCPM.
I'll give it a little longer, and report back on the longer term effects at some point.
why? if you make more money, then google makes more money - and lets be honest, thats what they are after. if REMOVING advertisers from the system increases revenue, then they would do it in a heartbeat - but they aren't pursuing this.
the blacklist tool is intended to remove competitors, and i do that all the time. but removing advertisers to INCREASE adsense earnings? if thats true, then google's system is really screwed up, and i suspect they would quickly fix it so that publishers would be disincented from doing so.
but i do think that it is unlikely that your assumptions are right. in other words, i think there must be a better explaination for your results.
why? if you make more money, then google makes more money - and lets be honest, thats what they are after. if REMOVING advertisers from the system increases revenue, then they would do it in a heartbeat - but they aren't pursuing this.
I take your point, but it is rather strange that making one very major change resulted immediately in some very majorly changed stats.
As to why it seems to have worked, I put this down to 2 factors:-
1, Although the algorythms they use are smart, they miss one vital factor - human knowledge and intervention. My site has been online for 5+ years. I have spent a lot of time analysing my site visitors, and therefore I know what they are likely to want from an advertiser, and what will send them scurrying away elsewhere. No algorythm or Google employee could know any of this. As webmaster, I'm the only person that does, therefore my input is (or should be) valuable to the process of making Google/me more money.
2, Google simply don't look at the ads they show. One of the ads was simply a button in the middle of complete whitespace above the fold, and just a few keywords below the fold. I've reported this to Google, and yes - the advertiser is still online with the same advert!
One further reason it has worked for me may be that my site (as you might have guessed) occupies an extremely narrow and specific niche. Concentrating on advertisers that are advertising to my specific niche, or are moderately related is much more likely to result in a sale to an an advertiser than the rather rough targetting that often happens.
but removing advertisers to INCREASE adsense earnings? if thats true, then google's system is really screwed up, and i suspect they would quickly fix it so that publishers would be disincented from doing so.
As I said, the reason I think it works is partnering the knowledge the webmaster has with Google's algorythm has to optimise the process. I'm hoping that ASA will add their comments and take this up with Google. I'll supply any info asked for. Google also need to work on junking some of the ads that breach the TOS, as well as sites that breach it.
Do you think you will be overwhelmed with Scraper ads?
Scrapers are bottom-feeding intermediaries ... a middleman of the lowest form. They add no value to the equation.
The Internet was born to demolish intermediaries.
Scrapers are flourishing for the moment. It won't last.
This increased even my CTR by 20%
And it's not only the money,
it's also the reputation of the site.
When I write something about unemployed people and have 4 MLM advertising on my site, this decreases the reputation of the page.
At the big Februaray wailing in this group, my first big action was to put all scrapers in the URL Filter.
Isn't there a never-ending supply?
And it's not only the money, it's also the reputation of the site.
I tried AdSense briefly on my .org site for freelance writers, thinking that it might cover the hosting fees, but nearly all of the ads were for vanity presses and "poetry contest" scams, so I abandoned the experiment.
what will be the impact of 1 cent Adwords ads on your analysis and ultimately site performance? Do you think you will be overwhelmed with Scraper ads?
I'm not entirely sure how the 1 cent idea will affect me - if at all. There seems to be a lot of speculation on how it might work, but no real detail.
To be honest, all I'm doing is to add the human element of selection to the Google algorythm. This has resulted in them/me being better off. Why on earth would they dump an advertiser that's willing to pay $1.50 - $2.00 a click (and that's my share of the pie) in favour of someone that's going to make them much, much, much less?
I've been watching the stats very closely, and checking them a *little* more often that I maybe should during the course of the last week, and have seen clicks of that magnitude over the last week.
Can you explain how the policy might affect me?
That might result in a higher percentage payout for you.
I never did check to see if any of my adsense advertisers were scrapers. I just booted off anyone with off topic ads or who advertised the exact same product on every page, or who I felt was hogging the limelight when there were more relevant ads just below, plus anyone selling snakeoil (its a science-based website). Plus Ebay and the Usual Suspects.
Everything improved, including CTR.
>To be honest, all I'm doing is to add the human element of selection to the Google algorythm.
Its not that the Adsense bot is dumb, but I think any machine, no matter how powerful, is always more effective with a little human assistance. I learned this watching a program about Kasparov and IBM.
Aparently, it doesn't take any great intellect to see when a machine intelligence is about to make an error any human would see a mile off.
.
At the big Februaray wailing in this group, my first big action was to put all scrapers in the URL Filter.Isn't there a never-ending supply?
As always, it probably depends on the niche.
Last February and March, I filtered out scrapers, ebay scum, etc. (about 30 or 40). That put an end to them, and I haven't seen any more ads of that ilk since.
Do you think it might be that scrapers provide Google with no conversion data? If you boot them out then Google has to use advertisers who are more likely to be tracking sales and handing Google their metrics.
I don't have any particular theories to be honest, other than the fact that they can only go so far with an algorythm. They can work out what ads are on target, and what ads *might* work well financially, but clearly they can't add the human dimension that it appears is necessary for adsense to work best for all concerned.
I'm heartend to see that I'm not the first webmaster to have made a point of flying in the face of conventional wisdom and proved it wrong. It's great to see that others have dumped ads in order to target what they feel with their knowledge as webmasters are ads that will do well, and been proved right.
I'd like to see Google drop the blind faith in technology and work with webmasters more than they do now. I'd like Google to actually do some research into how/if working with webmasters to target appropriate ads works (or doesn't).
The simple fact is, the majority of Internet users are aol users an aol users will happily click away on whatever they deem as relevant. Simple people = big profits thats all business/adsense boils down to, believe it or not
Rather broad, sweeping statements to make (if I may be so bold) :).
*IF* this is what Google thinks, then we might as well all take the code off our sites and stop worrying about it, as Adsense is clearly doomed.
I just had a look at my weblogs, and of my search engine traffic, 74.4% of it comes from Google, with only 2.5% of it from AOL. You are rather implying that all AOL users are stupid, and by that inference I take it that you think they are all too stupid to use other search engines than AOL.
I'm not sure that a) all AOL users are stupid and b) they represent a majority of inernet users.
When I saw your original remark:
What I was seeing was a lot of directories and scrapers advertising for traffic.
The thought came to mind that at five cents a click there are some, at one cent a click there will be so many you cannot possibly mask them all out with the current limits or without new publisher directed control features from Adsense of some kind.
In the past I've advertised some of my pages (content laden by the way), but at 5 cents a click it wasn't worth it in almost all cases. At one cent a click I'll reconsider, and I would think that if the scrapers are doing it now they would jump at the opportunity for a penny a click.
The 1 cent ad will still show occaisionally even if there are higher bidders. I think we're in for a boat load of new ads that will tend to be of low quality. All we can do is wait and see, but maybe plan ahead a little.
The 1 cent ad will still show occaisionally even if there are higher bidders. I think we're in for a boat load of new ads that will tend to be of low quality.
Because of smart pricing, won't some one-cent ads have nave fraction-of-a-cent net prices with the advertiser discount? That boatload of new scraper ads may be the size of the QUEEN MARY 2.
At the big Februaray wailing in this group, my first big action was to put all scrapers in the URL Filter.
Isn't there a never-ending supply?
I baned maybe only 30 scrapers.
Nearly no new since February.
The main problem for me are about 100 MLM in the filter. About 10 more per month
I hope there will be soon an option
"Check URL filter list for active campaigns"
to see what advertisers have given up
for not wasting places in the only 200 items filter space.
The thought came to mind that at five cents a click there are some, at one cent a click there will be so many you cannot possibly mask them all out with the current limits or without new publisher directed control features from Adsense of some kind.
So far, I've got 16 sites in my blacklist, and two of them were ebay ones I added months back. I'm only blocking ads I actually see on the site. The adsense preview tool is utter garbage IMHO. It doesn't show ads that I can actually see on the site, does show ads that have been blocked and not seen since, so I have no faith in it and don't use it's results in my block list.
Maybe I'm thick or something, but I really don't understand why Google is going to put ads that will generate virtually nothing for them on sites, when in many cases they could be getting a decent amount of money by placing well paying ads instead. I thought that Google wanted to make money! What sites will the 1 cent clicks be aimed at? Untargetted ones that don't perform well? Why would they prefer to have the possibility of poor revenue on well targetted, focussed websites that historically perform well for them?
I can see why Google targetted some of the ads I've blocked. I can see their rationale that they might generate more clicks than others, but at lower cost giving the best overall return for them/me. All I am doing is add the human element that Google can't provide in order to optimise the ad selection. This way they make more money, and so do I. I have a feeling this works for the advertisers too. One of the new ads that sneaked into the bottom slot as a result of dumping the scrapers was there for a couple of days then dissapeared. They weren't there for a day, but are now back on site all the time, and are usually at slot 1/2. I think this indicates that the ads work for them.
So can somebody explain why/how I'm going to be infested with 1 cent ads? I know Google's targetting algorythm isn't perfect by any means, but I do have faith that it's not dumb enough to replace ads that earn me $1+ with ones that earn lass than 100th!
Oh, and just to add another day's data to the stats.
Primary banner (80% of income)
Bottom line $ up 13.6%
epc up 135.3%
ecpm up 22.7%
impressions down 7.4%
clicks down 51.7%
ctr down 47.9% to 8.5%
Site overall:-
Bottom line $ up 25.8%
epc up 124.3%
impressions up 21.7%
ecpm down 1.1%
clicks down 43.9%
ctr down 55.9% to 6%
Any ad will be displayed if there's a person who persistently opens new Adwords accounts, of course that's against TOS, but do they care? For some ads I've seen historically they must have been reopening accounts, or they click on their own ads, through some proxied automation, to keep CTR high.
Below a link to Adwords status changes, they don't actually mention the 1 cent minimum:
[adwords.google.com...]
Course you'll have to have an account to see the link (It is Free, essentially).
Given what I've read, I wonder if Scraper sites report 100% conversions or some very high arbitrary value, which would boost quality, etc. Many have theorized this already. So much guess work.
So much fun!
Given what I've read, I wonder if Scraper sites report 100% conversions or some very high arbitrary value, which would boost quality, etc.
I suspect that Google has checks and balances built into the system. They'd be stupid not to.
Plus, wouldn't scraper sites be depriving themselves of "smart pricing" discounts if they reported extremely high conversions?
