Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
For those of you who didn't see the site Soze mentioned (I'm assuming the same "No URLs" policy applies in here - so his message will soon be edited) it's a site with 10 images of 1920's and 1930's era actors and actresses and very brief text descriptions. I find no adsense on here, nor any affiliate links - which would be the typical red flag you'd expect to trip the "landing page quality" alarm.
What I think you may be getting hit with, though, is that your site - at least based on that URL - is bascically a one-page site. A one page site with 10 images. No text about the actors or actresses, and just the same text describing each print "cream-toned bromide print..." etc. etc.
Even though you are clearly not a Made For Adsense site -- your format mirrors that behavior closely enough (with the obvious exception of any actual monetazion on your site) that G may be enforcing some type of penalty on you based on how they now define landing page "quality".
I wonder if changing your layout - maybe mention each actor/actress, then a brief bio, then links to the images - might help you a bit.
I guess I'll actually ad some nonsense content to the site and see if that helps.
The fact that the keyword is still fine in another adgroup goes to show the incredible inconsistancy of the adwords quality score.
[edited by: Soze at 1:44 am (utc) on July 11, 2006]
IMO, this is your problem, not your landing pages.
You've 'beat' the Google system, and now they're slapping you down a few notches. I don't think they've expected or wanted people ranking near #1 with 0.05 click keywords. So, they slap most of us who have figured out ways to improve our ads, and allow something like this to be #1...
10.00% $0.20 = 19,309 clicks = $3,861
That's better than your $2,218
Just my opinion though. They're really trying to knock the .05 guys from having high rankings to allow those who want to spend their way to the top up there.