If I was to write such an overwhelming algo, I will put these factors as highly relevant.
SEO? that's the past,
but dynamic factors - that's the future. At least that's how I view it and also, that's what I believe in - if users love my site - then they will thank Google by using it once again.
outrageous amount does not cause the ad to show
So why the pretense? My gut tells me that there is something not quite kosher about this, but I don't know enough about the law to say one way or another. (Webwork, you out there?)
In this sweep, since I wasn't affected, I am looking at it with a better eye than last time and I still have a nagging feeling that there is something not quiet legal here. If we run with my tinfoil hat/programmer arrogance theory, the programmers at G could just very well feel that they are above that law and are just posing a thin veneer of legality in the high bids to cover it.
It is just something that keeps nagging me... alot.
I'm wondering if that is going to change over the next few days
The problem with MFA sites is that you have to learn where to draw the line.Is a shopping comparison site that doesn't sell anything an MFA site?
Is a site with travel content that doesn't sell anything an MFA site?
Is a photography site that doesn't sell anything an MFA site?
They don't have to use onpage factors, or at least rely on them exclusively when it comes to adwords. They can develop a model that looks at adwords advertising behavior, correlate manually with identified MFA, and use the advert behavior to flag sites they perceive has not having value to google.
I'm wondering if that is going to change over the next few days
Historically (the last 2 times) these were sweeps. If your site survived the fallout, you were good till the next sweep. Then you hold your breath again.
God, do I sound like I am talking about nazis and the jewish ghettos or what?
Is there any information available as to how much the average AdWords advertiser spends per month?
Just caught this. Umm... I'd say spend is definitely on a curve for sure, but straight dumb did-this-really-quickly average gives you about $20K per advertiser per year.
Historically (the last 2 times) these were sweeps. If your site survived the fallout, you were good till the next sweep. Then you hold your breath again
Well that's good to know. When I get the bad news from google today after I call (sorry we can't fix your campaigns), i'll try a few things to see if it works. If it works and my ads are running again, i'll definitely spend the time until the next sweep looking for a Google replacement.
But why damage your relationship with thousands of advertisers who together spend millions per month on advertising? Doesn't seem like a good thing to do. Especially when they don't explain HOW they are determining exactly what constitutes a "quality" page and what does not. Apparently their be all robot can't figure it out too and is performing an all out slaughter on everyone's campaign. I have yet to hear from one person who's account hasn't been affected one bit.
1) I haven't been affected, not one keyword increase.
2) I think google is making mistakes with this, but not to the extent many posters think that. What people are missing is that the value of a click to google is not the same as the value of a click to the advertiser.
The value of a click to google is (simplified) the absolute cost of the click (actually google's share) MINUS the COST of lost revenue opportunity.
In other words, with a range of bids going from let's say 5 cents to $10.oo for a single keyword, the lower bids are going to (given common conditions) yield a NEGATIVE VALUE for the lost cost clicks.
It's possible to mathematically model this given having the data that google has, so that they can predict the economic impact of different strategies. I don't know if they have for this.
Other factors that effect the economic bottom line for google with this include the percentage of high bidders who are NOT at their daily budgets, various CTR figures, and some stuff about which ads show and in what order.
[edited by: bakedjake at 3:07 pm (utc) on July 12, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] fixed quote [/edit] [/edit][/1]
Rbacal...That's great news for you, but I wouldn't hold your breath. If I were you I'd be proactive and look for alternate advertising venues. I wasn't affected the last "sweep"...so what has changed so radically with this new "quality" algo that my site has been affected so much? Is quality really that much better now? No, I think not.
I don't really care if we are affected. Not a big part of what we do, which is probably the reason we haven't been affected. Our advertising patterns don't at all resemble the sites and ads that they consider offering a poor experience.
For the benchmark terms I monitor (clearly not representative of all keywords), quality of ads has improved to an incredible extent. And, I can pretty much guess that for those particular keywords, google is now making more money than they did before.
Our advertising patterns don't at all resemble the sites and ads that they consider offering a poor experience.
And what are those patterns? That's kind of the issue. There does not seem to be any pattern.
I'm in pretty much the same situation as rbacal. Have had a total of four words go inactive requiring ten cent raises in each case, and what with all this mess I've been worrying and monitoring it pretty closely. That's out of 7500 or so words over six client accounts.
The one thing I can say about my accounts is that in each case, I've set the budget to be WAY above what the spend actually is. It'd be risky if I weren't watching it pretty closely, but I've been doing this for a long time (since AdWords started), and I know these six markets pretty well, and what the competition is doing, and what they can sustain.
Of course, everyone thinks their site/landing page is of the utmost quality, but my idea of quality is different from your idea of quality, and both are no doubt different from Google's idea. Of course, since none of us can see each other's sites without breaking TOS here, we can't know if there IS any kind of a pattern, except based on our own (hardly objective) views of our sites.
And what are those patterns? That's kind of the issue. There does not seem to be any pattern.
You won't discern the patterns because the algo (as many algos) use too many interacting variables to flag sites. That's a given with google. The pursuit to identify simple patterns from where we sit is futile.
To answer. I wanted to start a new thread but don't have time. How would YOU set up the algo? Or how would I?
The simple answer is to profile the sites I don't want in, identify onpage, off page and any other characteristics that separate those sites from those I want to keep, and write the algo that way.
Patterns? Here's a few.
bid price or bid price relative to other higher bidders
number of pages related to the account
use of dynamic keyword insertion
NUMBER of keywords for the account (a big flag)
traffic patterns (length of stay) and other visitor behavior
ratio of adsense income to adwords spend
organic search rankings (part of onpage factors)
...etc.
The reason why you can't identify any of these from discussions is that no ONE or TWO factors determine flagging. It's the COMBINATION of a number of variables that fit the "profile" of the sites you don't want. And, those variables aren't combined into a "score" in a linear way. They get weighted and each variable effects the "score" of another variable.
Finally, you can't look at cases described here because you don't know if their exclusion is intentional or collateral damage.
if u block all robots with robots.txt to your landing page - how can google assess your landing page quality?
For the Internet God's and your own sake, please, REMOVE G$$GLE ANALytics FROM YOUR LANDING PAGES!
if u block all robots with robots.txt to your landing page - how can google assess your landing page quality?
Maybe Google defaults to the baseline (zero) in that case.
Worrying about what is on EACH page is not the way ahead, worring about what the AIM of your site is should be the focus. If your site 'makes a living' from adverts or affiliate links then you are in the firing line.
Perhaps by using these heavy handed tactics, they get more people to sign up for content (searching for crumbs) and at the same time to pay more attention to landing page quality. That way when they reactivate peoples accounts, they get their money back plus achieve two important company objectives. Not a conspiricy theory - it's probably the way I'd do it if those were my two biggest challenges. Although I'm not sure I'd want to upset my paying customers the way they have - a lot of goodwill has pretty much gone forever now.
So does AWA or AWA2 have anything to say on the matter.....
Probably too busy improving customer communication...
3.41% = remained active
3.43% = remained active
2.65% = 1/2 remained active, other 1/2 only jumped to 0.10c per click
7.61% = completely disabled
6.42% = completely disabled
9.98% = completely disabled
So it appears my best converting ads have been completely disabled. Could it be that G$ removed these ads knowing that i'll either:
a) Pay the higher amounts and give them a ton of cash with more CPC and high CTRs...
or
b) Knock me off the front page with my .05c per click and let someone on who 'bought' their way on with a .10c or higher CPC
Could be, maybe not... I'm curious to hear the CTR's of those who have been disabled. From what I heard, it seems everyone who had brought up their CTR has mentioned how great it was, so they were puzzled why it was inactive. Perhaps great CTR is a red flag you're doing something 'too' right for their system.
So does AWA or AWA2 have anything to say on the matter.....
Hahahaa ... that's funny! I wouldn't expect to hear anything at all, official, from Google - other than what has been reported here 3rd hand from folks that have talked with their AdWords reps -- "Suck it up and deal with it. Meet your new reality."
Matter of fact, AWA2 was here and actually responded to a thread yesterday about AdWords ads showing up in Yahoo emails or something. It's down the page a bit by now. So we know he's here ... and his silence speaks volumes.
It could be a rolling thing that just hasn't hit me yet, but I wonder if that's the case since with all the ppc stuff that I manage I'd think at least 1 new inactive would have come up somewhere.
I do a lot to focus on quality and value at my own sites. I think they're special, but surely they're just fairly above average. I do make them complete with pro logos and policies that are real and enforced and usually lots of content (but aimed at what I think the visitor wants, not the engines). However, I doubt I'm an award winning site designer. Some use GA because I need it, some do not. Some have tons of content, some are really small content-wise because they're very niche (or are small for other reasons, like mounds of content doesn't fit the site's theme for various reasons).
Being unaffected evcerywhere - lacking comparison - I can't see anything that I do that makes me remain unaffected... (at least untouched so far)
Perhaps a few of you that have been affected can get together and do a detailed analysis of your sites (perhaps by a 3rd party) to see if there's something consistent in many of them... I read your posts and am not insinuating there's a lack of quality in the visitors eye, just suggesting one route you might take to solve the problem you're experiencing where G's scoring is marking you as such.
I'm not talking about a think-tank to work around either, but somehow an objective review, using G's general guidelines given, to see what's amiss.
Perhaps a you-grade-my-site-I'll-grade-yours type deal would point out something. (I am often somewhat blind to flaws in my own work).
Sorry you're having trouble and that I don't have any great answers or insights for those affected.
So it appears my best converting ads have been completely disabled. Could it be that G$ removed these ads knowing that i'll either:a) Pay the higher amounts and give them a ton of cash with more CPC and high CTRs...
or
b) Knock me off the front page with my .05c per click and let someone on who 'bought' their way on with a .10c or higher CPC
The latter, in effect. Typical profile of an MFA junk site would be high ctr, and low cpc. That's also the most "costly" arrangement for google in terms of unrealized income.
