and see that Google has partnered with Godaddy to display Adwords ads on unused domains.
Now that's quality!
However, AdSense for Domains (formerly known as Domain Park) is a program that many AdWords advertisers despise, and one that results in many advertisers pulling their ads from the content network completely. And now, essentially everyone can now join this program, whereas before it was restricted to those whose domain portfolios exceeded 750,000 page views per month.
I know it's not that much better than a page that says the domain is parked, but when the big boys start making it profitable for people to buy domains they don't need and never intend to use, it just makes things worse. The whole domain speculation thing just rubs me the wrong way...
Now I just have to find a registrar I like...
It may be a legitimate topic of concern, and it does tend to support the idea that advertisers need greater control over where their ads appear in the "content network." But it's a whole separate issue from the quality of landing pages and the user experience on Google's SERPs.
I say partly right, because I agree with everything you said jimberan ;-)
Can you explain how an unused domain with no content could be a quality landing page? I've never seen such a page...
It isn't. Parked-domain pages are useless and annoying, and I personally think it's unfortunate that Google runs ads on such pages.
But let's not confuse apples with oranges. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, those parked-domain pages aren't AdWords "landing pages."
The new AdWords quality scores apply to landing pages that users reach when they click AdWords--not to the pages where AdWords or AdSense ads appear.
Unfortunate? A hunting accident is unfortunate. What Google is doing is deliberate. It certainly makes a statement eh? 'We care about quality, when it serves us'. Surely EFV, even you can see the duplicity inherent in this huh?
If they're driving traffic from Adwords - it is a landing page, no?
What is their publicized method for driving traffic, anyway? I can't see how people are mistyping something to arrive at fishinginia.com... but, somehow I receive tens of thousands of clicks from such sites with no sales.
[edited by: poster_boy at 5:30 pm (utc) on July 22, 2006]
Surely EFV, even you can see the duplicity inherent in this huh?
What "duplicity"? The stated purpose of Google's landing-page quality requirements is to ensure a positive "user experience" for Google's own users. Period.
Sure, parked-domain pages suck. Sure, I'll agree that AdSense ads (or any ads) on parked-domain pages suck. And if you want to start a thread titled "Why does Google run ads on junk sites?", you'll have my support. But those are different issues from the quality of landing pages reached from ads on Google's SERPs.
If they're driving traffic from Adwords - it is a landing page, no?
Would be, but unless the policies have changed that's not allowed. It's all supposed to be type-in traffic.
How about the duplicity of selectively caring about quality? The point I mentioned in my previous post. Google cares about quality when it serves Google. If a good 'user' experience happens to coincide with an increase in revenue fantastic eh? But running ads on useless pages happens to coincide with an increase in revenue and they're okay with that too.
Can anyone say, dichotomy of philosophy? In any event, I believe it's a branding misstep.
But, are these pages commonly considered falling under the "MFA" umbrella? If so, arbitrage is - indeed - the method for driving traffic, no?
No. While they sure do look like MFAs, they're part of Google's Adsense for Domains program.
Yep, I run with content mostly turned off or bid way, way down. G has devalued their content network with the spread of these types of ad partners. Advertisers seek targeted traffic, dead domains are so poorly targeted in my opinion, that targeted is the wrong word to use. Like putting a puppy chow billboard inside a pool hall - there's literally almost no relevence... and relevance is G's mantra.
To risk capital on these advertising locations, I need to know a lot more about Smart Pricing... dead domains should cost me fractional cents per click at most (yielding them a fraction of the fraction). My stats tell me this is simply not the case. My intuition tells me G has enough conversion data to know the true value of showing adsense displays in these locations, and they're ignoring it.
Granted the advertiser has a choice, but there's too large a range within adsense locales for even Smart Pricing to make me pump bucks into it. It's nearing time for them to segment their Content Network into tiers so we can make sharper decisions about where our ads appear.
Granted the advertiser has a choice, but there's too large a range within adsense locales for even Smart Pricing to make me pump bucks into it. It's nearing time for them to segment their Content Network into tiers so we can make sharper decisions about where our ads appear.
We've had some discussion of this in the AdSense forum's "Smart Select" thread at:
[webmasterworld.com...]
It would be useful to see advertisers' viewpoints represented in the thread.
