For example, let's say you were bidding on "pet widgets", and it just so happens that all the popular niche authoritative websites talk non stop about your great pet widgets.
And then, of course, your poor competitor who comes out with a competing website but with a low quality product that nobody wants to talk about.
If you were Google, which would you rather show to a customer looking at adwords?
Google sells advertising. If they sell advertising to "pet widgets" store A, they have to offer advertising to "pet widgets" store B at a reasonably competitive rate. If Google is so worried about the searcher's experience maybe they should be more clear that those first 3 spots are "paid advertisements". Maybe a disclaimer right up at the top of the results, "the following 3 PAID ADVERTISEMENTS may include content that does not comply with Google's high quality standards but we make a ton of cash off of them so they go right on top here"
If they sell advertising to "pet widgets" store A, they have to offer advertising to "pet widgets" store B at a reasonably competitive rate.
They do? Why is that?
If Google is so worried about the searcher's experience maybe they should be more clear that those first 3 spots are "paid advertisements".
It says "Sponsored Links" pretty clearly right above them.
My point was, and I think it's reasonable, is that Google wants to make sure that the AdWords column stays highly relevant to the searcher and so they only want high quality adverters there.
One way to measure quality, is to use their regular SERP analysis and try to put results up there from domains that are pointed at by authoritative websites.
[edited by: blaze at 12:43 pm (utc) on July 29, 2006]
It's very common to make a duplicate site/folder and nocrawl the entire thing just for PPC landing pages.
I really doubt that pagerank plays a factor. I'm sure some of the factors that make up the organic side are the same ranking factors used in the QS; however, I don't think that incoming links play any factor at all.
[My point was, and I think it's reasonable, is that Google wants to make sure that the AdWords column stays highly relevant to the searcher and so they only want high quality adverters there.]
I think that's a great idea for organic search, not paid advertisements. Google stepped in it with both feet, now their trying to hose off. I believe that this whole thing is about cleaning up MFAs, you know those sites that use one Google product (AdWords) to try and make money from another Google product (Adsense). I don't believe that pagerank has anything to do with it, I have a pr5 that was affected and a pr0 that was not. I think the algo looks something like this- <if your landing page has Adsense code or any link or redirect that includes "clickbank" or "tinyurl" in it you’re going to pay more>
I personally believe that Google's intentions are good, however I also believe that the manner in which they are trying to reach their intentions is illegal (ie. price discrimination) I believe they would be better served to come at this problem from the Adsense side of the Googleplex.
Well, eWhisper, what do you think are factors then?
Page rank has very little to do with anything these days. Just a couple of facts.
Page rank currently has very little to do with even where a site ranks in the organic search listings. It was more significant before. There are many sites with lower PR that rank very high on a number of their keywords.
None of us know our current page ranks anyway, but some people don't understand that the PR shown on the google tool bar is not updated often, whereas the real PR, which google knows, is updated much more often. Since we don't know the real PR, we can't draw conclusions.
What is more likely, IF google is using data they have collected regarding sites and serps, is that they use the algorithm that determines relevance for keywords in a search, let's say, and applies the same approach and data to the keywords you bid on. It may look at things like page keyword density, whether RELEVANT other sites link to your landing page, etc. The possiblities are pretty much endless.
It's speculation. I don't know. I don't really care. Apart from it being of theoretical interest, the bottom line is that whatever they use is bound to be related to quality content on landing pages, and the site as a whole, AND keyword relevance, so we don't have to know what they are doing to build quality sites relevant to our keywords.
I personally believe that Google's intentions are good, however I also believe that the manner in which they are trying to reach their intentions is illegal (ie. price discrimination)
Well, they've been doing the min. bid stuff for a long time, apparently without legal challenges.
It's would be interesting to see how someone trying to sue (or even trying to convince lawyers to take the case) is going to make a case that people have to pay different prices IN AN AUCTION BASED SYSTEM.
I know you CAN make such a case but I suspect that most lawyers, courts, juries wouldn't be able to see the logic of what would be a rather complex argument.
Which is probably why it hasn't happened.
(or has it and we haven't heard?)
It’s really not that complex, price discrimination is price discrimination.
Auction based system = market driven price
Same "minimum" bid for everyone = effective auction based system
Different "minimum" bids for like advertisers = price discrimination
Do you play a lawyer on TV <grin>
Perhaps everything is "simple" to you, so please let us know when you launch your suit. (I don't mean going to the dry-cleaner).
If you want to come out of the "world of simple", consider situations where purchasers actually are charged different rates for essentially the same product.
Bulk discounts for example. Or, similarly why a distributor buying a product from a manufacturer pays a completely different price for the same product than an off-the-street consumer.
It happens all the time.
However, price discriminations generally are lawful, particularly if they reflect the different costs of dealing with different buyers or result from a seller’s attempts to meet a competitor’s prices or services.
[ftc.gov...]
I think the cost to Google of dealing with a low quality advertiser is fairly clear, you could even say, simple.
I think the cost to Google of dealing with a low quality advertiser is fairly clear, you could even say, simple.
Seems so to me. Actually, if you think about it price discrimination goes on every day everywhere in some form or other, and it's never challenged. I was thinking of examples:
Broadband provider charges a "business" account much more for access than a "personal account" even though the personal account uses more resources.
Car dealer receives two different different prices on the exact same vehicle from two different customers.
Even discounts for seniors, or children involve price discrimination. A kid takes up the same space as an adult in a movie, sees the same show, but pays much less. What gives? I'm suing.
The irony is that the amateur and rather pathetic people who play lawyers on the internet claim that price discrimination is anti-market force, when in fact the right to set prices is essential for the seller to participate in a free market.
I guess some play economists on TV too.
BTW, thanks for the FTC link.
(Bulk discounts and car dealers, really rbcal, if you must participate try and keep on topic.)
