Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

More proof of a Google money grab.

4:00 am on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 8, 2005
votes: 0

When this last algorithm was introduced, Some of my keywords were hit with mammoth minimum bid increases.

Since then, Google has slowly been adding my keywords to their "low quality" list with small increases to the minimum bid (despite very high CTR and Conversion rates). Some of my keywords have had an increase in minimum bid almost every other day. Is Google saying that despite an increasing CTR, that my site is slowly decreasing in quality despite my not having changed it? This does not make sense to me. It does make sense as a pure money grab however.

Absolute proof (in my mind) of this money grab came for me today. Like many people, I've put the name of my website into my keyword list. "mywebsite.com" is one of my keywords. Today Google informs me: "Improve it's quality through optimization, delete it, or raise the keyword's maximum CPC to the minimum bid indicated".

This keyword is my own website! It is impossible for a keyword to be any more relevant than that.

There are only 2 explanations that could be possible for this, and neither one of them has anything to do with "quality".

1. There are major flaws in this latest algorithm (most of us have known this, and now here's the proof)

2. This is nothing but an out-right money grab. With so many option holders on the inside - Why is this such a far fetched scenario?

7:22 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 25, 2004
votes: 0

Hi traffick,

Very interesting info: clearly bad news for people wrongly hit (and not just in THEIR opinion!), but I'm pleased to hear data that suggests that G is STRENGTHENING an editorial line.

(Disclosure: having been an editor, I think there is some value in having and enforcing an editorial line. B^> )



[edited by: DamonHD at 7:24 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

This 91 message thread spans 4 pages: 91