Land Page Relevancy = Myth

A case showing that land page relevancy is a myth

[mimmo]

Search on Google for:

Windows #*$!XX Software

Where #*$!x can be almost anything.

I tried with Windows Cooking Software

An advertisement for Windows Vista or Microsoft Office is shown often in the first position. Obviously Microsoft is bidding on 'Windows Software'....

OK, but the landing page has nothing to do with the original search!

Land Page Relevancy = Myth ... if you pay enough you get your clicks.

BTW I am fine with this... just to make things clear.

[netmeg]

Landing page relevancy is PART of ONE of the quality scores that are assessed. There's more than one quality score.

[vinhboy]

I been tracking the keyword for my market for about a month now. It's just amazing what kind of keywords get top position. Some of the top position sites have ONE paragraph of text and no SEO done.

This is simply amazing because my site is filled with relevant information and has been heavily adapted for SEO, yet I can't get any good QS.

So eventhough the OP is technically wrong according to google, the actual outcome proves he is right.

[ddogg]

I'm sure Microsoft has no problem paying $10 per click.

It is already known that you can get your clicks no matter how bad your landing page is. That was never the issue. The issue was what your minimum bid is going to be.

Google does not reward good landing pages. They only punish bad ones. Annoying.

[koncept]

...has been heavily adapted for SEO

Maybe this is your problem. What does SEO have to do with ad relevancy?

[thecloser]

I gain amusement from the fact that Microsoft buys adwords from Google.