Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
I can't quite parse it.
I'm assuming they meant "Landing Page URL" and not "Destination URL".
[edited by: encyclo at 2:37 am (utc) on Feb. 21, 2008]
[edit reason] added link to article [/edit]
I've seen some domain name bidders (affiliates bidding on the merchants name) use typos or fake extensions (like .org) and get away with it. Happy to see them getting serious about enforcing this policy, even if they're announcement sucked a little in it's clarity.
chinara: I'm pretty sure that won't be a problem. Google says, "the use of sub-domains and additional text within the display will continue to be acceptable provided the top-level domain matches the URL of your landing page."
Kobayashi: Some advertisers have been using a display URL different from the landing page URL without any deception or double serving. For example, if you search for microsoft office you'll see an ad with the display URL of www.Office2007.com and a landing page somewhere on microsoft.com; there's no ill intent involved here, so I can see how Google could be lenient in that case.
But then of course there are the affiliates using completely invalid domains [webmasterworld.com] in the display URL, or using multiple accounts and imaginary domains to show 8+ ads at a time. They're the bad apples that ruined it for the whole bunch.
I'm assuming that what Google will be implementing on April 1 is automated/scripted checking that the display URL domain matches the landing page domain, so the loopholes and inefficiencies in their manual checking cannot be exploited...but maybe I'm being a bit too hopeful there.
no more redirects!
display domain = redirect domain = landing page domain
keep it plain and simple! no more sneaky attempts to bypass our junk filters. most of all redirects are not for tracking (you could as well do that easily without a redirect) but for the "neat" side effect of fooling publishers to select the wrong domain for their ban list (cj partners, ebay affiliates, you name it).
[edited by: moTi at 3:55 am (utc) on Feb. 21, 2008]
So what exactly is new? Isn't this policy already in place today?
How can a rep override a setting you ask? They may be motivated by the $ amount the advertiser spends and will continue to spend if the links continue to generate paying customers.
It's nice they warn everyone so now the market for keyword rich microsites will start booming.
we have made the decision to no longer allow certain exceptions with regards to our display URL policy
In a background, it may be that they’ve finally got the technical solution that should catch invalid display URLs better than it was doing it before (if anything automated was in place at all). This post is just a nice warning so they can say “we told you” after someone starts crying about account suspension or termination, which will make many of us very happy, if it really turns to be efficient system. Invalid display URLs is something we should not worry about and spend time on the phone while “showing” it to the specialist.
In addition, the break of display URL rule may be a subject to possibly reduced number of offences, before serious action takes place. In the past it looked like people could break the rule on number of occasions without being punished. Now that may (hopefully) change.
I’ll be sure to get onto Google and start querying it on or after April 1 in order to see how many of invalid ads are still there.
Hopefully, Fools Day will not be applicable to this. ;)
It is that PPC carries most of the weight when about this issue.
My approach to this is that if someone bases his/her business on having ads with invalid display URLs out there, they should be gone by now anyway. If they are ready to cheat on the system in that way, they are ready to cheat onto anything, whenever they get the opportunity. They are nothing but pain for everyone.
My understanding of this was that AdWords did not like the idea of multiple URLs for same site.
This concept would be in line with organic SEO side of Google. No multiple URLs, but 301s.
Now, it may happen that if a brand of a company or product is strong enough, and URLs have long history, they may be able to go through by pointing different URLs to same site. Not sure about 301s. I know that exceptions existed and I totally support them, even today. If you own five products and they are all well known brands and TMs, but all point to the site of your corporation, that’s fine with me.
I would want to see this policy hitting those that were misusing it, in order to get their ads showing, from one, or multiple accounts.