(PS. Do we need a new thread soon? This one is getting rather large)I tend to agree, but have always highly valued the grass-roots nature of these threads - i.e. that they have been started by members other than myself. I really like what that says.
(Cough) So if there are any volunteers out there... ;)
AWA
Ok, I'll jump in.
Maybe it's me, but it seems like I'm getting more and more of these boxes popping up warning about secure and non-secure items, particularly in the Campaign Settings area. I can't edit a lot of those things in the Editor, so it's *really* annoying to have to keep clicking out of that box. Google, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
Also, while I was going through yet again unchecking boxes for Automatic Match (hint hint) I seem to get tons and tons of pink boxes saying my changes had not taken effect. Seemed to happen more the faster I got in doing these edits.
More of these campaign level options NEED to be available in the next version of the AdWords Editor. *please*.
Now copy/pasting all the latest into the Advertiser Feedback Report (and I'll look in both threads). Still plenty of time for more.
Call me pathetic, but I get such a kick out of this ongoing series of thread that I sometimes think I take my work just a little too seriously. ;)
AWA
Provide a stat on percentage of time a keyword is shown in the bonus.
Not quite sure what you mean here, scout. By 'in the bonus' do you mean when the ads show in the (one, two or three) top spots above the search results?
AWA
thanks
2. A report that tells us which keywords aren't being served due to low search volume.
3. Campaign settings that allow us to turn off expanded broad match.
4. A report that provides campaign level impression share for all search queries containing the keyword "widget"
5. The ability to add individual domains as negative domains.
I am relentless, though, about including feedback from this thread in the Advertiser Feedback Report this week - and have just copy/pasted the lastest.
At least another two hours till the report is sent, so late-breaking additions are more than welcome. ;)
----------------------------------------------------- I'd like to see the AdWords Editor include a roll-back feature...
Aside to netmeg:
netmeg, considering how much you like AdWords Editor and much how you rely on it to work effeciently and do your best for your clients, your experience with AdWords Editor updates really pains me. Please know that I do pass your feedback along, often in person as well as in the report.
-----------------------------------------------------
AWA
Have the 'ad creation market place' be consistent. Some accounts only see audio, some only see tv, some see both (some accounts don't have the audio ads tab, others do, etc).
Allow the MCC search to find any client in the MCC hierarchy regardless of what account its linked from. While I do like the new MCC interface, the lack of filtering causes a lot of headaches when you have many nestled MCCs.
A cross account/mcc search feature would be nice in the editor as well.
[edited by: eWhisper at 12:32 pm (utc) on June 13, 2008]
I am hoping we get some official word ASAP about what the whole Yahoo thing is going to mean to us, and when it will be implemented (after it goes through all the regulations rigmarole, or...?)
As an example let's say within my agency I need only 5 people to give access to our company MCC. Then I can set in MCC where only 5 users can simultaneously work on MCC at any given point of time. If the 6th person tries to login MCC then login access for 6th person should fail.
2) The second security would be even better if we are given an option of associating static IP addresses to the MCC accounts. This means that certain group of company ISP's can be listed within which the MCC can be logged on. If any computer outside the specified ISP tries to login the MCC account then it should not work. Not everybody has static IP address and therefore this feature should be kept optional.
Having combination of both these features will help all agencies a long way. Overall it helps both agencies and clients to increase security of their accounts.
There is still plenty of time (maybe 6 to 7 hours) to get your ideas/requests in this week's report. I'll check back just before sending.
Many thanks, as always. ;)
AWA
The value of day-parting (at least as I see it), is that users display different behaviours depending on the time of day or day or week at their location. Therefore if a campaign is spread over different time zones the only way to target ads to the clickers specific local time is to have multiple campaigns. This is inconvenient and I believe unnecessarily complicates things.
I'd say when there's any numercial values in an ad, G can easily verify them. If lag time in scanning pages to test their veracity is an issue, then there should be a scoring channel over time, that grades how well an advertiser has historically represented their offers.
As an example, search for "rugman.com coupon code" at G... see the ads for 20% off and $200 off? They don't exist. But these people are getting their ads clicked because they have either intentionally lied to show a higher discount -or- they're not updating their ads to reflect what's really on their site.
I know there's algorithms in place to check the agreement between ad text and what is on the landing page, tweak it to be more acute when specific numerical claims are made.
All are now in the Advertiser Feedback Report (It's #260 just for the record) which will be sent out in about two to three hours.
Still plenty of time (and space) for more. ;)
Thanks!
AWA
A glossary of all of the error messages with definitions and suggested solutions would be nice.
There's still plenty of time for more.
I'll check back at least one more time before the report goes out - and be sure to include any late breaking additions.
The report will go out hours earlier than usual this week (hopefully by 7:30pm) since I'd like to catch the US based contingent of subscribed readers before they start thinking about their July 4th festivities.
Many thanks. ;)
AWA
5. The ability to add individual domains as negative domains.
That would be good as I have seen some publisher id's showing up and when I checked the sites, I was thoroughly disappointed in the content of the site... in some cases it was 50-100 words of content with 3 blocks of ads... almost giving a person no option but to click an ad.
On top of that, I have also seen the same person has already clicked my ad from an alternative website... so definitely being able to 'opt-out' of having ads displayed on individual domains would be highly desired.
On a similar note, I detest having my ads show up on parked domain pages... where is the option to opt out of having ads displayed on them?
A detailed reporting option for the content network if there had been any clicks. This would help optimize content campaigns and limit which sites displayed ads - especially when they don't appear to be bringing any ROI.
