Anyone else experience the Google hammer this week? What is so disappointing is our site is very much like the sites that are now coming up on these keywords. There is no concrete evidence of these sites having better ‘quality’.
Any thoughts? Is it important for Google Quality to continually update the content on our landing page?
Thanks in advance….
MC
Then they get to reap the profits of higher CPCs when you rinse and repeat with a new domain 5 minutes later.
I only have one gripe about the entire QS/Slap..etc
Transparency... tell me what it is about my business model or site that is not acceptable. If you don't tell me what I'm doing wrong.. or not doing right, then how am I to correct the error of my ways?
Until the canned responses go away and google starts treating their customers like customers - I will assume that it is simply a flaw in googles system (although I know different).
Buy a new domain and move the site over. If that does not work - open a MCC, start a new account, and do it again on another new domain.
Many of us have been playing the Google shell game for a couple years now.
[edited by: NoLimits at 5:25 pm (utc) on June 26, 2009]
Do you think the results would be any different with an MCC account? I've tried the new domains/fresh accounts and each time the time between slaps gets shorter.
As you said, there seems to be something about my business they suddenly don't like (after 3 years advertising with AW). I just can't get an answer from Google as to what the issue is.
Would you expect an MCC account to have a better chance?
Thanks.
So we've been working the quality 'thing' for some time now, made significant strides, and will continue to please Google... Funny how all these ‘extras’ that Google thinks is so important for ‘user experience’ is to me just more clutter on the landing page. Oh well, its Google world, I just pay for it…
Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread…we do appreciate it….
Funny how all these ‘extras’ that Google thinks is so important for ‘user experience’ is to me just more clutter on the landingMakes you think what kind of quality score Googles website google.com would get if it whas not Googles own site. There is no glutter at all. At the same time they would like to see 'our' landingpages stuffed with links and more information then needed. Perhaps the would even like to see that we put also some links to products from our competitors on our landingspages. ;)
I would 100% absolutely go the MCC route. It's the only thing keeping us in AdWords.
Our method for the last year or so has been to create a new account for each "business model" and niche. This leaves you with lots of accounts, but at least the entire portfolio doesn't get slapped at once - AND - the sites that are okay in Google's eyes won't be dragged down by the ones that are not.
It's completely silly for Google's customers to have to play these games. Google better hope Bing catches on - because they are too big to be selectively policing their service with such an extreme lack of transparency.
Because of their enormous market share, it really creates a conflict of interest when Google tells one advertiser via slap that they can't advertise using Google - but they allow 10 other ones just like it to take their place. Either police the service or don't. Set clear guidelines.
All of this would be a moot point if Google would just tell people what specifically about their site or business model is not acceptable. Their current approach gives the impression of "We're above you... we don't have to explain anything to you peons"
That mentality is why Google will have to explain to their shareholders why customers are flocking to other ad services OR CUTTING OUT GOOGLE.
The last time one of our sites was slapped, we ran a placement report and contacted all of the best performing sites directly. We now pay less, and get better exposure than before. So not only are did Google lose our ad spend, but their adsense blocks were also taken down in favor of a direct relationship with us.
Google is nothing more than a hand in the pot at the end of the day. Their publishers are very willing to work directly because Google greedily takes a huge percentage of their adsense earnings. Most of the time when you work out a direct relationship, you will pay less, and the publisher will make more... only one loosing is google.
[edited by: NoLimits at 1:22 pm (utc) on June 30, 2009]
Two weeks ago one of the domains I use in one of my campaigns got the QS slap. Yesterday another domain, different campaign and different niche also went to 1/10 QS.
I made a new campaign in another account that is in my MCC but it received directly 1/10 for all keywords.
[edited by: Dlocks at 1:28 pm (utc) on June 30, 2009]
All of this would be a moot point if Google would just tell people what specifically about their site or business model is not acceptable. Their current approach gives the impression of "We're above you... we don't have to explain anything to you peons"
And yet, there are plenty of advertisers who haven't had these problems. Why do you suppose that is?
And yet, there are plenty of advertisers who haven't had these problems. Why do you suppose that is?
That is the point we're all making. We're following Googles posted rules. We've been working with them for years without a problem. And suddenly we get the hammer and we have no idea why because they are not transparent.
Are you saying that Google has clearly defined their concerns or reasons for penalty to others you know or yourself personally?
Or
Are you insinuating that we are doing something that deserves the cold shoulder from Google.
Just because your business model may jive with Google's now doesn't mean it will next quarter. You don't seem to understand that we are making sites that are designed to suit Google's terms of service, and as such we would expect them to be allowed in. What is wrong with us having this expectation.
We spend literally millions of dollars building up history on these sites through AdWords, only to have them stop receiving traffic months, or even years later with no explanation to speak of. You have to see a problem with that level of customer service when dealing with multi-million dollar clients at a publicly traded company.
It's completely idiotic. We want to market within their guidelines, but their guidelines are not clear enough or specific enough for the multitude of scenarios that can arrise when marketing online. It's really not too much to ask, and that will be painfully obvious when their share price begins to slide because Google gave the cold shoulder to too many million dollar advertisers.
[edited by: NoLimits at 5:55 pm (utc) on June 30, 2009]
Of course I have poor quality scores from time to time - and in just about every instance, if I go in and look at it, without getting on my high horse about it, I can figure out *why*. I was rushed, or lazy, and put a few keywords in that weren't entirely relevant to the ad. Or my ad isn't worded as well as it could be. Or (this one happens a lot) one of my clients changes the url for a product without telling me, and my destination url is suddenly going to the wrong place.
If I'm doing a site with affiliate offers on it, then the site has to be about the content, and not the offer. If the site can't stand alone without the offer, then it's probably not going to work in AdWords, so I won't even take one of those on.
That's not to say that there's anything wrong with pure aff sites (or even thin aff sites) but Google doesn't want 'em, so alternative marketing has to be done there.
Go back, and read over the all the docs and posts they've put out about quality.
And if you still can't figure it out, then you should probably hire some objective eyeballs to look at it for you.
To this day I do not understand the logic behind the people who talk about how greedy Google is in the same breath (post) where they complain about how Google is turning away their millions of dollars worth of advertising business for quality slaps.
You don't seem to understand that we are making sites that are designed to suit Google's terms of service, and as such we would expect them to be allowed in.
This is where the mistake is. Why would anyone ever create a site for Google - except to shortcut things?
When a corp or a local painter decides to get out with the website, they don't think about Google at that time. They may after, but their biggest concern at the first place was to get their business out. Think like you're building a store on the street and think what would you do to get people in.
It's completely idiotic. We want to market within their guidelines, but their guidelines are not clear enough or specific enough for the multitude of scenarios that can arrise when marketing online. It's really not too much to ask, and that will be painfully obvious when their share price begins to slide because Google gave the cold shoulder to too many million dollar advertisers.
Google AdWords (with all other Google stuff like Analytics) has evolved into a money making machine that knows how to get its buck from advertisers. They don;t care about how many of them is out there so much. You'll find so many ads being out there alone with no competition around, and yet they still may be paying $0.50 or even $1.25 per click - no worries about our millions - they get them anyway.
In general, many of us got out there with some sites just because we could not direct link (if affiliates), or just so we could put few links which looked stupid without some content, so we did put some (any) content, too. In some cases that works, in some it does not.
In regards of clear guidelines, well, just like with regular SEO, you think it's beneficial for Google or any other engine to tell you how you can "spam" on them?
If they want long lasting business that users like because of their quality, they better ensure good and relevant sites are showing out there, not those that were built overnight based on the "clear guidelines".
Now you'll say something about so many crappy sites that are still showing while your (good) site is down - true - it is impossible to do all at once without having some of them going through - for some time - or even forever. Seeing them out does not mean that they did a good job - it just means that Google did not catch them.
Finally, sometimes (or many times) I come across a site that looks good, like from the books, but it's just too dry. Why? I guess there was no passion built into it.
Just like that local painter. If you want to do it, you better know what gloss, semi-gloss, eggshell, and so on is. You better know which paint is actually breathing - you better know how to match colors, etc. Blah, blah, blah, please don't get me wrong - I just tried to express that you really have to be into it in order to do it well. And that takes time.
It is so hard to see your campaign or the whole account showing 5 impressions a day just after it had 20,000 yesterday which means $3k or even $5k less in your pocket. Hey man, daily! People work for the whole month for that.
So, you want them back quickly, you're crazy, no sleep, no eat, you hate your family, you hate the traffic light man... you go crazy.
Forget it... take time... have a beer... and do it properly... and you'll never be busted again...
I was just throwing in my 2 cents so that those with similar perspectives on the situation would know they are in good company.
We used to think Google was critical to the success of our business, but the last 12 months have proved to us that we can not only thrive without Google - but the direct relationships they forced us to form are 100 times more beneficial and rewarding than working through Google. It's nice to work with people who actually WANT your business.
If there's any one thing to take away from years and years of working almost every Google product and service offered, it's ** have a contingency plan **.
I am creating campaigns in the Adwords Editor. Uploading. Waiting. Then 'get recent changes'. 7/10 on most words. That's ok.
The problems seems to happen when I'm logging into my account via adwords.google.com. Sounds crazy, but I've tested this several times. After the log in, I download recent changes in the Adwords Editor again, and now most words have gotten 3/10-4/10 with a ridiculously high first page bid. Based on zero statistics.
Have anyone seen anything like this before?
"Nutmeg" :o
I trust that was a typo ;)
I've followed Netmeg's advice like the Good Book for years.
I've long been stubborn and have clung to an early web dev axiom: "Write pages for people and they'll rise to the top on their own merits".
However to a large extent based on the input of wise members like Netmeg, I'm slowly coming to realize that I need to adapt to another age old axiom when negotiating the Adwords realm.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do"
It's the only way, either complain or learn and adapt.
Complaining isn't working, whining isn't working, so let's listen up, IMO.
==
As much as I find QS hard to fathom, it won't disappear. That leads me to another axiom:
Sometimes I can't see the "forest for the trees"
As Netmeg recently suggested, have a contingency plan (or plans!).
I always have.
==
I realized recently that I'm spending endless time trying to get back into the good graces with one campaign that Adwords keeps hitting. Don't make a lot of sense why this one gets hit. Very clear cut, wholesome in every way, but the QS never endures, despite the conversion potential.
I've tried so hard to follow every guideline but I'm somehow missing the secret sauce
==
OTOH, I realized that I have had another campaign running which requires minimal maintenance, yet returns up to a 350% ROI based on monthly spend. While it's an honest campaign, the "widgets" can be miscontrued as controversial.
The other minor PPC's either tell me to get lost or disapprove my ads unless I make strange mods. Go figure.
Between Adwords and the SERPs, it's paid the bills nicely for years.
==
I can either take my ball and go home or work with what Google likes and try to learn exactly why in order to apply that to my other contingency plans along the way.
==
Posting here reminded me to order a highly recommended book on the subject. No, not some e-book that promises riches -- I'm not easily taken.
==
So while I think we're all in agreement on this, allow me to reinforce that the best route is to follow the advice of those like Netmeg who clearly have learned the ropes involved traversing what can be an admittedly daunting road.
After all, like it or not, it's Google's product. They won't change it because we're sometimes frustrated. Think I'm paraphrasing what Netmeg has been telling us all along. It can clearly be done, but what other choice is there except to learn the rituals?
A sometimes frustrated:
Atun
Thanks for the info.. MeatCurtain.
This from someone who's spent over a million with them... (I have the Google refrigerator to prove it...)
When the QS BS started way back, I had a site hit by this stuff. As it was my main e comm site, I could not 'change' the domain. It had taken G , apx. 2-3 months to remove the poor QS on it. Glad to know that it is still possible to get a site back in their good graces. If it is automatic, then G algo, has much improved in the last few months.
QS is one of the justification tools for Google.
1- Google had no problems with affiliate sites in the past.
2- Google had no problems with arbitrage sites in the past.
We all know that Google made millions of dollars through both arbitrage and affiliate sites.
Even now, Google still has no problems with affiliate and arbitrage sites as long as there are not enough advertisers for a given keyword phrase.
Let's say there 5 advertisers for "beautiful blue widgets". In this case, ads from both affiliate and arbitrage site would still be displayed.
However, if there are more advertisers for this keyword phrase, Google starts killing the arbitrage site first. Then, it kills the affiliate site.
As we know, the number of Adwords accounts has been getting bigger and bigger every day. The more advertisers Google has, the more control it has over the system. Google is the system.
Yes, it's a capitalist system and Google can do anything no matter what.
But, it's not ethical to display one advertiser's ad in a less competitive industry while they kill another advertiser's ads in a more competitive industry when their business models are the same.
This is just not fair. QS must be universal.
For example, Google must not display Ebay's ads:
Looking for everything?
Everything is here.
ebay.com/everything
You click on the ad and you go to a blank page. What kind of QS is this?
But, Google can easily justify this. I don't think Ebay pays $5.00 for this keyword.
Ebay has been advertising on Google using 1,000,0000,0000,0000,000 different keyword phrases whether they make sense or not.
I am sure Google killed lots of Ebay's ads/keywords etc becuase of QS stuff but Ebay has still so many nonsense ads on Google. Because Google makes money out of these ads. It's that simple.
I used to think "Google thinks about the users first" in the past. After all, this was the key to their success.
I still think Google thinks about the users to a certain degree, but it seems that making money is more important than users now.
<snip>
[edited by: bill at 12:32 am (utc) on Sep. 4, 2009]
[edit reason] removed e-mail quote [/edit]
Yahoo has s TQ score they disclose thru their parking publishers such as parked.com with ranges from 1 to 10 and has recent issues with it involving downgrades from 9-10 to only 1-3 with no explanations.
[edited by: trader at 12:05 am (utc) on Sep. 4, 2009]
I've spent millions with Google....never got anywhere with "my rep". I haven’t e-mailed or called them in years. I've learned far more here in this forum than from "my Google Rep"....
