Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
The email mentions that I have submitted several ads for landing pages that are considered to be of a poor quality and that the landingpage does not comply with the 'landing page and site quality guidelines'. I most remove the ads. Well, no problem.
The email also mentions that it is a final warning. It tells me if they find any ad in the future that is in violation with the site quality guidelines (the product itself is not the problem) they will immediately disqualify me from participating in the AdWords program. Now, that is a problem.
A bit strange? Also because Iím using Adwords more then 4 years and then I receive an automated email in English while I have a Dutch account.
Anyway, how can Adwords ban you for submitting sites that that seems to be in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines while there is not a tool where can check if an URL is ok to submit?
How can you be for 100% sure if a site is in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site? That is impossible right?
As mentioned, Iím using Adwords for myself and for other companies for over four years so I know how it works. The site I submitted yesterday is nothing different from many other sites I promote.
If Google would like to ban clients for this than they should offer a tool where you can check your website for Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site. If Google does not offer a tool like this then they should not ban clients.
[edited by: engine at 1:05 pm (utc) on Sep. 25, 2009]
[edit reason] user requested edit [/edit]
I've never had a direct campaign slapped but I've only linked to well known retailers. My slapped campaigns were landing pages that I thought adhered to guidelines!
I keep being referred back to guidelines that I feel I have followed to the letter. I ask for more clarification as my site met the requirements but got slapped - only to get a canned email pointing me to the guidelines again. This is what I find infuriating.
It's just the way in which this done, with automated emails to advertisers that have had a relationship with Adwords for many years, that is the main concern.
AWA > If you want to contribute, please don't feel you'll get a backlash.
As stated, this is not a googlebash - people have just asked some legitimate questions as direct responses from support have been inconclusive at best!
If they'd be specific then we could put it right but they won't tell you anything whether it's adword ads, landing page quality or whatever.
I'm afraid we have made them into this internet 'monster' that now has far too much power and influence on the worldwide web - they dictate how you can advertise, what you can advertise and what your website should look like.
I know they have search quality standards to maintain, but this is getting way out of hand, like I say, too much power and influence on the web by any one company is bad for us all and bad for the freedom of choice available on the internet globally.
Google the dominating force in the online search advertising market has been pretty fair in the past. However, with monopolistic tactics like these they are only asking for government intervention. I would really hope that Google would reconsider these drastic measures and put a more equitable procedure in place.
This makes up 40% of our revenue...and no we don't keep our eggs all in one basket...advertise in dozens and dozens of other areas, just Google Adwords still brings in the majority of the revenue.
It's too bad that this thread turned into Googlebash, now AWA is never going to pipe in with some background. maybe we could start new thread with a nicer tone?
Must we lick the hand that slaps us?
Quality score is a black box designed to eek out more profit for G.
I knew it when I first got slapped over a year ago. All the niche and industry ads that appeared for the keywords I advertised on were replaced overnight with ads for ringtones and surveys...that's not improving user experience. That's profit.
They should definetly reply here, thats all. Topic grew heat due to late replies surely.
Some of these people are banned for questionable reasons. I'd never describe someone losing all or part of their livelihood as "a welcome change". It's welcome if and only if it affects just those advertisers who actually deserve it, and I'm far from convinced that is 100% the case
I've been trying to push as hard as I can for Google to be far more aggressive versus _bad_ advertisers and either do it themselves or give us publishers even somewhat adequate tools (which we do not have in any way shape or form).
The only tool we have is to remove it all including those advertisers where we like to partner with, and where we do so successfully I'm sure; all other "tools" are ridiculously ineffective and impossible to use.
So, I do see it as a very positive evolution, and even if I were an advertiser, I still would see a very positive side to it in that it means there is hope for the bad taste and bad name the program is slowly getting might be reverted.
Maybe it helps if I show an example of what I consider a bad advertiser:
note ASA stating: "I'm looking into this"
but only very recently identical ads are back:
even the domainname is virtually identical .com -> .cn
Such ads have the "ads by google" tag out there on sites totally mainstream. Sure you want your ads to be sitting with that same tag, and be extension be associated you with this ?
I was trying to point out that for the vast majority of good faith advertisers it is good news that Google in cleaning up the worst offenders -if that's indeed what they are doing-, and I'd easily give Google the benefit of the doubt there.
Now individuals being hit unjustly -which is virtually impossible to proof out here-: of course I don't want to be insensitive and rub it in, that was never my intention. I'm sorry if I sounded like that.
Unfortunately, many people here are using Adwords to advertise in their industry's niche and their only offense is running a 9/10 quality campaign to wake up one morning and find it slapped to 1/10...sometimes after many months. And then to be banned on top of that is ridiculous.
I would bet that many people here don't even run content network campaigns for what it's worth.
The advertisers you're complaining of most likely simply opened a new account with new info...and it appears they are located outside of the US which is where (it seems) some of the most flagrant violators are.
My heart goes out to someone trying to promote a value-added affiliate site or collect leads for their dental business who wake up to find their business destroyed because the Googlebot decided to they had exceeded their imaginary "slap quota".
Google's lack of transparency in regards to Adwords is shocking as of late...unfortunately, a very clearly drawn out of list of "must do this" but "never do this" is not as profitable as "quality score".
What incentive is there to actually learn to comply with "quality score" when too many wrong answers shuts one out of the game forever?
You buy a laptop for $1K from HP,DELL, or IBM. This laptop has much lower margins than sending a few bytes over the wire. Yet, if you have a problem you expect, and you will be able, to contact someone in support via toll-free phone, live chat or email to resolve the problem. If the result is not satisfactory, you can get the problem escalated to a case manager or eventually executive support. At some point someone with sufficient *authority* to fix your particular problem will respond.
But, if you spend $100K on ads, the best you can get is a vague automated email.
BTW, the laptop will have specifications that the manufacturer is expected to meet and a written warranty that is much clearer than the "flavour of the day" nonsense of the so-called guidelines.
It must be time to juice the earnings again. Why not scare everyone to death so that they'll be desparate to stay in at any cost. It's certainly the right time of year for it.
One thing that strikes me though is that if they really are targeting a profile and applying it whether you are big or small, that would seem to indicate that you can't buy your way in, which does lend some credibility. I don't like the method, especially not telling you about which sites / campaigns may be the problem or why.
To be fair they have said that affiliates, ebooks, aggregator sites etc are likely to get low QS. I know we're not meant to post external links here but maybe the mods will let this slide as it still seems a lot of people haven't seen this message by Google:
A lot of affiliates then try to get round this with multiple domains, different accounts, re-directs etc etc. So Google now appears to be taking a harsher line...
That's not necessarily true, if you're a larger advertiser you get quite a few benefits - you get account reps and optimisers who you have direct email addresses and phone numbers for.
Like any company, Google gives its big spenders more of its time - that's just life / business.
The thing is, it was about time Google did something about this IMO - with too many affiliates on adwords the user experience is seriously degraded which will inevitably lead to less clicks from users, which means:
1) less money for google
2) less customers for others who use adwords
They probably could have handled the customer service side of it better but many affiliates spend like $100 pm or something - they can't just go contacting them all - you can guarantee it wouldn't be a quick phone call, every single one of them would argue their case about why their site is better than the average affiliate - whereas I think we all know that 99.9% of affiliates aren't unique / don't add value