An account's Account Quality Score is the average of all individual keyword quality scores. So if a new account includes many keywords with low search volume history, that account can start off with a low Account Quality Score, which can have a negative effect on all campaigns and ad groups in the new account - even ones that include well-constructed ad groups with high-search-volume keywords.
Can anyone substantiate this?
And I personally believe that there is something like account score.
Mathematically, you can take averages from all applicable measurements and say this is the score, being that keyword, ad, ad group, campaign, or an account.
It's the CTR and other data points averaged for all the keywords in the account (with some normalization, other stuff, etc).
I disagree with the statement that low search volume can hurt your QS. QS is formed from stats. Low search volume means less stats, and therefore less impact.
Idolw is right that QS is calculated "real time". Initial QS *may* be calculated taking account history into consideration. I personally don't think so, otherwise, I would never see QS of 10 soon after creating a new campaign. If it is, the weight is very small and good ads would quickly erase any negative effect.
I ran the same exact campaign in my GF's new campaign and in my 3 year old seasoned account and I got quite a substantial advantage in mine.
Do you believe that a keyword with three different match types could have three different quality scores if they are in the same ad group?
This is an odd things that happens in Google. Technically, it should not be possible as the CTR used is based upon the precise match of the query to the keyword. In fact, Google employees will tell you this won't happen.
However, it does happen. I just looked at an account where one ad group has the exact same keyword in 3 match types. The exact and phrase were 7s, the broad was a 4.
In another ad group, the broad was a 7, and the exact and phrase were 4s.
I have a few theories why this is happening; but I don't have any test results back yet as to ways of fixing this (or why its happening).
[edited by: eWhisper at 9:43 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2009]
Of course they would have different QS. They are technically different keywords, at least to the system. They would get different results hence different QS.
However, I've seen 2 things that contradict this:
1) I have seen different QS as eWhisper says
2) I have seen my broad match getting triggered for the KW even if I have it set as an exact match too - perhaps this is the reason for the first discrepancy as they now have 2 different CTRs to look at?
I've brought evidence of the latter to G employees, they say it is a 'glitch'.
There is also definitely an account level Quality Score that we can't see, just as there is a campaign, ad group and various other QS levels we can't see.
However, I don't believe it's anywhere as simple as just an average of all individual KW QS, all the other 'invisible' factors like the ones mentioned above also go into the mix.
I both agree and disagree with eWhisper on whether low search volume can harm your QS:
Low search volume can't give you a low QS. What it can do though is make it difficult to get above the starting point QS that G gives every new KW in your account, as there is not enough CTR history for that KW to merit an increase in QS. (And if you have historical low QS on an account level then this is doubly bad as your KWs will start at a lower QS level than otherwise)
I'd like to see a link confirming this or is this just hearsay, someone at Google having once said that (and maybe was mistaken) or someone misunderstanding and propagating this as fact.
I'm looking at this as a database guy. Each variant of a keyword (broad, phrase, exact) is its own data point, a different piece of information. As each keyword gathers impressions and clicks data, there is no way they would all get the same click rate. Since CTR is the major component of QS, it makes sense they would have different QS. The broad match could have a lower, higher or same QS than the phrase and exact equivalents.
[groups.google.com...]
