Forum Moderators: buckworks & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Error Causes Poor Quality Score for Landing Pages

Google confesses that their system erred when evaluating quality score

         

Scott_F

10:12 pm on Nov 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



In response to my request to Google to help fix an effectively new account with extremely poor landing page quality score throughout, Google responded with the following email:

"I've confirmed that your website was not correctly evaluated by our system, and we've fixed this error. After you unpause your campaigns, you should see improvements to your Quality Score shortly after, reflected by higher Quality Score details for your keywords."

Background:
- Existing account that ran briefly last year, and then was paused until recently.
- Website is seasonal retailer.
- Created new campaigns and relaunched a couple of weeks ago.
- We're an agency with Google phone support.

After launching the new campaigns, I let them run for about a week. At that point I discovered that every keyword had a 1/10 QS, with the landing page factor being the problem (identified by viewing the little icon that gives details on keyword display eligibility). There were no problems in keyword relevance or load time.

I wasn't able to find anything in the landing pages that seemed to conflict with Google's landing page quality guidelines, so I called Google support. The agent couldn't find any problems either and agreed that this was odd. She escalated the problem to their Landing Page Quality Score team.

After a day, I received an email with the explanation above, citing an error when their "system" evaluated the landing pages. They gave no further details about the nature of the error or the correction.

The moral of the story: Despite the veil of mystery that surrounds so much of Google and makes accountability seem impossible at times, sometimes you just pick up the phone and discover real people who admit and fix their mistakes.

smallcompany

3:09 am on Dec 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



1/10 is only when a website has been manually reviewed. So when that email says by our system that means by our employee (Googleyee).

Why they did it in the first place and what has caused them to reverse it - it's only them to know.

the veil of mystery

And that will forever remain for some.

Plus this is still a mystery for you. You don't know what has caused them to give you 1/10. That wasn't an algorithm but a real person.

bluemamba

3:00 pm on Dec 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I disagree. I have been running a price comparison site for years. The site has adsense on it as well as affiliate links. One day I dropped my bids to as low as 5 cents across the board to see if I would pick up any cheap traffic. Shortly afterwards I got hith with 1/10. After that I switched the site from .com to a .net for adwords purposes and the site has been fine ever since - QS 7-10/10. I never bothered contacting the quality score team about it. Needless to say I don't try that tactic anymore.

What happened I suspect is that, by lowering the bids so low, I tripped an algorithmic switch/red flag at Google which said "this guy is bidding very low on an affiliate site with adsense. Therefore this is an arbitrage site - let's nuke his domain.

smallcompany

4:27 pm on Dec 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I disagree.

Absolutely wrong.

.com site was manually reviewed and scored 1/10. The bid change was coincidental.
.net site was a brand new site for AdWords and it will perform as it does until it gets reviewed again (assuming it's the same as .com).

Google sends emails with "Final Warning: Your Google AdWords account has multiple violations" in subject.

That multiple violations is what you've done with changing the URL. They're counted per account for sure and could be even per personal information including credit card, etc. This means that opening a brand new account could counted as another violation.

You have at least one bad point for your .com site. Some say that Google counts them up to three before they take action. This is just a guess, no real evidence.
Some also say that those hits are being "disposed" after a year or so. Again speculation only. If true, it means that your hit may be discarded after a year. This sounds bit too forgiving to me, but here it is anyway.

bluemamba

5:42 pm on Dec 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I didn't mention that I was advertising the same site in Europe with the .com, in the UK with .co.uk and in Australia with a .com.au in the same account but different campaigns. I only lowered bids to bare minimum for the .com site. The .com.au site was not affected, nor was the .co.uk site. No problems since with either. Still sound like a coincidence?

bluemamba

5:49 pm on Dec 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



By the way that's not to suggest that manual reviews don't get the same result sometimes as well. I've had another totally separate site get 1/10 with no bid changes at all. So I think the 1/10 kiss of death can be manual or algorithmic. G has a number of weapons in its arsenal.

smallcompany

4:06 am on Dec 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I didn't mention that I was advertising the same site

But that was not the same site. If I duplicate your site and use it as example.com, do you consider it as the same site?

Still sound like a coincidence?

Manual review does not mean somebody combs your account and checks every website you use. It was only your .com site that was manually reviewed.

I've seen sites that have been used for years and then disappeared, and then appeared again but as .info vs. .com.

Finally, I keep replying to your claims only because I would like to prevent other people believe they can change URL and go from there. That's definitely the very last thing one would want to do these days. That's a definite ticket to "adios" to an account.

manual or algorithmic

No way that 5000 keywords with QS ranging from 6-10 (of which 75% was 7, another 20% was 10, and the rest 6) can get 1/10 overnight from algorithmic side.
That can only happen when a URL has been granted 1/10 because of being a bridge page or anything else that Google does not want.

To reiterate, tactic of switching URLs is something nobody wants to do unless he/she does not care about the future of being able to use AdWords.

bluemamba

6:11 am on Dec 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



From the point of view of the QS bot which spiders content, a site duplicated across different domains is the same site content-wise - even on a different domain name. However, additional factors will influence the QS score allocated to it for any given search query other than its content such as the historic CTR for the domain name as well as the overall account level QS.

Unless you can get confirmation from a quality score engineer directly nothing is proven either way in terms of manual vs algorithmic slaps. Just to clarify I don't believe changing domain names after a slap is necessarily the best or the right thing to do in all cases. To a large extent it depends on how "egregious" your perceived violation of Google's guidelines was. An MFA site is a lessor evil no doubt than a site that's been scamming people's credit cards etc. Quite often changing domains works but sometimes it doesn't. It's definitely risky. Plus there has got be a limit to the number of times you can do this - as you correctly pointed out.

In the past 12 months G has been banning a lot of people based on algorithmic criteria applied to their account. Webmasterworld is full of such threads. So if they ban whole accounts algorithmically what makes you think they won't Quality score slap a single site algorithmically? Why would they only manually review a site before doing the slap? Were you around when the QS bot was first unleashed in 2006? Do you believe thousands of sites were reviewed overnight before they were slapped when the bot was unleashed for the first time or was that just a coincidence as well?

smallcompany

6:27 am on Dec 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



In the past 12 months G has been banning a lot of people based on algorithmic criteria applied to their account.


Pure assumption. No thread on any forum is proving it.

Green_Grass

8:03 am on Dec 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



My experience of interractng with G QS team is same as smallcompany's..
QS of 1/10 is manual penalty after review.
They can lift it if they want to after you make 'changes' to the website and have someone at G QS team to review those changes.
Changing URL's to get around the QS manual slap leads to a few months reprieve before you usually get a 'Final Warning' mail or an automatic algorithmic ban if you do this trick often.

bluemamba

8:43 am on Dec 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Yes if you ignore a manual slap it is inviting disaster. But I have changed domains maybe 6-7 times over 5 years after what I believe are algorithmic slaps caused by triggering an arbitrage red flag.