Well, if you're Google... run the ads on large sites, such as IMDB (an Amazon owned property) somewhat deep into the site navigation (again - to clarify, the ads are not shown based on any search performed) and tag the resulting clicks as not only "search" - but as an exact match, to boot.
Then, when protested about the drop in CTR from the mid-3%'s to 0.05% claim that your "invalid click team" reviewed the activity and determined that nothing out of the ordinary occured.
For all affiliates who may not defeat the main advertiser on "search" following the change of last week - watch out for the "search syndication" bucket that you may very well dominate - at about a 400% revenue share (cost/revenue).
Thought lower traffic/revenue was all you had to worry about? Think again. Thanks, Google.
Another insidious thing is allowing AdSense sites to inflate their revenue with the "AdSense for Search". Your ads appear on this even if you've opted out of content match. AdSense sites can then search on high-prices terms that have nothing to do with their sites. Google plays dumb and says nothing is out of the ordinary.
Another insidious thing is allowing AdSense sites to inflate their revenue with the "AdSense for Search". Your ads appear on this even if you've opted out of content match. AdSense sites can then search on high-prices terms that have nothing to do with their sites.
First of all, AdSense sites don't do the searching; users do.
Second, many (most?) AdSense sites use internal "site search" as the default.
Third, AdSense publishers would be foolish to try to "inflate their revenues" with AdSense search, because there are far better ways to monetize search if a publisher has significant search traffic. (I'd guess that most AdSense publishers who use AdSense search are doing so to make a few bucks from a necessary service that has cost them money or bandwidth until now. On my own site, for example, content-ad revenue outearns search revenue by a ratio of almost 100:1.)
And finally, isn't anyone who searches the Web Google Search, AOL Search, etc. likely to searching for something that has "nothing to do with the site"? What does Google have to do with Web hosting, mortgages, or asbestos-related lawsuits, for example?
Legitimate criticisms can be leveled at Google's content and search network, but trying to get people worked up about AdSense search is like trying to starting a tempest in a teacup and calling it a hurricane.
First of all, AdSense sites don't do the searching; users do.
Europeforvisitors... you misunderstood the situation. No searches are taking place. In order to see "search" syndication ads on IMDB (or, likely, any other similar 'publisher') all you need to do is click, perhaps, 1-2 links... you'll see ads for a wide range of companies - video editing software, film production services, film schools, misc. memorabilia, yellow pages, DVDs, and more. These ads, mind you, were triggered from me clicking only on an actresses name (and, no, none of the ads were related to the actress in the slightest). How can these results be considered search, in any way, shape or form?
Those who utilize different bidding strategies for ad groups where Content Targeting is enabled will not be protected from this traffic. When I was running Content Targeting (before I realized how minimal the value was for these clicks), I bid only $0.05/click for this traffic (and, it still didn't work)... while for search, I was able to bid upwards of $0.50/click.
To run my ad on a site where nobody has searched for a thing, where the performance is identical to, if not worse, than CT (0.05% CTR defines how relevant my ad is on these pages)- but, I get charged for the CPC that I designated for my search ad groups... that's misrepresentation. Then, to call it an exact match, no less...is adding insult to injury.
AdSense publishers would be foolish to try to "inflate their revenues" with AdSense search, because there are far better ways to monetize search if a publisher has significant search traffic.
Check out where IMDB ranks in terms of page views... they're enormous (22MM unique visitors/month). You don't think charging search-type CPCs for all ads... (where the overwhelming majority of ads are NOT triggered by searches) ...is a considerable source of revenue? It is. Run the numbers. From me, they were able to milk 10x what I would have knowingly paid... and, it was only due to the fact that I happened to review my referring URL logs that I discovered what was going on here.
... trying to get people worked up about AdSense search is like trying to starting a tempest in a teacup and calling it a hurricane.
My goal is not to get people "worked up." Hopefully, you aren't a victim of this type of traffic, but if you are... this may shed light on what has occured. Personally, a hurricane isn't far off from what it seems has hit my pocketbook the past several weeks. And, it's not right.
>> When I was running Content Targeting (before I realized how minimal the value was for these clicks), I bid only $0.05/click for this traffic (and, it still didn't work)..
And there are others who get a better response from content sites than they do from search. As with any system, some win, some lose.
Sorry, but I really can't see the big issue.
I think Google needs to look at these type of queries and do something about it ASAP or advertisers like yourself will lose faith in adwords / adsense and all publishers will be tarred with the same brush
Google takes a large enough cut of revenues that should mean they spend time weeding out this type of abuse and if they can not do it by algo they should invest man hours into it
steve
Europeforvisitors... you misunderstood the situation. No searches are taking place
Publisher creates link that says find more about e.g. harry potter and creates search query to google with asbestos illness ( with publisher ID as referrer )( PS just examples ) visitor clicks on find more link and gets search results with asbestos illness
the problem is this could be used for any high paying adwords ppc for abuse of system as a lot of adwords advertisers have made the decision that content does not provide a ROI ( myself on some terms which i found provided negative ROI when turning content on )
sorry not very well explained i can't spell the M word for the life of me iether
steve
Publisher creates link that says find more about....and gets search results with asbestos illness
I'd be obliged if we could get confirmation about this. I couldn't find any evidence of such a scam on the example IMDB site quoted. None of their links seems to lead to SERPS. But, then, there's a lot I don't understand.
steve
Publisher creates link that says find more about....and gets search results with asbestos illness
What some publishers are doing - and which is against the AdSense terms - is prefilling the AdSense for Search box. You see a Search box that has been altered to be pre-filled with search terms such as "mesothelioma" or another high priced keyword in the subject area of the website.
The other thing - which is also against the AdSense terms - is including links to the actual results page, so visitors don't realize they are actually searching. You could see a link imbedded in text or in the navigation system, or even a "Most popular topics/searches/ideas/buzzwords/etc" as a heading, with link to the search results for each term. (This is done by the publisher making a search using the search box for AdSense with his/her publisher ID, and then copying the URL of the search results page and making it a link from the page.
As for IMDB, they are a premium publisher - and very likely a search partner, so they do have some different rules. But as for the ads showing up as search instead of content, that would be because he vast majority of people go to IMDB and search for specific movie or show titles, or names. When I do a search for a movie, for example, I see Adwords ads. But if I click on a link from the main page for an actor, I see an Amazon ad and a smiley skyscraper ad instead of Google ads. The vast majority of AdSense are running on IMDB are running on search results, which is why they are part of search and not content.
I must admit when i first read the posting i could not see the problem but now i understand and agree with you , I still think adsense search seems a good idea for both publishers and advertisers but a harry potter site should not be getting hits for asbestos related illnesses
Ditto here. I didn't understand the issue at first, but now I think I do.
I see two related problems here:
1) Google's unwillingness to impose higher quality standards (and compliance standards) on the publisher network;
2) The advertiser's inability to block ads from sites that chronically generate worthless clicks. Some members have objected that advertisers don't have time to filter by domain, but in cases where a premium partner is sending bucketloads of useless traffic, an advertiser probably wouldn't mind taking 30 seconds to add the domain of a movie database, a Harry Potter site, a weather site, etc. to a "blocked domains" list in the same way that publishers can do.
or even a "Most popular topics/searches/ideas/buzzwords/etc" as a heading
Or masquerading as a "recent searches" dynamic feature... :(
But if I click on a link from the main page for an actor, I see an Amazon ad and a smiley skyscraper ad instead of Google ads. The vast majority of AdSense are running on IMDB are running on search results, which is why they are part of search and not content.
I do believe that there's a bit of shadiness going on re: which ads show up as a result of a search on sites within Google's search syndication network... a few good examples have resulted from this thread - and these should absolutely be addressed... but, this is not what I'm referring to. Jenstar, after perusing the site, I'd disagree that the vast majority of ads are running from search results... try this:
Visit IMDB. Click on a movie title off the homepage... say, Millon Dollar Baby (great flick). Scroll up and down the page. I got ads on this page a few times, but if you don't see any (sometimes all the way near the bottom of the page) or you see the ad Jenstar noted, just click on actor names - and scroll all the way to the bottom. If not on Clint Eastwood (great actor), try the next actor/actress listed. It shouldn't take long... you will see Sponsored Results - usually in groups of three. These are what I am referring to. This is where my ad ran.
No search is taking place whatsoever. How can it be "search"?
I have to agree with you. This is clearly an AdSense ad or belong to Content Networks. Its CTR should not be included in the Search's CTR to calculate the AdRank. Although it won't hurt your keyword status but it costs more to pay. From 3% down to 0.05%, you have to pay 60 times more to maintain the old position.
Hope Google should reclassify the ad type.
I don't consider these to be valid searches in my area. The CTR is very low. I'm just glad it doesn't count towards disabling the search term. I can't say it has affected my ad position in Google.
I complained to Google, no luck of course. And I would hate to drop out of the search network because of AOL. Just have to eat it, I guess.
I know there are less controversial questions to answer, but why are ads designated as search running run-of-site on large syndication partners?
Google's customers demand to know.
...why are ads designated as search running run-of-site on large syndication partners?
This topic is actually mentioned in the AdWords FAQ:
[adwords.google.com...]
Quoting from the linked-to page: "On search sites in the Google Network, your ads could appear along side or above search results or as a part of a results page a user navigates to through a site’s directory."
With that said, when I first saw this thread on Monday, I contacted a team who is following up on the specific examples mentioned here. I haven't heard back as yet, but will certainly post again when I learn more.
AWA
"...your ads could appear... as a part of a results page a user navigates to through a site’s directory."
AWA, this description does not distinguish between "Search" and "Content Targeting", though. It seems to be a broad description of where your ads might run across Google's suite of services.
I must say - if you can "navigate" to search results... well, that might just leave me speechless.
Any light you can shed on this would be appreciated, AWA.
AWA, this description does not distinguish between "Search" and "Content Targeting", though. It seems to be a broad description of where your ads might run across Google's suite of services.
poster_boy, I may have misunderstood your comment, above, but the quote I posted earlier seems very particular to search as I read it. Here it is again (emphasis mine):
"On search sites in the Google Network, your ads could appear along side or above search results or as a part of a results page a user navigates to through a site’s directory."
AWA
If I must quote the help docs, as you do AWA, when defining the match types available, all match types mention "your ads will appear when a user's query contains" or "your ad will appear when a user searches". On the site in question, the ad showed up when the user didn't query anything, so definitely not a search match.
Two questions:
1.) Why are my ads running on content syndication sites (i.e. IMDB) when I'm not opted-in to content targeting?
If your answer is - "because the ads appear as a result of a search and these sites are search syndication partners..."
2.) Why do clicks from ads that I navigate to (as opposed to search through) on content syndication sites (i.e. IMDB) count as search clicks?
P.S. These ads are not featured sites, or 'hot searches'
These folks are already exploring the specific examples quoted in this thread - and feel free to provide others if you like.
I have heard your concerns, and I've been passing your feedback on to the right folks all along - since I first noticed this thread, and will continue to do so. I'll certainly keep you updated as I learn more.
This may also be a good time to mention that I'll only able to post here on a very limited basis today, due to a full schedule - and almost certainly not beyond the morning hours.
AWA
Google has not shown an evil side to me. I tend to think this is in error.
I was not able to find a term that showed an ad relelvent to the search versus the html on the page. Or we have mislabeled it, and it is only adsense on this site.
While it may be Adsense, the clicks from these ads are - undoubtedly - being counted as "Search". I know, because I've purposely been opted-out of Content Targeting for months...
...and, then there are the stats that are impossible to ignore - millions of impressions/day (after averaging 10s of thousands/day for 6 months), a 0.05% CTR and, suddenly, worthless clicks... causing me to pause all campaign efforts until I get to the bottom of this.
Perhaps, I should contact the advertisers I see on IMDB (and like sites). It seems like my voice is not enough.
