Google Updating Adwords Quality Guidelines

[peter_d]

Heads up

Google are going to make two changes:

1. “….incorporating landing page quality into the Quality Score for your contextually-targeted ads, using the same evaluation process as we do for search. Advertisers who may be providing a poor experience on their site will notice that their traffic across the content network decreases as a result of this change”
2. “..Second, we’re improving our algorithm for evaluating landing page quality and incorporating landing page content retrieved by the AdWords system”.

What do they consider to be a high quality landing page?

“…we don’t provide more specific recommendations because there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to best create landing pages. We therefore encourage you to focus on building landing pages that are best for your users…”

Whatever that is.

What if users really, really want to click on more contextual ads? My guess is that is they very thing Google is trying to prevent.

Google suggest the following:

-Link to the page on your site that provides the most useful and accurate information about the product or service in your ad.
-If your site displays advertising, distinguish sponsored links from the rest of your site content.
-Try to provide information without requiring users to register. Or, provide a preview of what users will get by registering.
-In general, build pages that provide substantial and useful information to the end-user. If your landing page consists of mostly ads or general search results (such as a directory or catalog page), you should provide as much information as you can beyond what your ad describes. For example, if your ad mentions <'Free travel information,' your landing page should feature free travel information (versus links to other sites that do).
-You should have unique content (should not be similar or nearly identical in appearance to another site).

More here: http://adwords.blogspot.com/2006/11/...ty-update.html

[Julie]

Thanks for the heads up!

[John Scott]

Advertisers who may be providing a poor experience on their site will notice that their traffic across the content network decreases as a result of this change

What does this mean?

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by John Scott

What does this mean?

I think it means that if they decide that your site is crap they are going to send you less visitors unless you pay more for them.

[John Scott]

I thought the traffic was determined organic, mostly by rankings. (#1 Adwords spot getting the most exposure would get the most clicks, etc)

[jg_v7n]

Yes, but I think those sites that get the "crap" tag will get less exposure at the #1 spot.

I'm confused now.

At the end of the day the best performing Adwords Ads creep up the list and gain more exposure. I guess that this simply means that the reverse will happen, not only to badly performing ads but also to good performing ads that link to "crap" sites.

So, even if you have a good ad and pay top rates for it, if it links to a "crap" site you'll still loose exposure.

[peter_d]

It appears to be getting more and more obscure.

I want to know what "using the same evaluation process as we do for search" means?

Create a landing page on the Wikipedia domain? Or is it done on a page by page basis?

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by peter_d

I want to know what "using the same evaluation process as we do for search" means?

If a page is good enough to appear #1 in organic search then its good enough to appear #1 in Adsense. I expect that if a page has a PR Ban or PR0 its going to be very difficult to get mush use from Adsense.

Adsense is now organic search with a "who pays the most" bias.

[peter_d]

As usual, they don't explain it very well, eh.

Is he hinting at page evaluation metrics i.e. title tag, body text keywords, and possibly HITS? i.e. query dependent?

"with HITS, your score is determined based on the keywords which are input and then the score is gauged around the linkage data surrounding the community relevant to that keyword/phrase."

http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/december_2003.html