OK, but how can you tell that they will not be up to it again? They did it once, so can anyone assure that they will not do it anytime later? There are other reputed options like auction ads which you can always believe. I can't risk my adsense account for something new just because they pay a few cents more. Anyway their ads were not performing well on my site. They don't have inventories of the kind others boast of; this by itself cuts down on account of targeting (I mean widget backs is unable to serve contextual ads)
yeah i got the same e-mail , i will change the codes and use widgetbucks till adsense aprove my aplication
The link has to be in the html format and it was there in the older code. That link is not there in the new code. They cannot put it back without changing the code again. So i know they can't do it again, if they do, they have to change the code again. About other reputed option, ya. ..there may be many... but auction ads is surely not one of them. :d Checkout some threads about them running in affiliate programs section in this forum
Well, Jim, I am not specific about auction ads and I know that auction ads is not even PPC but others are. YPN and MSN adcenter have both good inventory and signup payments and the bonus is their reputation of long standing (a normal publisher need not ask for anything more). As for widget bucks, it's their intention that I want everyone to put under the scanner not their actions. They might have removed the HTML link but why had they put it there in the first place?
The slow-loading ads are limiting income. I have received the same message. Thank God; now it will result in more earnings....
I ran a small experiment to evaluate my case and compare adsense and widget bucks - through out the day. Results are here (for me) CTR for adsense was pretty pretty higher Both contectual ads and chosen channels show same ads on WB CPC for adsense isn't all that poor and in some cases, it bettered WB Adsense gels pretty fine with the content Adsense loads like fire Net conclusion: Adsense: lacklustre CPC x high CTR => $$ WB: better CPC x poor CTR => $ I removed WB and forfeited $25+all my earnings (small amount, though)
Quite understandable. Adding/changing/removing a backlink is independent of file sizes that load onto your pages. Apparently they are two different aspects which proves to me that the reason behind changing their codes is not what they declared(?)
One day is barely accurate reading. Your results prove nothing - which had the optimized position ? Maybe you should have been fair and rotated between the two over a longer period of time. What's your neiche. What's your traffic source. Without these your test doesn't mean much and wont help people decide between the two. I have adsense and WB running and both have a fair chance, WB is Pwning adsense 10 fold - no complaints here. I'll believe WB and their Blog posts over all the claims and conspiracy theorists - who are attempting to debunk WB for their personal satisfaction or vengance against them. I am going to block out all these rumors and just go with the facts that are present on my site and stats.
That's a shame that is. If they done that on purpose to try and hide the link, then that could have got all their valued publishers that use them penalized from Google as well. Not a good move for this ad network I must say. The thing is that if it were a mistake that they didn't realize had happened then they could have not done much testing on their widget ads that get shown on other sites. Good luck to the ones using them.
John, please read their Blog and Do some research, with your Credentials all you're doing is feeding the gullable - they weren't penalized for such reasons. It's rumors gossip and blatant crap - takes a couple of ppl to to say that there's errors and links to blame - then it starts a frenzy. The HIDDEN links weren't hidden at all - it's common practice to have an alternative link for Flash - if someone doesn't the flash capabilities then a link is displayed.
There's disagreement over the reasons of their penalization. It could be hidden links, it could be the fact that their TOS demanded a backlink from publishers, or it could be a redirection problem on their website. I've heard all of these mentioned, but don't know which is true.
OK. I am pulling out of the controversy with this post. The test I ran was sure for a day, but I had the widget ads there for pretty longish time enough for me to get disappointed. I, like many other must have been doing, run WB simultaneoulsy with adsense which logs accurately equal number of impressions. It looks like you haven't seen my other comments about better CPC of WB etc. My comments had several constructive suggestions that they can implement to improve improving the speed only bebefits tripartite increased inventory means better targetting flexibility with layout helps gel the widget better tha they can now This thread only discussed predicaments of publishers with the uncertainties of using WB and naturally you can expect a few words/posts to be more apprehensive than the lot. Well, closing the thread may be better in respect of putting off the undesired spread it can have. Thanks to all.
I thank many advertising network does that. When the browser is not javascript enabled, the ad cannot be shown. In that case, just show the link to widget bucks. I think this was there idea but implemented in a wrong way. It should have been implemented through <noscript> tag instead of regugar html tags.
This is the time to load my homepage in second: With the old code, it takes about 1s to load: Then the new code, it takes about 0.2s to load: Made with http://www.octagate.com/service/SiteTimer/
Hmm..thats pretty good.. but I think this time is just the javascript load.. I think that javascript then loads an XML and images afterwards.