'Quality' System Doing a Great Job of..

Being totally useless.

Let's find some news shall we?

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9576/albaniaoe2.png
Sweet, calling cards.. i have a feeling we might be running into them again

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8594/australiawm8.png
Everyone knows ebay is the #1 source for news

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4247/brazil1rl9.png
Football ahh.. yeah.. so what happens if you go to that URL?
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9019/brazil2xs2.png
A re-direct to a mens magazine.. who'd a thought? .. oh right ..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4964/egypt1zn9.png
Wow News *AND* Gifts who could beat that?? let's take a look...
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9386/egypt2ma3.png
Ah right.. no egypt anything here.

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2053/hongkongzr0.png
"Everything You Need To Know About <Hong Kong News>?" - Yes clearly..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9913/irantn6.png
Ebay again, clearly a reliable news source. Hey and apparently so is an 'Anonymous Proxy' - Also i tried to find Iran @ visaconnection.com .. nothing.. and guess what? BaManook.com is great.. if you can read arabic.. and care to view the 2 articles in english.. site is very limited -- and don't forget cabledirectory.com who offers... cables..and.. news about cables.

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6306/mexico1sg4.png
Fact Sheet Huh? how about NEWS Let's see..
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8066/mexico2vl1.png
Looks more like a ~resume and of course.. no news..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7444/nepal1lk8.png
Yes! eye care programs.. let's see if they have news..
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4411/nepal2tu2.png
*Shocking*..no mention of nepal at all..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5860/netherlandshy1.png
I'd ran accross these people enough times before.. time to check them out...
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8444/pdfb7.png
King of content!

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1954/nigeriarl5.png
Once again ah... arrg...
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3906/nigeria2sp2.png

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8506/norwaylc8.png
Hey! it's these guys again...
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8444/pdfb7.png

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6595/philippinesec3.png
Ebay yet again.. a great resource for news.. and of course so are the others..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9472/scotlandaj6.png
Best Find yet? - Maybe!

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3262/sweden1ra1.png
Hey! look who it is!
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8444/pdfb7.png

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1967/thailandyq0.png
I know when i'm looking for news, i'm ACTUALLY looking for calling cards, ebay & hotels..

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5057/turkeyhs1.png
Looking good...
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1993/turkey1dd6.png
Looking great!

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9038/vietnamio1.png
Looking for <inset here> News? Find EXACTLY what you want today!

------------------------------------------------------------------

So ahh.. once again. It's not that no one in the world isn't trying to advertise their site.. it's that these sites ^ have been deemed to have better 'quality'

- Decided to call it quits after that.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok one more for Sarahk...
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1129/nzqf7.png
News = NO!
Ebay & Calling Cards = YES!

------------------------------------------------------------------

.

 

ONLY because i had a feeling this would happen..

Here's a few others for your enjoyment...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7654/deadbabyyy9.png
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5422/deadfetusku0.png
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4376/deadcatsxt1.png
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/262/deaddogsjq9.png
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5182/hbpiv2.png
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6695/nuclearbombwn8.png

 

You know the original post was meant to be humorous and all. But for publishers trying to advertise their relevant content. It's NOT a laughing matter. Google is clouded with high-ranking garbage on adwords. The standard of what 'is' quality is utterly flawed.

 

Excellent post, just goes to show there's more to displaying relevant results than just removing MFA websites.

 

Can't check em' all but...

Google is just displaying the ads that the advertisers are paying for. They didn't pick the calling cards ad, the advertiser bidding on "Albania" did. Maybe that ad is successful, maybe it's not. I can see the tie in - if I'm searching for Albanian news maybe I know someone in Albania and need to get a hold of them on the phone...

It's marketing 101.

 

-------------------------------------------------

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6499/montanabx6.png
Headwaters... if you're looking for limited outdated news (that just forwards to other sites)
Newsconnect .. advertising.. links to other websites.

-------------------------------------------------

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3039/coloradokk0.png
Do i really have to say anything about this?

-------------------------------------------------

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1232/oregonxs3.png
Refer to above ^^^^

-------------------------------------------------

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9216/california4bf6.png
& Here's what you'll find @ NewspaperArchive
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4035/california3zb0.png
Another 'king of quality'

-------------------------------------------------

 

So what you're saying is. Instead of advertising what the customer is looking for it's best to advertise what the customer might be looking for.

Yeah that makes sense, we can all get behind that right?

 

What I'm saying is why only do one or the other when you can do both. It's a common practice in just about every form of marketing. Be where your customers are - and be where they might be too if you can afford it.

"Get behind it" or don't, I could care less. I'm starting to get the impression you have very limited to zero marketing experience and even less in the ppc space. Are you trying to make a point that adwords should care about or just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

 

You're right. I'm the only one that see's a problem here. By both do you mean.. one?

 

I don't know that you've ever indicated what the "problem" is. The title of this thread would imply that you think the problem is that the ads you took screenshots of are somehow there because of Google quality score system. Those ads are there becuse advertisers are willing to pay for them to be there, not because of Google's quality system.

Or maybe the problem is all the serious advertisers out there who are getting outranked on all the "dead" terms they are bidding for

Show me a large sampling of highly commercial terms where all the top results are "clouded with high ranking garbage" - that I would find a little more interesting.

By the very nature of the system you'll always have some odd ball seemingly unrelated (if you're not in the space you really have no idea what converts and what doesn't) stuff - that's what happens when you let anyone with a PC and internet connection become an online advertiser. Don't blame AdWords, blame the advertisers. Google will let you run pretty much anything if you're willing to pay them enough.

I'll just assume that's meant to be a joke.

If you want to discuss quality issues and advertising I'm game. If you want to not really answer any questions and throw around sarcastic one liners I'll respectfully move along to a more productive/informative thread.

So please;

1. Define the percieved problem.
2. Explain how the perceived problem is effecting the AdWords community - good or bad.
3. Maybe even offer a suggestion or two as to how the perceived could improved.

 

I am not really following the problem here either. I only clicked on one link, for Colorado News, and looking at the ads shown in your screenshot I don't see a big problem.

One of the biggest problems with contextual marketing is that most marketing is not contextual. Traditional media looks for target markets with similar interests, not just ones directly related to their subject.

For example, movies advertise across a wide spectrum of tv shows, for instance. They like to target younger people, who are movie goers, for the most part. This does not mean they only advertise on shows about movies (ie Ebert and Roeper, E! Channel etc), they advertise on shows that people who might like their movies watch.

This is the big sticking point for the entire online contextual marketing industry right now. It has some huge inefficiencies, because everything need need be 100% relevant.

For example, perhaps people who read the New York Times are also big buyers of cadillacs. So it would make perfect sense to target Cadillac ads to someone who does a search on the New York Times. With a contextual approach, that is not possible. I understand Google's position in terms of trying to provide information and answers, I just think as an advertising model it is fundamentally flawed.

They can still provide relevant search results and have disparate advertising. I suspect in the future we will see a search engine that does just that.

Clearly you are of the camp that ads need to be impeccably targeted, and in theory so is Google. Again though, that is really not the most effective advertising model, and Google is actually leaving a ton of money on the table doing it this way.

Relevancy is important to them for now, but if they insisted on hyper-relevancy then a big percentage of their ad inventory would be left unsold. Which is bad business.

Look for them to depend less on relevancy in the future.

 

I'm with Chicagoguy here. I clicked the very first image for 'albania news', and believe that I saw an ad for albania calling cards, along with a price per minute in the ad. Sooooooooo......

What's the problem?

If I search Albania news, I'm obviously interested in Albania, and maybe I have family and friends there I want to call.

 

If you chose to intentionally take a limited approach to the findings here then don't bother posting your obvious ill-informed opinion. The fact that any of you make statements along the lines of "i don't see the problem" is either blatently intentional in the face of the obvious, or the result of simply (as more then one of you stated) not actually looking at anything.

If you don't want to put in past clicking one or 2 screen shots, and not at all reading some of the provided info. Than your bias is beyond obvious. Until you are prepared to point out specifics on a per-found-item basis as a whole beyond just a couple of items, then don't bother.

 

Exactly.

Essentially the majority of the pages found here had one or more of the following:

1. No content related to what they were advertising
2. No content related to the search
3. Extremely limited content.
4. No content at all

I remember a time when you could enter a search phrase, and yeah maybe even up to 3 were MFA, but several others were legit. It wasn't a complete blind struggle to find something related to your search.

Now look at it. You can't even change countries or states w/out getting around who is dominating the results with advertisements users are not searching or directly looking for.

 

The only thing that's limited here is your sampling of data on which you base your opinion that there is some sort of "problem" and your capacity to discuss the subject with someone who doesn't fully agree with your view. My "ill formed" opinion is based on a decade + of marketing experience across multiple platforms that's involved hundreds of millions of dollars.

Is your opinion based on anything other than the statistically insignificant screenshots and links you've posted here? If so, by all means please share.

Or, the fact that there's not really a problem. Are you familiar with the term statistically significant? Maybe the precise examples you have pointed out are "problems" (still not sure for who) but I would classify them as statistically insignificant.

The only bias I have is to aquiring customers. Long before this reply I had looked at all the info you posted. There's a difference between not looking and not agreeing - I'm part of the not agreeing group. You just picked out a bunch of terms no one cares about that have some oddball ads/sites (which in a lot of cases are short lived as they are priced out of the game) and based on that have decided the whole system is flawed. Something is very well flawed here, but it's not the system. Do you even use AdWords or any other PPC product to any significant degree? Do you understand what advertising is?

I think some of steps they have taken with the content network (site targeting, demographics, options, etc) are steps in that direction. Google knows if they want to continue to grow at the pace they are they need to give advertisers of all types and methodologies cost effective ways to advertise through their services.

 

Yes please continue to piddle paddle your way around addressing anything specific here.

Regarding the "just picked out a bunch of terms no one cares about" This must be in reference to attempting to find news for geographical locations. If you feel these are terms "no one cares about" than you may want to note the search volume.

In reference to your repeated attempted personal attacks. I'm not looking to make this a 'pissing contest' so those statements, as they have been in the past, will be disregarded. If at which point it reaches a 'higher' level than it already has. Your posts may be disregarded all together.

You continue to provide, or contribute nothing other than spouting off jargon with disregard to anything specific. As clearly reflected once again by your "no one cares about" statement & earlier indications & statements.

If you feel the sampling data is 'limited' then i can easily provide 30+ more examples. As could anyone. Negating the obvious here is your choice. Not mine. Don't fool yourself into thinking i hadn't already looked at other potential examples prior & post to what has been provided here. The amount of time it takes to provide it is the only reason more doesn't exist at this time.

Regarding 'hyper-relevancy' (which should also include quality) what has been found here meets less than half-ass of both. More-so based on either the advertisement itself, or what the advertiser is bidding on and nothing else. That is the extent of "relevancy" that's been achieved here.

 

------------------
I had originally written a longer reply with some details involving the examples above ^ but i'll try to keep it simple as i know what you're getting at.
------------------

Of course, given the $100 tag, it would be a cold day in hell before google would turn you down.

& No one has the right to say (to google) "you can't do that" (you know what i mean)

However google still leads users to believe that 'quality' (+CTR) can achieve something.

What we are looking at here, is google barely having the capability of saying quality means anything. Just enough to state to advertisers that it may mean 'something' depending. (in ref to engine results, ~not content)

The question is, how much lack of quality does it take, before google can claim it has any weight at all.

So what you (google) do is, toss in a bone every once and a while, stand back and say "see, here's a quality site" - and there you go.

This doesn't make it 'right' & certainly doesn't follow:

"Advertising on the site must offer relevant content and not be a distraction." & "refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit"

as stated by: http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

To prove that statement incorrect, would be as easy as hitting a wall in front of you blind folded.

Sarahk, you can likely see as to what i'm getting at as well as i certainly understand the position you presented.

The issue here (really) is quality, what it means, and what it is actually capable of.

If the possibilty exists that all slots, can be taken over by (just one or more) lower quality (potentially higher paying) site(s) Then google needs to state that quality, may (~sometimes) not be a factor.

But that is not what advertisers are lead to believe. They are lead to believe that quality is a constant.

Now i'd like to add something. I have a pretty large site that has adsense & a very broad range of ads showing up depending on which subject/page. One thing that is becoming more clear. Is that i can find more relevant advertisements (sites) on the content network, than the engine. It's quite an obvious difference. These sites are somehow not achieving the quality that it takes to get on the engine. Yet pointing out that they are higher quality sites, could be done by an infant. (& no it's not because all of them are exclusively bidding on content, get real)