Ever since the latest adwords quality change (~last month) i've noticed something. Completely regardless of quality, the pages that are being sent the most traffic are the ones that have the most, or best incoming links. This has been beyond obvious. As some of the least quality (least updated) pages on my site are pulling in the most traffic from adwords then ones that are much much higher in quality. In many cases it's a complete slap to the face regarding quality of content. Google continues to put a stupid amount of weight on links. Which may very well explain the no-content bs sites that rank high on adwords. Now of course, they always give you the option of supplementing by just paying more. In the last several+ weeks, i've been uttterly shocked to see which pages have been pulling traffic from adwords. It's damn near a complete reversal of which pages used to get traffic. In at least two cases, the least quality, ~worst pages on my site (+/- half page of content) are pulling in the most traffic. As a result of a high^ ranking (or amount of) links. I used to get the most (by majority) traffic to pages that had the highest quality (+highest CTR). Gobs and gobs of fresh content. At the moment, i'd actually have to look+ to see which of those are getting traffic. Or at the least, comparatively. It's too bad analytics isn't factored in for return visitors. Because many of the pages that get no traffic at all from adwords (most often best unique content) Have the most return visitors in upwards of 50 to several hundred times. Unfortunately, some of those pages have the least (ranking or amount in #) of (~no) incoming links. .
If you're saying inbound links have an effect on AdWords traffic you are dead wrong. One has nothing to do with the other.
That's impossible. Several pages that are recieving traffic from adwords are almost blatently sh*t quality with near indentical advertisements. Also the CTR of those advertisements (the ones pointing to the lower quality pages) are easily noted as much less then quality pages - (less then 1%) What this boils down to, and i just checked again, is that one of the shortest, least amount of quality pages on my site is recieving the most traffic, This page is 14kb in size ffs (~3-4kb just from added advertisements) with no added/ext media at all. These pages just so happened to have high quality links.
I agree with GuyFromChicago. Inbound links have nothing to do with Adwords traffic. Adwords traffic comes from the amount of your 'adjusted' bid. I have some excellent traffic to a brand new site (one which hasn't had a chance to build up any significant inbound links) ... however, it does have excellent content and quality ... H
Well if you have an explanation then go for it. - I just edited ^ - Also one of these pages (the lowest quality/~11kb/smallest of the pick) is only ~2 months old. One of the other pages which is low quality is older, and bigger. But still shocking that it would recieve traffic over others. I want an explanation as to why some of the shortest least quality pages that just so happened to have HQ links are pulling the amount of traffic that they are. .
AdWords traffic potential is based on a number of factors, links to the destination page is not one of them.
As GuyFromChicago said, Adwords is based on many factors. Perhaps when you say the "lowest quality pages" Google just has a different idea of what a low quality page is than you do. For one thing, you are citing the KB's of your page as a quality factor - personally, I don't see that that has anything to do with quality, and I doubt Google thinks so either. Another thing, you are referencing the the length. Again, I doubt that means anything. Short or long sales copies both work. I'm not sure that any of us can tell you exactly which factor is making one page better. I can tell you one new factor is the percentage of people that do not click back to Google... (i.e. who find what they are looking for on your page) Inbound links (unless Google is blatently lying all over the place) have nothing to do with Adwords ranking. Furthermore, that would mean that sites with no backlinks would find it nearly impossible to get traffic, which is not the case. So, I'd say look somewhere other than IBL for the factor...
How can the size of the page (and content in it) not be factored into the quality? One of these is short enough to where you can almost count how many lines are in it right off the bat. You're saying in essance, a 10 line web-page (with ~no content, or links to other content on site) can somehow exceed in a quality score over a site that is larger and has content? How does this not sound rediculous? - How can the size of the page (& thus content) not be a factor at all? If it is the case, that a stupidly-small size page can somehow achieve this. Then what IS 'quality' - really?
Two things - 1: The KB's of your page is not a good indicator of your content length, because most of the size goes to the HTML code. 2: Yes, I'm saying page length is not neccesarily related to page quality. A short page that provides the searched for content and/or converts the visitor is better than a long page that doesn't.
What part of there's no added media on the page is not being understood? There's at best, 11kb of html content, maybe 10. That IS the content. That includes nothing (imported) else on the site, no media, no images, no links to other media on the site, etc.. etc.. there's nothing. The page sucks by any and all means. It's only 2 months old, and there's barely anything there.
I have several sites that have very small kb's of page content. A recent site that is *brand* *new* (less than a week old) has zero back links, has little content in terms of media etc, yet I have a ton of converting traffic ... ... the main thing is, the small amount of content I have is *perfect* for the traffic I am intentionally buying. And somehow Google Adwords Bot agrees with me ... It's all about quality *and* relevance, not just how much there is. H
I have thousands of ad groups, landing pages and campaigns that "prove it" to me every day. The only way I could "prove it" to you would be to show you my account...which won't happen anytime soon BTW, the size of the page also has nothing to do with it's score/traffic potential from AdWords. It's all about showing people exactly what they expect to find based on their query & your ad. In some cases shorter works perfect, and in other cases (all dependent on the query) a longer page is what is needed. JKE, not sure how long you've been working with AdWords but I would suggest listening to a lot of the people who post in this AdWords forum. There is a ton of real world experience in here across multiple market segments, keywords and campaigns. None of us know it all but collectively I'd say there are not many things relating to AdWords that you can't get a correct answer for right here.
Yes, please refer to the other thread and instead of just glancing over it (which you clearly did here), address more then one line of it. .
I've read this thread and understand the point you're trying to make, I'm just telling you you're wrong. Nothing personal, just the facts. AdWords traffic/quality score has nothing to do with inbound links. Edit, in case anyone is interested here's the "other thread" that's been mentioned.
JKE, Are you targeting the exact same keywords? If you are targeting a general keyword or group of keywords on one page and specific niche on another that can play into the amount of traffic you get.