. I found this on the AdSense Webinar this morning. I have not seen this before. It compares all the formats, and shows the ACTUAL performance of each type, with NUMBERS! Now, we know the difference between just "better", and "WAY BETTER". It is too bad that they forgot the 250x250 format, since that is the only format that I have used for over 3 years. I find it superior for 2 reasons. It limits the number of ads to 3, and the font is bigger than the other formats. It is the BEST FORMAT, and it is NOT THERE! And where is the 200x200 "Small Square"? So, let's all run out and install the microbar. Ha-ha. Maybe not. Especially since it is NOT available when you "Get Ads". Neither is the 120x60, nor the 120x90? ??? ?????????? These 3 ad formats must be doubleclick stuff, because they are not AdSense formats that we are offered when we "Get Ads". I'd sure like to know where that 250x250 fits in the hierarchy of ad format performance, and just how long its "red bar" is. As far as I am concerned, it is BETTER THAN the 336x280. The 336 has 4 ads, it is too big, and the font is too small. And what is your expert opinion? . .
Bam that slaps the banner blindness. However you can also check out these eyetracking science results.
Thanks for the highjack. Eye tracking is BOGUS, since it is determined by page layout. If the areas in red were BLANK, there wouldn't be any red, OR EVEN YELLOW there. Eye tracking is valid on a SINGLE PAGE AND LAYOUT ONLY. If all pages were identically laid out, THEN it would be valid. An apple is NOT an orange. People's eyes are not drawn to blank white. . .
surf dude, thanks for sharing the data. i too rely on 250x250 heavily. do you have any thought/experience with how the various link units convert? i haven't really implemented them yet, but was wondering if they are worthwhile (or in what circumstances do they work)