Slashdot Mirror


A Closer Look at Google Adwords

zaphle writes "This article describes an interesting experiment with the Google Adwords service; in an effort to fine-tune the price per word, a mirror site was set up, paying a different price per word. I turns out the second site had to pay more in order to reach a similar click-through rate. My questions to the slashdot community: are organizations like Google redefining the law of demand and answer? To what extent does this imply a competitive advantage for larger companies? Do we need an ethical framework to direct companies to make such algorithms open source?"

23 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we need an ethical framework to direct companies to make such algorithms open source?
    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I keep on hearing that "open source" is about freedom. Since when is forcing someone to behave in a certain manner considered "freedom"?
    Google can do what google wants to do as long as it's within the limits of the law, you don't like it? Start your own damn company that is more ethical.

    1. Re:Huh? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Since when is forcing someone to behave in a certain manner considered "freedom"? Google can do what google wants to do as long as it's within the limits of the law

      The law, of course, is about forcing someone to behave in a certain manner; there is always a tradeoff between the decrease in freedom in telling someone what to do and the payoff which may be an increase in freedom. The law restricts your freedom to lock me in a closet without my consent because that leads to a net increase in freedom for me and anyone else you might think about locking up.

      Open source licenses like GPL are intended to force people to behave a certain way (decreasing someone's freedom) because its net benefit enhances everyone's freedom. Now, requiring open source in an industry by law is a little different than a license like the GPL -- it's debatable whether the increase in freedom is worth the cost in any particular situation; personally I would not be in favor of mandating open source across the board, though I probably would support mandating open source in public sector agencies for example. But it is overly simplistic to simply take the perspective that you do, that restricting people's behavior with regard to software development, or anything else, is automatically "anti-freedom."

    2. Re:Huh? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And speaking of ethics, it's been shown that there are plenty of people out there with none. Should the exact details of the algorithm be public, I have no doubt that hordes of Search Engine Marketers and Optimizers would use that knowledge to game the system.

      There are times when secrecy has its benefits...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Huh? by deetsay · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I keep on hearing that "open source" is about freedom.
      Correction: "Open source" is buzzword meaning a various bunch of licences that corporations use, that are usually watered down versions of "free software".

      Anyway, I also don't see how Google would be more "ethical" if they made their AdWords algorithm/program "free software" or "open source" or anything. A big community of developers looking at it could find the algorithm's faults and be able enhance it for everyone's benefit, but if it's already good enough for Google, then why give it out to others, who would just use it for competing AdWords services? Maybe the poster means that the algorithm should just be made "viewable" to people, while retaining all the rights to using it... The way to implement that would probably be a patent... Are you sure it's not already patented?
      --
      "The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand", or so I have read.
  2. Why they can get away with it by hug_the_penguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google IMO has the best advert service because it's unintrusive and they're ads you want to see because they're context sensitive. To me that makes it more likely you'll be interested in what the ad's selling and you'll want to get it more because the ad doesn't piss you off. Because of this, google can charge whatever they like and most people will pay it.

    --
    ~HTP~ Hug that tux ;)
  3. Honorable Sir, by EmoryBrighton · · Score: 4, Funny
    To be honest, I just checked, and while there are 1,030,000 Google results for "Cringely," there are no ads at all on the results page, indicating -- as many have long suspected -- that I have no commercial value whatsoever.
    No Way! I'd pay for you NOT to write!
    --
    Rule 2: Writing a spec is like writing code for a brain to execute.
  4. Cringely answers own question by NathanBFH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cringely, near the end of his article, drones on and on about how he has "no idea what the heck is happening here." But, in fact, he very clearly states what is going on at the beginning of the article:

    Google places you higher in the rankings of of paid search results based partly on your volume of click-throughs because, again as Cringely very claearly pointed out, the more people click the more money Google makes.

    Why then, Cringely, is it so hard to understand that since the first site has been opperating for what I assume to be months or even years, it would more easily place at the top of the paid search results than the brand new experimental site you created?

    Your experiment proves what you already knew: popular click throughs means higher placement for less money. What don't you get?

    1. Re:Cringely answers own question by TallMatthew · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's another possibility ... depending on the search term used, the placement of the ad in relation to other ads bound to the same search term might have shoved it to the second page of search results.

      My experience has been unless you're somewhere near the top of the adwords list on the first page (and you pay more per hit obviously), your hits will plummet precipitously, not necessarily because Google is spiking the algorithm, but because people who conduct searches get what they want in the first few listings and don't see your ad.

  5. Just a thought by mikkom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a speculative thought because no one really know about googles algorithms.

    The result may be due to the original pages higher pagerank. I wouldn't be surprised if google would give higher position to "better" sites even in ads. In Googles context, higher pagerank means "better" site.

  6. Hmm... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have an alternate explanation. I believe what existed before the guy's experiment was a more-or-less stable "ecology" around those particular keywords. There were probably a number of people paying a premium for a limited number of clicks for those keywords, well above the 10-cent level he was originally paying for. Google probably sorted the higher-paying advertisers onto the best pages and left the dime-a-click ones for others and everyone was more-or-less happy.

    Then when the experiment began, it disrupted things. The advertisers who were initially offering a premium found themselves with fewer clicks as their ads were placed on less advantageous pages, or when their ads were displaced entirely. They then changed their own behavior, perhaps by choosing different keywords and/or paying higher rates. This would have cascaded, causing other advertisers to change their behaviors.

    The end result would've been a shift in AdWords' performance with those keywords, one that wouldn't easily be reversible, and which could account for the poor performance when the experimenter reduced his bids for clicks.

    1. Re:Hmm... by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, I think what he saw was just the result of the typical supply/demand theory. The demand/supply combination of that specific word stated an average value for it. He payed $0.10 for a steak of 15,000 hits per day.

      When he increased the price to $1.00 he also changed the demand, so of course all the "market" (for that specific word) was modified, until his demand changes where assimilated by the market. When he lowered again the price, the supply/demand was not the initial one, and that was the reason of the changes in the number of clicks. With the new combination, $0.40 per click was "worth" 1200 clicks.

      The only missing piece is (and was not clear for me from the article) if the original site clicks decreased after doing the price change.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  7. Advertising is a free market, not a dictatorship by gtoomey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I use Google adwords for various sites. Adwords seems to "reward" longstanding customers with lower rates like other businesses. I see the "minimum bid" changing all the time in relation to the mixture of bids for keywords

    If you ask google to justify every detail of their pricing, you may as well demand it of oil companies & every other business.

    If you don't like it, dont use it.

  8. Adwords by softplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Adwords does placement on more than just the cost-per-click. This fact is spelled out all over their website, try something like https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?a nswer=10215&topic=114 :

    "We want to ensure that your keywords get a fair chance to run and that we do all we can to properly gauge their performance. We use a Quality Score to do this. Each keyword is given a Quality Score based on data specific to your account, including your keyword's clickthrough rate (CTR), relevance of ad text, historical keyword performance, the quality of your ad's landing page, and other relevancy factors.

    Quality Score = keyword's CTR + relevance of your ad text + historical keyword performance + other relevancy factors

    Your keyword's Quality Score and maximum CPC (at the keyword or Ad Group level) determine your ad's rank on Google search and content sites. (For the top positions above Google search results, however, we use your keyword's actual CPC.) Remember that improving the relevance of your ad text and keywords will increase your keyword's Quality Score and reduce the price you pay when someone clicks on your ad."

    If you start a new campaign, it is no wonder that Google will not be able to give you the same placement as with a campaign that has run for years. It's new, it's unknown, the visitors / clicks are unknown, heck - even the cost-per-click value is jumping around. It looks weird to the system, it gets placed lower or even removed from some of the results.

    What happens in the end: those who target properly (right keywords) and have a good ad copy get lots of clicks, those clicks end up making your placement better (while paying the same amount of money). The users are voting for your ad (whether they buy or not is partially unknown to Google -- "partially" because you can track it through Google if you want to).

    A new factor coming into play is the landing page - the page that the ad takes you to. According to their blog ( http://adwords.blogspot.com/ ) they are now evaluating the quality of the landing page. So if you search for "children" and click on the "Get children at ebay" ad, and the page they link to does not offer "children", then sooner or later (heh, hard to guess, it depends on the amount of automatisation behind the checks) Google will either remove the ad or move it down, while the advertiser is still paying the same amount per click.

    Is that evil? Is that being greedy? or is that just watching out for the "user experience"?

  9. Re:Sadly its all true: An insiders view of Google by SpecBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I skimmed this and thought, "Hmm, this looks like the kind of text that would be generated by a script." A couple of minutes of searching (via Google, ironically enough) turned up the Automatic Complaint Generator.

    Sigh. Remember when trolling was an art form, when people would put time, effort, and (dare I say it?) heart into inciting flame wars, even when posting as Anonymous Cowards. The kids these days are just phoning it in, and that saddens this oldtimer's heart.

  10. I welcome relevant ads by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know there's a lot of google-haters, but I have to say...

    I was thrilled with the ad-block extensions of Firefox, and welcomed the relevant ads from google. I'll admit, I have actually clicked on, and even (shocked) bought a few things.

    I hate desperate ads, like those on TV and everywhere else. Advertisers realise that they are failing.

    When/if google starts flash, popups, then start to complain.

    Tired of online retailers charging extra to ship products to Alaska?

  11. Re: Google scares me, this I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google scares me! This I know,
    for ibiblio tells me so.
    Little ads to It belong;
    My site is weak but It is strong.

  12. Article is just wrong by Proto23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all if he gets 15000 @ 0.15 clicks per day he is paying $1500,- a day in advertising that is $547.500 per year in advertising alone. His friend must be an internet miljonair! I somehow doubt that such a large operation would execute the test as described in the article. I think the figures are a bit inflated to make it a better story. Furthermore I use Google Adwords for my company (http://www.tiouw.com/). I spend around $5000 a year on Google. As everyone who has ever worked with AdWords knows is that when you change your ad, it changes your click through rate. Changing URL's, text, anything has a direct result. It takes some time before the system gets used to the changes and then you are back on track. I expect that if the company in the article would have run for some time with the new settings it would generate more and more hits. Finally, tests have shown that people do not click on the no.1 position, but prefer no. 2 or 3.

  13. Just follow the money... by JanMark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Google puts a stiff penalty on lowering your price-per-click. I am sure most advertisers will (sooner of later) try is they can lower their rice-per-click. Google's algorithm will start to give them bad ratings immediately and most will be back to the old price in no time. The few that accept the hit in click troughs, will cost Google some money, but the ones that go back to the higher price will more than make up for that. Just do the math...

    --
    -- (:> jms cs.vu.nl (_) --"---
  14. A less nefarious explanation by sstidman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to burst anybody's tin-foil bubble, but there's possibly another less nefarious explanation to what is going on. As we know, Google wants to keep their Adword algorithm secret. It's quite possible that Google realized long ago that folks could map out their algorithm by simply playing with the input parameters just like Cringely's friend was doing. In order to prevent the inevitable reverse engineering of the algorithm, they might have put in some code to randomize the effectiveness of the results when Google has detected that someone is changing the parameters. If that guy wants to see if Google is really punishing him for lowering his price, he should try setting the price back to $1 and see if things go back to what they were before. I'll bet they won't.

    Of course, another possibility is that they have a bug in their code. I've heard that some programmers actually make mistakes sometimes.

    --
    Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
  15. Try a third answer. by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Try a third answer. Many factors make up the price a click and and ad placement, including the AGE OF THE SITE. Newer sites, and ads, have been simply found to be less relevant that more established sites and ads. The only way to compensate (to a certain degree) is to pay more.

    So start a new site with zero page rank and it will have to pay more to get the same placement, if it can do so at all. Older sites will pay less because they've been around longer, and their ads will have shown themselves to actually have been relevant.

    It boils down to a simple axiom: Google rewards relevance.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  16. The Google Business Model by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because of this, google can charge whatever they like and most people will pay it.
    They'll also get ripped off.

    Here's a common story:

    "I put Google AdSense on my website. I earned about $140.00, and Google was just getting ready to send me a check. Then, out of nowhere, Google sent me an email telling me I'd generated 'invalid clicks' and that my AdSense account was terminated, and all of my profits would be returned to the advertisers."

    Hundreds, if not thousands, of AdSense displayers just like me have faced this fate. But here's the question to AdWords advertisers. Have you ever seen a "refund" on your AdWords account due to some AdSense advertiser generating "invalid clicks" for your ad? I never did. Google confiscates the money from the AdSense displayer, but does not return the money to the related AdWords advertisers! That is to say, Google keeps the money that the AdWords advertisers paid to display their ads; and also keeps the money that they were supposed to pay out to the AdSense webmasters for displaying those ads.

    Google is making a killing on displayed advertisements for a lot of keywords and phrases, without paying out a penny to those who are displaying the ads on their pages. They're arbitrarily cancelling AdSense displayers' accounts for unspecified reasons, and if you try to determine why, you wind up in formletter hell. "Do No Evil," my arse.

    I've been on both sides of the fence. I advertised through AdWords, I displayed AdSense ads on my site. And Google decided to kill my AdSense account while I was on vacation, for "invalid clicks," and despite emails requesting details, they wouldn't bother to explain what that meant.

    I immediately pulled the AdSense ads from my sites and replaced them with Yahoo Publisher ads. Good news on that front, Yahoo is actually sending me checks. And I can guarantee you that I'll never again spend a penny on any Google service, be it AdWords or any other fee-based product they come up with.
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  17. Re:Forgot some experiments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On the contrary, Cringley has utterly misinterpreted these results and they actually prove that you should not do these tests.

    If Google does anything with AdWords the obvious thing to do is examine the BIDS for AdWords that it receives and figure out a VALUE for each AdWord.

    By setting up a rival site and BIDDING AGAINST HIMSELF this guy drove up the VALUE of his AdWords.

    How is this not obvious? Google just coded the free market.

  18. Yes, they do reimburse for bad clicks by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you ever seen a "refund" on your AdWords account due to some AdSense advertiser generating "invalid clicks" for your ad?

    Yes, I have. As per Google's documentation, you can click on the "My Account" tab and look for "Service Adjustment" in your billing summary. I have received some small refunds.