Good info for PPC users

6 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I got this sent to me from one of my CPA AM's It's hard to keep up with Google and to keep them happy. This is some recent stuff it might help if you have been bitch slapped or suspended.


Many of you have experienced difficulties with your websites' quality
ratings being downgraded by
Google, or your AdWords account being shut down or suspended recently, in
what has come to be known
as the Google Slap. We have been approached by a number of affiliates
asking for further information
on what may have caused this and what can be done to have their sites'
quality ratings restored or
their AdWords accounts re-activated. Therefore, we are providing below
the information provided by
Google, in the hope that this will be helpful to you.

1. Duplicate Mini-sites
The issue is often that affiliates create sites for the purpose of
circumventing Google's affiliate
link policy. This policy states: "We'll only display one ad per search
query for advertisers sharing
the same top-level domain in the display URL. This means that if you're an
affiliate advertiser,
your ad may not show for a query because another affiliate or the website
that runs the affiliate
program also has ads using the same (or a similar) domain in the display
URL."
(What is Google's affiliate auction policy? - AdWords Help)
When one site is essentially the same site as another, while the product
is fine, promoting it with
different domains is against the rules. It violates the requirement that a
site's content be unique.

2. Use of trademarked terms in the Ad text:
AdWords ads will not show if they're using a trademarked term (e.g.
Photoshop) in the ad text and
the landing page does not provide a reasonable amount of information about
this product. Please make
sure that the landing page provide enough information about the
trade-marked term, so that it is not
a ruse to attract visitors to the page but offers valuable information.

3. Squeeze Pages to obtain visitor names and email addresses:
Landing pages that act as squeeze pages to obtain visitors' names and
email addresses are often
rated poorly on landing page quality. This is usually because the landing
page is a data harvesting
site that only contains a form. A site of this nature could most likely be
advertised successfully
if the user was taken to the page that describes the product and lets them
buy it. Asking the users
to provide a name and email before they can learn more about the product
is not considered a good
user experience and will be discouraged. If users are being asked for
their name and email, then
there should be some value that is provided to the user.

4. Thin reviews:
Review sites that contain short one paragraph reviews of products are
considered thin reviews by
Google and are not rated highly. If the review is a short abstract, and a
link is provided to a more
detailed version of the same review, then that review is considered by
Google to be more valuable to
the user and is therefore rated more highly. Google values reviews where
the basis for arriving at
the recommendation or the rating of the product is disclosed in the
review, as it delivers a better
user experience.

In general Google suggests the following practices to ensure a high rating
on their search results:

- Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
- Don't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.
- Don't load pages with irrelevant keywords.
- Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie
cutter" approaches such as
affiliate programs with little or no original content.
- If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your
site adds value.
- Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit
your site first.
- When in doubt consult Google's webmaster guidelines for more general
information.
#good #info #ppc #users
  • Profile picture of the author Sancho Sanches
    1) I'm glad it implies that direct linking is OK and as far as I know it is although many say it isn't. As for the rest that's all the more reason to appear as a/the merchant. Although, if you're adding unique value as an affiliate I personally don't see this as being a problem. When gurus have launches you'll often see Adwords flooded with ads for the same product and a different offer. As far as I can tell all these people are not likely getting slapped or suspended just for promoting the same product.

    2) I'm not sure I get that one. I think this is more about irrelevance and baiting and switching than it is about trademarked terms.

    3) Yea, you should provide some other kind of value but it doesn't mean you have to sell something right there. A quiz, for example, is a way of circumventing this and unless Google employees are following your quiz all the way through how would they know? And if they did they'll see an optin in order to get the results. This is OK as far as I know.

    4) I agree sites shouldn't be "thin" but I'm not sure what the person who sent that to you thinks thin is. Unless space is an issue I don't see why there has to be a link to a bigger review instead of giving one right there.

    In the end, as long as people aren't ripping someone off and have real crappy pages that give no value I don't know why Google gets on trying to tell people how to market their products. But that's the way it is and we need to adapt.

    Push come to shove Google is not the only source of traffic.

    When someone hears PPC or SEO and whatnot the first thing that comes into most people's minds is Google, unfortunately.

    It wouldn't necessarily be wise to ignore Google but to only focus on them or to think it's game over when they slap you is wrong thinking.

    Some niches may actually convert better in other search engines than in Google.
    Signature
    * New Affiliate Black Book Coming Soon *
    http://www.affiliateblackbook.com/

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1552380].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Christian Fox
      Originally Posted by Sancho Sanches View Post

      1) I'm glad it implies that direct linking is OK but as far as I know it is although many say it isn't. As for the rest that's all the more reason to appear as a/the merchant.

      2) I'm not sure I get that one.
      I take #2 meaning you can not try to use a trademarked item to provide 'clout' for your website and then not provide decent relevant info on that item. I'd take it to essentially mean, no unwarranted 'name dropping'.

      I would not say #1 is about direct linking I think it means making a dupe site because someone else is already advertising that url with a different top level domain. For example you own red widgets.org and red widgets.com is already advertising.

      You cant make a site for red widgetsx.com that links to your original red widgets.org website just to get around the rules.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1552397].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sancho Sanches
        Originally Posted by Christian Fox View Post

        I take #2 meaning you can not try to use a trademarked item to provide 'clout' for your website and then not provide decent relevant info on that item. I'd take it to essentially mean, no unwarranted 'name dropping'.
        Yea, I wasn't finished typing. I posted too early and went back to finish.

        I think trademark terms is just an example and not the real issue, like I said.

        I would not say #1 is about direct linking I think it means making a dupe site because someone else is already advertising that url with a different top level domain. For example you own red widgets.org and red widgets.com is already advertising.

        You cant make a site for red widgetsx.com that links to your original red widgets.org website just to get around the rules.
        I didn't say it was about direct linking. What I'm saying is that indirectly it is saying direct linking is still OK, even though the main point is that you shouldn't use tricks to get around that one display url per ad per keyword rule for the purpose of doing essentially the same thing as direct linking but with a domain that redirects.

        Thanks for sharing.
        Signature
        * New Affiliate Black Book Coming Soon *
        http://www.affiliateblackbook.com/

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1552438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author .X.
    Everything sounds accurate to me, and
    point #1 makes some sense with an
    affiliate I know who's recently lost his
    account. Although his sites looked fine
    to me, he had multiple sites that said
    essentially the same thing promoting
    the same product.

    If you read what Google is saying
    under "Duplicate Minisites" that could
    be an issue for them and the move
    to disallow multiple domain names
    under an ad group could make more
    sense *if* there is widespread abuse
    going on.

    Now, what's not addressed here and
    what I think is an issue nobody is
    paying attention to is bidding trends
    within an account. My strategy is
    almost always to bid higher and to
    place in the top 3-4 ad spots - at
    least.

    Since most affiliates only earn front
    end money they generally cannot
    afford to do that - so they bid lower
    and hope to catch a sale that falls
    through the cracks.

    The problem isn't being an affiliate -
    the problem is being a low bidder,
    that also tries to game the system
    and offer no added value.

    If you're Google, do you want people
    like that competing for clicks with
    more legit advertisers willing to pay
    10-20 times as much for the same
    click?

    If I'm Google, I like having 3-5 high
    quality advertisers willing to pay $1
    per click and cleaning out the adverts
    that only want to pay .05 per click.

    I'm absolutely convinced that Google
    Slap has *nothing* to do with a
    dislike for affiliates and everything to
    do with how most affiliates do their
    business.

    Good stuff Christian - thanks for
    sharing.

    X
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1552816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Christian Fox
    If you read what Google is saying
    under "Duplicate Minisites" that could
    be an issue for them and the move
    to disallow multiple domain names
    under an ad group could make more
    sense *if* there is widespread abuse
    going on.
    Do you have any real reason to believe the penalty is 'per adgroup' and not on the campaign level?

    The reason I am asking is because I am intending to start a new campaign with some new software that will let me make a custom lander for every keyword.

    I'll have one adgroup with one keyword and a matching lander for every keyword.

    What REALLY sucks with Google is trying 'new things' if they don't like it they can hose your entire account at the slightest whim.

    Yahoo search marketing has to be loving this latest Google freakout.

    I hope they join with MSN soon and give us a better second option.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1552833].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
      Originally Posted by Christian Fox View Post

      Do you have any real reason to believe the penalty is 'per adgroup' and not on the campaign level?
      The reason I am asking is because I am intending to start a new campaign with some new software that will let me make a custom lander for every keyword.
      I'll have one adgroup with one keyword and a matching lander for every keyword.
      What REALLY sucks with Google is trying 'new things' if they don't like it they can hose your entire account at the slightest whim.
      Yahoo search marketing has to be loving this latest Google freakout.
      I hope they join with MSN soon and give us a better second option.
      1. Duplicate Mini-sites
      The issue is often that affiliates create sites for the purpose of
      circumventing Google's affiliate
      link policy. This policy states: "We'll only display one ad per search
      query for advertisers sharing
      the same top-level domain in the display URL. This means that if you're an
      affiliate advertiser,
      your ad may not show for a query because another affiliate or the website
      that runs the affiliate
      program also has ads using the same (or a similar) domain in the display
      URL."
      (What is Google's affiliate auction policy? - AdWords Help)
      When one site is essentially the same site as another, while the product
      is fine, promoting it with
      different domains is against the rules. It violates the requirement that a
      site's content be unique
      .

      I am pretty sure where they are going with this is not at your own ad group or campaign level, but at the ad level on G itself.

      You may place a ad that uses the direct link, and as google rules state ony one ad will display that ad in the case of 2 or more affiliates running that ad, it will be the one with the highest bid / q score combo.

      what happens though is some people will register a domain name then use a redirect to run a ad for the same domain thus avoiding the duplicate rule as by G, this part is the no no, so do not use a masked redirected url or send people to a mirror page / i frame of a site, as this will set the alarm bells going.
      Signature

      .

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1553271].message }}

Trending Topics