44 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
44 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

"Above The Fold" might not be what you think

by yukon Banned
35 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Adsense sent me an email telling me to test another Ad layout on my pages for one of my sites.

Inside the Adsense email was a screenshot of my site that highlighted what Adsense thinks is above the fold. What Adsense says is above the fold isn't what I thought was above the fold.

I'm not posting a screenshot of my site but I will show an example of what Adsense thinks "Above the Fold" is on my Index page (see example layout below).

The green part in the layout example below is the only part that Adsense says is above the fold, even though my header (not <head>) is above the fold.

I have no idea If Google is running their SERPs based on this Adsense email/screenshot showing me what Adsense says is above the fold?

I just found it interesting that Adsense isn't counting my header as being part of the "Above the fold" area on the page.

Anyone else get that email from Adsense, If so, is Adsense discounting your Index page header in the screenshot of your site?



#above the fold #ads #adsense #banner #google #header #posts
  • Profile picture of the author 100KAffiliateManager
    Got the same email with the same layout that you posted. Basically they told me to move my 336x280 block above the fold in order to earn more revenue.

    As I already have a 160x600 ad block as well as a 300x300 image (not an ad) above the fold, I'm not going to stick another large ad block in this space as well. Besides not looking good, it wouldn't be a great user experience and the content to ad ratio would go way up.

    Better safe that sorry, so I'll rather leave things as they are.

    Chow chow,
    Kevin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6813993].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by 100KAffiliateManager View Post

      Got the same email with the same layout that you posted. Basically they told me to move my 336x280 block above the fold in order to earn more revenue.

      As I already have a 160x600 ad block as well as a 300x300 image (not an ad) above the fold, I'm not going to stick another large ad block in this space as well. Besides not looking good, it wouldn't be a great user experience and the content to ad ratio would go way up.

      Better safe that sorry, so I'll rather leave things as they are.

      Chow chow,
      Kevin
      Thanks for the info.

      I didn't make any changes either, they told me I was getting 60% of my current income/clicks from the above the fold. With my sites layout I think the 336x280 (which is what they also suggested for me) would just screw up my whole page & I don't feel like doing a complete overhaul. Maybe some other time I might split test a new layout.


      Originally Posted by 100KAffiliateManager View Post

      Got the same email with the same layout that you posted.
      This is important to know others are getting the same layouts where they're not looking at the header as being part of the "above the fold".

      The more people that confirm that info. would be better.

      Thanks,
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Trevor
    Hey,

    I haven't got this email and I do have a few tens of AdSense sites. Thanks for sharing this, it's good to know what Google themselves think is above the fold.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joel Young
    I'd venture a guess that Adsense considers the header not to be a content area, it's just a header - the place to put a logo. Under those conditions the header would not be above the fold in the sense of where content can be found.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814039].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Joel Young View Post

      I'd venture a guess that Adsense considers the header not to be a content area, it's just a header - the place to put a logo. Under those conditions the header would not be above the fold in the sense of where content can be found.
      Makes perfect sense. By the way welcome - good to see quality posts from new people.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814162].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Joel Young View Post

      I'd venture a guess that Adsense considers the header not to be a content area, it's just a header - the place to put a logo. Under those conditions the header would not be above the fold in the sense of where content can be found.
      The thing is, If the Adsense algo. is not looking at the header, I wonder how much the Search algo. cares about the header. Before anyone flames that both Adsense & Google Search are different products, I know. I'm sure the two share some (not all) similarities in their algo's.

      For instance, I run my <h1> tags in the header outside of the content area, I might test moving the <h1> directly into the content area (above the fold) & out of the header to see how Google Search responds to the change.

      This also means that every single site on the net has unique locations for "above the fold", at least for Adsense & possibly Search, because everyone's header height will start at different height locations on the page.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814166].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        The thing is, If the Adsense algo. is not looking at the header, I wonder how much the Search algo. cares about the header. Before anyone flames that both Adsense & Google Search are different products, I know. I'm sure the two share some (not all) similarities in their algo's.
        They probably do ignore it as far as looking for content but they can't disregard it because the navigation links are right there. So maybe read text or alt tag links and url but for assessing say something like LSI - above the fold
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814209].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 100KAffiliateManager
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        For instance, I run my <h1> tags in the header outside of the content area, I might test moving the <h1> directly into the content area (above the fold) & out of the header to see how Google Search responds to the change.
        .
        I doubt that this will have any effect on ranking etc but there's no harm in testing, that's what internet marketing is all about.

        Chow chow,
        Kevin
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ilee
    That's certainly interesting, this is the sort of information internet marketers won't find out unless google discloses it.
    Signature
    --~***~--


    --~***~--
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814191].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Ok, this has me thinking about how Wikipedia runs their header, wiki codes their html so the header is actually loaded just above their footer with "Absolute CSS positioning". Google see's the wiki page with the content loaded 1st & the header is loaded at the bottom of the page.

    Look at this wiki page (Google Cache (text version)). Notice the content is loaded on the page first, the header links/text are towards the bottom of the page.

    Here is a simple Absolute CSS code example (click the Try it yourself button). Notice how the HTML/CSS example loads the <h2> tag first but the <h2> is displayed last on the web page (right side of the screen in the example).

    So, If your html is coded in this exact order:
    • Content
    • Sidebar
    • Header
    • Footer

    Traffic can see the above elements loaded on the web page like this (with Absolute CSS):
    • Header
    • Content
    • Sidebar
    • Footer
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814382].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      I got some message similar from google. It said that above the fold,
      and below the header, basically at eye level, is the best target.
      That somehow, the very top was wasted ad space and ignored
      by web surfers.

      What's funny, is that people misquoted google all over the place
      about above the fold. As if google hated that. Quite the contrary.
      They want ads above the fold. People took that statement way
      out of context.

      Another thing funny, is that I get messages from google from time
      to time with what seem as personalized tips. Never have shared
      them. But it shows that contrary to popular belief,
      Google wants to make money with you and YOUR site.
      They are looking at helping people, not banning.

      Yukon, try this as test. Put a snippet of text just above the header....
      see what happens...wisely chosen snippet....

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814417].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
      I code my sites so the content is within the first 30 lines of code usually. The sidebars always come after--even if the sidebar is on the left. Never thought about adding the header below--although I 've had sites with no real header, just start with the h1 tag.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814432].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TuNguyen
    Interesting, i'd thought that the header was included as part of 'above the fold'.

    Originally Posted by yukon View Post

    Adsense sent me an email telling me to test another Ad layout on my pages for one of my sites.

    Inside the Adsense email was a screenshot of my site that highlighted what Adsense thinks is above the fold. What Adsense says is above the fold isn't what I thought was above the fold.

    I'm not posting a screenshot of my site but I will show an example of what Adsense thinks "Above the Fold" is on my Index page (see example layout below).

    The green part in the layout example below is the only part that Adsense says is above the fold, even though my header (not <head>) is above the fold.

    I have no idea If Google is running their SERPs based on this Adsense email/screenshot showing me what Adsense says is above the fold?

    I just found it interesting that Adsense isn't counting my header as being part of the "Above the fold" area on the page.

    Anyone else get that email from Adsense, If so, is Adsense discounting your Index page header in the screenshot of your site?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zecke
    Wow. I didn`t know that wikipedia puts their h1 tag at the top of everything by absolute css... I got to test it myself

    And they use <b> tag in the first word of a first sentence. Damn, I got to seriously study their sourcecode and webcache
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6814747].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
      Originally Posted by zecke View Post

      Wow. I didn`t know that wikipedia puts their h1 tag at the top of everything by absolute css... I got to test it myself

      And they use <b> tag in the first word of a first sentence. Damn, I got to seriously study their sourcecode and webcache
      That's what I was thinking. I hate wiki sites, but they're doing SOMETHING Google loves. I think these are key points
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6815215].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by zecke View Post

        Wow. I didn`t know that wikipedia puts their h1 tag at the top of everything by absolute css... I got to test it myself

        And they use <b> tag in the first word of a first sentence. Damn, I got to seriously study their sourcecode and webcache
        Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

        That's what I was thinking. I hate wiki sites, but they're doing SOMETHING Google loves. I think these are key points
        Wikipedia does a lot of clever SEO that most people never know about. That's the reason I get irked (not in this thread) when people start claiming that Google favors wiki, truth is the guys that created wiki are awesome at SEO, it's just not always obvious, you have to dig in & see what's going on to make them rank pages (everything happens for a reason).

        It's not difficult to reverse engineer what wiki does, comparing the Google Cache (text version) to the live wiki page is a start.

        I had a post on this forum about how wiki pumps up PR for image pages, I'll look & see If I can find the thread (it might be deleted, IDK).

        Another thing that wiki does well is 100% related sub-domains in different languages. Those sub-domains are working off each other boosting relevancy & PR while linking back & forth (domain to domain), it's basically their own personal backlink network.

        One thing about wiki, they haven't changed much of anything over the years, regardless of how many times Google has new algo. updates.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6816657].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sufeyh
          Originally Posted by zecke View Post

          Wow. I didn`t know that wikipedia puts their h1 tag at the top of everything by absolute css... I got to test it myself

          And they use <b> tag in the first word of a first sentence. Damn, I got to seriously study their sourcecode and webcache
          Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

          That's what I was thinking. I hate wiki sites, but they're doing SOMETHING Google loves. I think these are key points
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          Wikipedia does a lot of clever SEO that most people never know about. That's the reason I get irked (not in this thread) when people start claiming that Google favors wiki, truth is the guys that created wiki are awesome at SEO, it's just not always obvious, you have to dig in & see what's going on to make them rank pages (everything happens for a reason).

          It's not difficult to reverse engineer what wiki does, comparing the Google Cache (text version) to the live wiki page is a start.

          I had a post on this forum about how wiki pumps up PR for image pages, I'll look & see If I can find the thread (it might be deleted, IDK).

          Another thing that wiki does well is 100% related sub-domains in different languages. Those sub-domains are working off each other boosting relevancy & PR while linking back & forth (domain to domain), it's basically their own personal backlink network.

          One thing about wiki, they haven't changed much of anything over the years, regardless of how many times Google has new algo. updates.
          Actually if you refer to SEO books such as SEO warrior, all these SEO practices you guys mention that wikipedia is implementing is deemed as common practice. I recommend reading the book, it gives a better insight to SEO compared to learning from online experience.

          After reading the book I guarantee you wouldn't need to "study" wiki's on-page structure anymore. It's all in the book.

          Regards,
          Sufi.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821171].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by sufeyh View Post

            Actually if you refer to SEO books such as SEO warrior, all these SEO practices you guys mention that wikipedia is implementing is deemed as common practice. I recommend reading the book, it gives a better insight to SEO compared to learning from online experience.

            After reading the book I guarantee you wouldn't need to "study" wiki's on-page structure anymore. It's all in the book.

            Regards,
            Sufi.
            I'm usually not impressed with most SEO books, but I'm looking at pages #50 / #51 & they are indeed explaining similar code for what I pointed out above, where Wikipedia is using the Absolute CSS to load the header after the content (content first).

            I'm impressed so far, thanks for the tip on that specific book. I'll check out the rest of the book.

            I still like reverse engineering ranked pages to see what's going on.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821423].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Carl Brown
            Originally Posted by sufeyh View Post

            Actually if you refer to SEO books such as SEO warrior, all these SEO practices you guys mention that wikipedia is implementing is deemed as common practice. I recommend reading the book, it gives a better insight to SEO compared to learning from online experience.

            After reading the book I guarantee you wouldn't need to "study" wiki's on-page structure anymore. It's all in the book.

            Regards,
            Sufi.
            Thanks. I just found the book. It'll keep me busy for a few days.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821566].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yukon
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Carl Brown View Post

              Thanks. I just found the book. It'll keep me busy for a few days.
              The book has some good info. on SEO, I was mainly interested in chapters #3 - #4.

              Some of the book is out of date, Yahoo Explorer & some of the social, which I only skimmed the social stuff.

              Still has some good stuff & worth a read.

              [edit]
              Something else, that book is defiantly not the end all solution to learning SEO, it's an ok book, but you won't learn anything advanced in the book. I do give them credit for the Absolute CSS & Keyword Proximity sections of the book.

              IMO nothing compares to digging into the SERPs & learning by actually recreating ranked pages techniques. Not trying to dis. on the book, just saying hands on experience is an advantage.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821818].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sufeyh
                Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                The book has some good info. on SEO, I was mainly interested in chapters #3 - #4.

                Some of the book is out of date, Yahoo Explorer & some of the social, which I only skimmed the social stuff.

                Still has some good stuff & worth a read.

                [edit]
                Something else, that book is defiantly not the end all solution to learning SEO, it's an ok book, but you won't learn anything advanced in the book. I do give them credit for the Absolute CSS & Keyword Proximity sections of the book.

                IMO nothing compares to digging into the SERPs & learning by actually recreating ranked pages techniques. Not trying to dis. on the book, just saying hands on experience is an advantage.
                Yupp, agreed. There are advantages and disadvantages to learning from books and learning from hands on experience.

                Books are a good start to SEO because it contains all the fundamentals plus a good understanding of the subject. However, SEO is ever changing and only hands on experience would keep you up to date. Still, out of the many SEO books i've read, I would say SEO warrior is quite a good read although it inevitably has some outdated information.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6822335].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HostWind
    Interesting find.
    If someone has an extra site, please try out the content rearrangement and let us know if there is any noticeable difference.
    Signature
    HostWinds
    Inexpensive Web Hosting
    Unlimited Web Hosting
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6815080].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I found the wikipedia post I made a while back, I'll just post them both into a single post here, since were talking about wiki.

    [source 1]
    [source 2]





    From my own testing with images (+2k images) I've found that an image ALT-text will show up inside a Google Cache (text only version). The image Title-text will not show up in the Google Cache (text only version).

    I found out a couple of days ago I have a keyword phrase (keyword1 keyword2) that is kicking butt in organic SERPs for a semi competitive keyword. Google SERPs is showing (in this order):
    • My Index page for the keyword phrase (keyword1 keyword2) ranked #1
    • Four Google Sitelinks to pages that contain Images with the same keyword Alt-text (keyword1 keyword2)
    • Four out of five thumbnail images in Google SERPs, the 5th thumbnail image isn't mine.


    The screenshot below is an example of how my keyword phrase (keyword1 keyword2) is ranked, the Index page, Google Sitelinks, & 4 images. This is only an example, not my keyword, & the image is altered to show how my own keywords are showing results in Google organic SERPs.



    Again, the screenshot is altered, don't bother searching for the keyword.




    I still use the image Title tag, but I haven't ranked for any of those keywords, which are not the same exact keywords as my image Alt tag keywords. Both keywords (Alt + Title) are very similar, just not the same exact keyword. That tells me Google isn't paying much attention to the image Title tag.

    I'll still use the image Title tag because you never know what will happen with SEO in the future, I just don't think the image Title tag has much (If any) SEO weight in 2012.

    Another thing I need to look into is, when I click one of my image thumbnails in the Google organic SERPs, & then click on Similar images, I see 6 out of 7 pages of images are all my own sites images, most of these images are running the same or very similar image Alt text + image Title text. I still need to dig in deeper & see which one is triggering the Similar images pages in Google Images, my bet is the image Alt-text.





    Another image/Pagerank trick is the way Wikipedia has their images setup.

    Wikipedia doesn't just upload an image to their server & paste the URL in their articles. They create a separate page & then post the full size image on that 2nd page (not the article). Then inside the article they post the image as a thumbnail image linking to the actual image page (the 2nd page).




    What their doing then is pointing all automobile pages that include that image at the 2nd image page (not the actual image).

    So If I search for automobile on Google, Wikipedia is 2nd in organic SERPs for that keyword search. The automobile wiki article has a PR7.

    The wiki automobile image page has a PR5.

    So basically they are funneling PR into the image page, so they get a free PR5 page that they can do anything they want with, instead of just posting the image inside the article like 99.9% of the web does.

    Each Wikipedia has 3 levels per image:
    Wikipedia article (thumbnail image) >> Wikipedia Image Page (Free PR page) >> Actual Wikipedia Image (full size image)
    Anyways, my point here is you can have user friendly on-page image SEO & milk Free PR/authority without looking spammy.

    So, next time Wikipedia has an automobile related article, they can pass 100% relevant PR directly at the new page for an instant boost.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6816723].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lovboa
    Banned
    Hey Yukon,

    This thread really got me testing some of my h1 and h2 title structures.

    I would really love some clarification on this if possible.

    After reading about Wikipedia's on page SEO structures, I have changed my title posts to H1 tags for the individual pages. On the homepage though, where it lists a bunch of the posts with the excerpts, I have made them as h2 tags.

    My question is this...
    For the home page and archive pages, the titles are all h2.
    For the individual pages, however, I have added some more text around the php title code. Like this:

    <h1 class="post-title"><a href="<?php the_permalink() ?>" rel="bookmark" title="<?php the_title_attribute(); ?>">Some text here <?php the_title(); ?> Some text here</a></h1>

    In the "Some text here", now the post titles are showing as <h1>(The title with the added text)</h1>

    Is this okay? This is something I have never done before. I would like to leave it in for seo purposes, but it really makes the homepage ugly if I add in that text for every single post title.

    How would this affect my seo? The post titles themselves are <?php the_title(); ?>.
    But I am adding text inside the h1 for the individual post titles.

    Also, when I look at the source code for the individual page it shows this:
    <h1><a ....title="Title">Some text here Title Some text here</a></h1>

    Thanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6816834].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by lovboa View Post

      Hey Yukon,

      This thread really got me testing some of my h1 and h2 title structures.

      I would really love some clarification on this if possible.

      After reading about Wikipedia's on page SEO structures, I have changed my title posts to H1 tags for the individual pages. On the homepage though, where it lists a bunch of the posts with the excerpts, I have made them as h2 tags.

      My question is this...
      For the home page and archive pages, the titles are all h2.
      For the individual pages, however, I have added some more text around the php title code. Like this:

      <h1 class="post-title"><a href="<?php the_permalink() ?>" rel="bookmark" title="<?php the_title_attribute(); ?>">Some text here <?php the_title(); ?> Some text here</a></h1>

      In the "Some text here", now the post titles are showing as <h1>(The title with the added text)</h1>

      Is this okay? This is something I have never done before. I would like to leave it in for seo purposes, but it really makes the homepage ugly if I add in that text for every single post title.

      How would this affect my seo? The post titles themselves are <?php the_title(); ?>.
      But I am adding text inside the h1 for the individual post titles.

      Also, when I look at the source code for the individual page it shows this:
      <h1><a ....title="Title">Some text here Title Some text here</a></h1>

      Thanks.
      I suppose you'll have to test it out for a week or two to see If it has any effect on your SERP positions, also depends on how frequently G bots crawl your pages.

      You also need to think about user experiance, maybe it's a better idea to load the real title, next load the modified title as an image caption text:

      Example loading order:
      • <h1> title
      • <h2> alternative title caption text below image (float left or right with CSS)
      • Content
      • Sidebar
      • Header
      • Footer

      You can scale the <h> tags to any size font you want with CSS, usually image caption text is a little bit smaller font than the rest of the content font size.

      Example:
      <h1>
      <h1>
      <h1>
      <h1>
      <h1>
      <h1>
      <h1>


      Just another option, that might be more user friendly & help with SEO at the same time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6819286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author K Mec
    In some of my adsense site I am using the same Leaderboard Ads in the same style. Instead of header image I am putting leaderboard image ad. It looks like my header image.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6817206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ezra Anderson
    Wow! Thanks for sharing this! I love learning new things, and when it comes to SEO there seems to be no end of things to learn. :p
    Signature
    The harder I work, the luckier I get.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6817239].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Danny Woolard
    Yukon I also noticed on wikis automobile image page that under the image they have links to the same image, but different sizes...Maybe this is helping to boost it's PR (which is at 5)...All these sizes are individual images. It would be quite easy to get an image and convert it into 5 different sizes and upload them. Or simply Small, Medium, and Original sizes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821491].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by denutza View Post

      Yukon I also noticed on wikis automobile image page that under the image they have links to the same image, but different sizes...Maybe this is helping to boost it's PR (which is at 5)...All these sizes are individual images. It would be quite easy to get an image and convert it into 5 different sizes and upload them. Or simply Small, Medium, and Original sizes.
      They run 3 different sizes of the same image. They could still improve their alt-text on each of the first two images.

      I think their main concern isn't necessarily to rank the images, but to build PR on 100% relevant pages. Then they can pass the 100% PR/image-page off to any new pages (instant SEO boost).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6821931].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author keblack
    Interesting info - thank you. Google just suggested I put a 336x280 in the top left of my content for my best site indicating I would earn more (making 3 ads on each page). Very odd because I already have a 728x90 at the top of the page and a 300x250 down the page on the left. Putting a large rectangle under the H1, while still having the 728x90 seems a little much - I don't think visitors would like it, so not sure why Google is telling me this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6826717].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by keblack View Post

      Interesting info - thank you. Google just suggested I put a 336x280 in the top left of my content for my best site indicating I would earn more (making 3 ads on each page). Very odd because I already have a 728x90 at the top of the page and a 300x250 down the page on the left. Putting a large rectangle under the H1, while still having the 728x90 seems a little much - I don't think visitors would like it, so not sure why Google is telling me this.
      Agreed, adding even more Ads above the fold for my own site would be overkill for my sites layout. I'm into IM to earn money, ultimately each webmaster has to decide on where they draw the line for monetizing a web page & spamming the heck out of Ads.

      I won't be making any recommended changes right now, really I would have to overhaul my web pages & don't want to do that right now (maybe sometime later).

      Thanks for adding your info. from the Adsense email to this thread.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6826796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fmnely1
    THANKS FOR LETTING THIS OUT ..SEEMS GOOGLE IS TRACKING WHAT WORKS BEST WITH INDIVIDUAL WEBSITE ...THIS WILL BE A GREAT
    Signature
    Long Kept Guru Secret Traffic Heaven Download :Now http://www.filedropper.com/trafficheaven
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7002695].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cbnet
    How I can place google adsense ads only in posts at a predetermined place (like at beginning or end or after nth para of posts) without using any plugin. I want to place the adsense codes once only for all the posts and not editing each post individually and placing adsense ads therein one by one. I don't want these ads to appear in the pages, home page or categories.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9023373].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tech84
      if you are using wordpress you can place this code inside your posts.php

      <?php if(is_single()):?>
      code here
      <?php endif;?>

      you can use is_page() for pages or if_home() for homepage
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9023378].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cbnet
    (i) Is placing of google banner ads (728*90 - Leader boards) in the header is a good idea?

    (ii) Is placing of google banner ads (728*90 - Leader boards) in the header is against google adsense policy? And if is yes, then where to place it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9023385].message }}

Trending Topics