Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Holiday Time, Quality Time: Two-and-a-Half Questions About Quality Score Issues for Nick Fox, Google

Yesterday I talked with Nick Fox, Senior Product Manager for Ads Quality at Google, to get caught up on the latest issues relating to Quality-Based Bidding. To refresh your memory, Google's minimum bid on a keyword (essentially, governing whether you can afford to show your ad at all) is affected by quality score. If quality score is very low, you will be faced with a very high minimum bid. Google is now factoring Landing Page Quality into the overall quality assessment, and offers advertisers a set of landing page and site quality guidelines to give them an idea of what to avoid.

Google's latest is that landing page quality is now affecting whether an advertiser's ad gets included on the content network, as well as impacting your search campaign. They've also recently completed an improvement in the algorithm that scours landing pages. According to Fox, there is now "new data from the Adsbot crawl," and Google has "trained the algorithm on more human-labeled data." The reason for looking at landing page quality, according to him, is "to improve the user experience," by removing ads that fall below the "quality-based minimum bids." In Google's view, this latest update has been "successful" insofar as user evaluation data show an increase in user satisfaction with SERP's.

There are, of course, many unanswered questions.

(I'll be presenting more detailed information on Monday Dec. 4, at a Search Engine Strategies session called Ads in a Quality Score World; and also writing a longer article for Page Zero Advisor subscribers.)

I asked him only hard questions. Here's a sampler of two of them:

Traffick: To make this as clear as possible, I'm trying to get a sense of whether a number of the "other relevancy factors" you look at for AdWords actually affect ad rank, or whether you're still letting CTR history and minimum bid decide together where ads are ranked on the page, with the other factors coming into play only with regard to setting minimum bids?

NF: This is where it gets complicated. Actually, there are two quality scores. The first is for setting minimum bids. It's less accurate. [Traffick: Thus, we assume, predictive where limited data is available on CTR History.] It takes into account landing page quality. The information we use for ranking ads is much more specific.

Traffick followup: So, I'll assume a whole range of factors are involved in
deciding ad rank but that along with bid, CTR History is, as Google has said in the past, "predominant." But you're saying that landing page quality does not currently affect ad rank; landing page quality only affects minimum bids.

NF: We've been debating this internally, and it's my feeling that our users will benefit even if we push the landing page quality measure into the quality score that affects ad rank. Basically, I advocate all of the factors being used in the actual rankings of the ads, not just affecting minimum bids. So I'm pushing for landing page quality being included in the ranking formula and I think you'll see that soon.

Traffick followup: What are some of these other factors besides CTR?

NF: While much of this is proprietary, I can say that many of them are just different cuts at predicting CTR.

--

Traffick: How can you provide more information to advertisers who have low quality scores, and is there some way advertisers can appeal high minimum bids that might be based on "algorithmic false positives"?

NF: Google is currently exploring ways of providing more of this type of information to advertisers. The problem is, if we give too much information about the process to the bad guys, they'll turn around and use that to circumvent the process.

Traffick followup: So they try to "fix" it, but the intent is not to really fix it.

NF: Right, the intent is not to really fix it. In any case, Google is running a test now -- we haven't formally announced it yet, but I guess I'm going to tell you now -- showing in the front end, quality score information to the advertiser. This is sensitive. Potentially it helps the bad guys optimize, so we have to be careful how we implement this. As for the editorial process and appeals, today there is an escalation process, and Google can correct mistakes if it sees that a mistake has been made. There are actually few enough of these appeals that I get to see all of them personally.

--

Bonus question: Do you use things like account history (as in spend, or length of time with an account) in the quality score algorithm?

NF: No. Google doesn't believe in setting up perverse incentives when it comes to improving the user experience. So we don't use total spend or time as incentives.

--

Fox further added that Google had "heated internal debates" as to whether they should wait until January or launch the latest update of the quality scoring algorithm(s) now. They opted to do this now because they'd rather lean towards improving the user experience on the search engine during holiday time, the busiest time in terms of usage for a search engine. Another reason cited by Fox is that "good advertisers" are now likely to see an increase in clicks and leads during this busy season, which will increase their satisfaction.

Posted by Andrew Goodman




View Posts by Category

 

Speaking Engagement

See Andrew Goodman speak at eMetrics Chicago 2014

Need Solid Advice?        

Google AdWords book


Andrew's book, Winning Results With Google AdWords, (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.), is still helping tens of thousands of advertisers cut through the noise and set a solid course for campaign ROI.

And for a glowing review of the pioneering 1st ed. of the book, check out this review, by none other than Google's Matt Cutts.


Posts from 2002 to 2010


07/2002
08/2002
09/2002
10/2002
11/2002
12/2002
01/2003
02/2003
03/2003
04/2003
05/2003
06/2003
07/2003
08/2003
09/2003
10/2003
11/2003
12/2003
01/2004
02/2004
03/2004
04/2004
05/2004
06/2004
07/2004
08/2004
09/2004
10/2004
11/2004
12/2004
01/2005
02/2005
03/2005
04/2005
05/2005
06/2005
07/2005
08/2005
09/2005
10/2005
11/2005
12/2005
01/2006
02/2006
03/2006
04/2006
05/2006
06/2006
07/2006
08/2006
09/2006
10/2006
11/2006
12/2006
01/2007
02/2007
03/2007
04/2007
05/2007
06/2007
07/2007
08/2007
09/2007
10/2007
11/2007
12/2007
01/2008
02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008
06/2008
07/2008
08/2008
09/2008
10/2008
11/2008
12/2008
01/2009
02/2009
03/2009
04/2009
05/2009
06/2009
07/2009
08/2009
09/2009
10/2009
11/2009
12/2009
01/2010
02/2010
03/2010
04/2010

Recent Posts


Adversarial Indexing: There's No Such Thing

Right About Something for Once: Google Answers Fiz...

It's Not a Google "Slap"

After Panama-in-Canada Launch, Two Thoughts for Tw...

The Perils of "Live Site Clinic" Sessions

Trickster Wanted. Pay: None, Til Exit

Nickelback: Huge in Brazil

Another Holiday Advertising Warning: Don't Neglect...

Courses on SEM: Coming Soon to a College Near You

Panama Headaches (and How to Avoid Them)

 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013 Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved