3 ms·

Also I find interesting, and not mentioned in any Google news is they seem to be showing less (or zero) ads to more generic and low value searches E.g. Search '

Also I find interesting, and not mentioned in any Google news is they seem to be showing less (or zero) ads to more generic and low value searches E.g. Search 'Cat' vs. 'Credit Card' Given people can pay up to ~$20 for a credit card click and more generic clicks are closer to $1, I wonder if they found if they pile ads on the high value KW's only they maximise profit whilst keeping the Google image 'we value organic search results' feeling by not showing ads in the low profit areas. Like you I feel they are loosing credibility in this latest evolution. Its amazing to see how little, if any, real-estate organic results holds on a typical laptop screen. I kinda feel they are increasingly opening the door for competitors to step in on their cash cow. I personally have moved to give DuckDuck another go since this.

chiefalchemist 11y ago
What you call "low profit areas" most advertisers call "wtf? I paid for what?" Removing ads wasn't a PR stunt. Hardly. It was simple math. Piss off enough advertisers and they leave. That's not PR. That's smart product dev.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  Maybe a generic work doesn't work for you but I've had great success with low value/competition KW's when they were more accessible via proper product, KW and ad copy selection. I wouldn't take this as a truism and believe there is more to it than your theory. If Google were truly worried about advertiser ROI they would better deal with all the bot clicks and generally dodgyness on the display network. Both easily done and they love to play dumb to a large extent on these.
  - shostack 11y ago
    There's a big difference between long-tail super-specific terms (that Google has increasingly been blocking due to "low search volume") and top-of-funnel generic queries, which for most are fairly low-quality comparatively.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  > Removing ads wasn't a PR stunt. Hardly. It was simple math. Piss off enough advertisers and they leave. That's not PR. That's smart product dev. I have no idea what your point is. "It is good product development to scare off the people who pay you money"?

chiefalchemist 11y ago

What you call "low profit areas" most advertisers call "wtf? I paid for what?" Removing ads wasn't a PR stunt. Hardly. It was simple math. Piss off enough advertisers and they leave. That's not PR. That's smart product dev.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
Maybe a generic work doesn't work for you but I've had great success with low value/competition KW's when they were more accessible via proper product, KW and ad copy selection. I wouldn't take this as a truism and believe there is more to it than your theory. If Google were truly worried about advertiser ROI they would better deal with all the bot clicks and generally dodgyness on the display network. Both easily done and they love to play dumb to a large extent on these.
- shostack 11y ago
  There's a big difference between long-tail super-specific terms (that Google has increasingly been blocking due to "low search volume") and top-of-funnel generic queries, which for most are fairly low-quality comparatively.
wodenokoto 11y ago
> Removing ads wasn't a PR stunt. Hardly. It was simple math. Piss off enough advertisers and they leave. That's not PR. That's smart product dev. I have no idea what your point is. "It is good product development to scare off the people who pay you money"?