4 ms·
Well said. Further to the above, Google had a very good reason to drop this particular site: Over the span of a week, their impression count shot through the
by jasonkester 17y ago
Well said. Further to the above, Google had a very good reason to drop this particular site: Over the span of a week, their impression count shot through the roof with the sort of traffic that never clicks ads.
So all Google sees is a whole ton of 0.0000001% clickthru impressions coming from a former backwater site. If my ads were serving there, I'd certainly want them pulled.
Granted, Google is terrible when it comes to situations like this. But technically they did the correct thing here.
- jemka 17y agoSo "technically" allowing a number of days to go by without response, not providing a method to escalate an issue, or not providing a method for users to get any straight forward answers about a particular situation that Google initiated is, as you said, correct?
- jasonkester 17y agoHmm... You seem to have ignored the first half of the sentence your responded to. The part that says "Google is really bad at customer service". So no, to repeat: It was poorly communicated, but it's good for business, both for them and for their advertisers.
- jhancock 17y agoI thought advertisers were paying for clicks, not impressions? Why should the advertisers be upset if they are getting lots of free impressions? If your answer has something to do with "it messes up their math" in terms of knowing how well an ad performs, all I can say is "that's a math problem".