Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: AdSense Context

_____/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 15:48, [www.1-script.com] wrote : \_____

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
> 
>> To say a little more...
> 
>> As I think about it again, they do some 'caching' on the matches. New
>> pages
>> are more likely to be assigned public announcements, yet once a
>> suitable ad
>> gets assigned to the page, it is likely to repeat itself.
> 
>> Why am I mentioning this? Because it implies they do not necessarily
>> bind
>> adverts on-the-fly. They have a mechanism for saving assignments. Why
>> not
>> take the extra step and run some smarter algorithm off-line? I am sure
>> Google have some Ph.D.'s with background in language semantics. If not,
>> there will be plenty that are willing to join the club.
> 
> They absolutely *DO* cache the general theme of the page between
> mediapartners/Google bot visits. Until the bot has actually been to the
> page, it gets assigned ads that are relevant to the general website
> content, sort of evenly weighted across your whole site. The bot visits
> pages on two weeks intervals, so here is your natural cache duration. If
> the page gets changed between the visits, the ads revert to the general
> site-theme ads. And let me tell you: if your general site-related ads are
> out of sync with what *YOU* think your site is about, you have a big time
> problem!  t is probably cluttered layout, typos or maybe some link spam on
> your site, and you can be sure that over time you will end up with all
> your search engine traffic be irrelevant if you see irrelevant AdSense ads
> too often.
> 
>> Irrelevant ads damage the reliability of the content nonetheless. We
>> may not
>> realise this, but many visitors do not even know what AdSense mean. To
>> them, Google = that box that "goes to the Internet". The
>> visitor will
>> assume that the Webmaster manually selected or hand-coded the adverts.
>> As
>> the link I sent to Mikkel shows, these can sometimes be offensive if
>> not
>> sickening. They can definitely lose you visitors or have them discard a
>> page that has good and accurate content.
> 
> 
> Those ads are cute examples, but they are *NOT* AdSense ads. This site is
> about AdWords ads that come up on Google's own site when people get silly
> and search for silly keywords. There are power AdWords users out there
> that just suck in ANY list of keywords (silly ones included) and
> auto-generate silly ads that point to their eBay affiliate links.
> 
> Once again, if your general ads are silly or offensive, you've got to take
> a really hard look at your site and find what triggers such ads instead of
> dismissing it as another example of Google stupidity. I've yet to see such
> example that has to do with Google and not its users that, like all
> humans, can get real stupid indeed.
> 
>>> And it's only a matter of time before they will master relevance
>>> for other
>>> languages.
> 
> 
>> Klingon too?
> 
> I've only gotten two cups of coffee this morning, so I didn't get that
> one. Is there a joke I'm ignorant of?  Let me know, I'd like to get a good
> laugh, too ;-)

Mikkel and I discussed alternative language 'packs' for the Google
interface. Let me just grab the quote...

---
23/8/2005

[Mikkel]

>>> Have you checked out the language options for their user interface? (The
>>> language you choose for Google commands and info).

[Me]

>> Do they also have Klingon? That wouldn't strike me as surprising...

[Mikkel]
 
> Yes, they have Klingon, Pharmacists Latin, Bork Bork Bork!, Hacker,
> Interlingua, Esperanto and a dozen of things more, which I cannot tell for
> sure whether are languages or funny inventions. And, of course, my choice
> of the moment: Ewmew Fuddian...
> 
> [Fun killer: These articifical languages are of course a luxury,
> [considering
> that there are still millions, probably billions, of people on earth who
> don't speak even one of the provided languages at all].
> 
> Although Google of course has its own commercial reasons for doing this,
> it doesn't prevent me for liking the approach. It is probably quite
> cost-low for Google, as they use free translations provided by users. I
> have even corrected some of the spelling mistakes in Danish, and will be
> curious to see if they are corrected.
---

If you watch(ed) Stak Trek on occasions, you will(would) know what Klingon
is about. It also makes good geek humour, maybe as part of the Slashdot
subculture. There was a funny Frasier episode where Kelsie Grammar
unknowingly memorised a phrased in 'Klingon'.

Roy

-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz        Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
http://Schestowitz.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index