I think a large problem with people gaming the system is that they don't know how to write well. That's why so many people are trying to find the easy way out with article exchanges, etc.

In my opinion, well-written, interesting content is still king.

The eCPM of the first three months of my participation in 2003 was fairly strong (but not stronger than now here in 2006). I assume Adsense was paying a higher percentage to publishers back then than they later found out they could get away with.

Here are two more likely reasons:

1) When AdSense launched, advertisers had to opt out of the content network if they didn't want to be included. It took a while for some advertisers to realize what was going on and opt out.

2) Before smart pricing was introduced in 2004, advertisers paid full AdWords price for clicks from the content network.

While clearly it is prudent to pay some attention to working both sides of the street, for me it seems that plugging along and creating content (and therefore creating a tangible income generating asset) and just letting Adsense just take care of itself is the better way for me to spend my time as opposed to investing a lot of energy into trying to game a system I really have little control over or concrete information about anyway.

That's been my approach, too, and the result has been a consistent flow of Google Search referrals and AdSense income. (And steadily growing revenues from other sources, too!)

I'd like to see Google reverse this. AdSense was a much more compelling program when search and content were all one thing.

I'd like to see Google reverse this. AdSense was a much more compelling program when search and content were all one thing.

For publishers, maybe. But with the explosion of junk made-for-AdSense sites, advertisers would have even more reason to be leery of an all-in-one, advertiser-take-potluck network.

Based on what the changes that we've seen in the last couple of years (e.g., domain blocking by advertisers and site-targeted CPM ads), I think the trend is going to be toward greater advertiser control and segmentation, not less. That stands to reason, because AdWords/AdSense is a direct-response medium and direct marketers are used to having "granular" control over how they spend their money.

Well, that's what I am! :-)
As for the trend towards more segmentation not less, you're probably right. However, I do think that if Google reversed things and went back to a singular program that very few advertisers would jump ship, simply because there aren't any other ships at the moment worth jumping to - Google is pretty much it.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 4:11 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]

As for the trend towards more segmentation not less, you're probably right. However, I do think that if Google reversed things and went back to a singular program that very few advertisers would jump ship, simply because there aren't any other ships at the moment worth jumping to - Google is pretty much it.

Forcing AdWords advertisers to pay for clicks from made-for-AdSense sites, parked domains, gmail, etc. certainly would help the other shipbuilders.

If there's a problem in the above then Google should deal with it until it's not a problem. They certainly appear to have the resources to hire more people if necessary, manually review all sites running AdSense and clamp down on whatever else needs to be done to reign in their program.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 4:27 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]

If there's a problem in the above then Google should deal with it until it's not a problem. They certainly appear to have the resources to hire more people if necessary, manually review all sites running AdSense and clamp down on whatever else needs to be done to reign in their program.

According to news reports, they're building a new facility in Michigan and planning to hire a lot more people for the AdWords (and presumably the AdSense) team. But manual reviewing of all sites running AdSense ads just isn't a practical solution, if only because you're talking about millions (probably billions) of pages. It makes a lot more sense to use scalable automated solutions and to let advertisers take on some of the workload by offering them more control (not less).

OK, fair enough. I'll revise that and say manually reviewing all accounts. There may be millions of pages with AdSense on them, but there's far fewer publishers. Raise the bar on who gets in - or stays in.

OK, fair enough. I'll revise that and say manually reviewing all accounts. There may be millions of pages with AdSense on them, but there's far fewer publishers. Raise the bar on who gets in - or stays in

I used to think the same thing, but I'm now skeptical about how well that would work. It's the same problem that we all face if we accept link submissions (which I no longer do): Some guy creates a legitimate, useful-looking site, then flips the "pure affiliate" or porn switch once he's got enough inbound links and traffic.

I think manual reviews have their place, and in fact Google does manual reviews. But the only practical way to have a program of manual reviews is to (a) have enough qualified employees to conduct those reviews, and to review the decisions of lower-level employees; and (b) use an algorithm to flag questionable pages or accounts for manual reviews.

This is certainly a small minority, not the majority of publishers. I would argue that AdSense is simply too easy to join and that the integrity of the content network has suffered as a result of that easiness. "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" and all that.

I would argue that AdSense is simply too easy to join and that the integrity of the content network has suffered as a result of that easiness.

What standards would you use to make it tougher to join? Age of site? Traffic? The quality of the content wouldn't solve the problem, because there wouldn't be anything to keep unscrupulous publishers from abusing AdSense once they were accepted into the network.

$100 one-time sign up fee for all accounts.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 5:45 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]

Since I joined AdSense in Nov. 2003, my eCPM has more than doubled, due to increases in both CTR and EPC. Smart pricing's introduction knocked me back a bit but I made some changes that have more than made up for it.

I've stopped messing with colors and positions since I found a look that I liked and that worked well. I'm now mostly adding content, but also occasionally try ads where I didn't have them before. Mostly I pull them off again.

What standards would you use to make it tougher to join? Age of site? Traffic?

I think a one-time fee would weed out a few, but quality content would weed out even more. There could even be an Adsense site limit where your code is only allowed on 5 - 10 websites.

The quality of the content wouldn't solve the problem, because there wouldn't be anything to keep unscrupulous publishers from abusing AdSense once they were accepted into the network.

Nothing will totally solve the problem, but I disagree with this statement. It is unlikely that a publisher will take the time and energy to develop a content-rich, quality website - and then place his/her Adsense code on a trashy website.

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but think about a publisher designing a quality travel site like yours. Once evaluated and allowed in by Google, the publisher proceeds to create 8 more trashy sites for Adsense.

I don't think most quality website owners want to be associated with such sites.

Well perhaps $100 isn't high enough for the fee - maybe it should be $500. There's certainly some price point at which serious weeding would take place. Quality content should also be a given, though as EFV points out, determining what that is could be problemmatic.

> There could even be an Adsense site limit where your code is only allowed on 5 - 10 websites.

Sounds good.

I don't think most quality website owners want to be associated with such sites.

I don't, either, but the MFA Web entrepreneur who's just looking to get his foot in the AdSense door won't balk at buying or borrowing enough useful, legitimate content to pass an initial membership review.

As for application fees, I don't think they're likely to happen. Google has an idealistic side, and one of the concepts behind AdSense was to let moms and/or pops cover their hosting fees and earn rewards by contributing to the Web. Any application fee high enough to keep the riff-raff out would keep legitimate moms and pops out, too.

But they don't cut you a check until you reach $100, right? AdSense could simply withhold that first $100 and use that as the fee. Mom & Pop would start getting a check when they reached $200.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 6:46 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]

I think we're more likely to see more automated quality checks like the landing-page "quality scores" that some AdWords advertisers are up in arms about, plus more options and controls for advertisers. (The latter wouldn't just reward good behavior and punish bad behavior; it would also lead to higher earnings for Google and for publishers who deliver quality traffic to advertisers.)

Well I don't think having a fee to join AdSense is the sole solution to such a complicated program, but I do think it would go a long way towards weeding out many of the bad apples currently exploiting it. The content network ought to be as attractive for advertising dollars as the search side. That it is not is because Google has allowed it to become so.

I don't, either, but the MFA Web entrepreneur who's just looking to get his foot in the AdSense door won't balk at buying or borrowing enough useful, legitimate content to pass an initial membership review.

Well, if it were just an "eye-test", or something visual, then an MFA'er could buy a $20, cool looking template and say, "My site looks good."

However, if a bot (similar to the Adwords quality landing page bot) were to take effect, it would certainly seek out legitimate, quality content.

But if we're talking about a quality content examination, shouldn't the MFA'er have a problem locating legitimate content? Most legitimate content would have to be reproduced (thereby creating duplicated content) right?

But if we're talking about a quality content examination, shouldn't the MFA'er have a problem locating legitimate content? Most legitimate content would have to be reproduced (thereby creating duplicated content) right?

Depends what you mean by quality, but there are plenty of writers who'll work for little or nothing, and I don't think Google has anything against "user-created content" or UCC.

I could easily whip up a 2,500 page site aimed at surfers looking for pictures of antique cars and meet the search query strings really well with just enough text to clue the media-bot in.

Now if I wrap the photos in Adsense ads does that make the "quality" of the site less? If the search is for a photo and the page delivers a matching photo is it a low quality page just because it has Adsense on it?

Does it matter if there's 3 adblocks, an Adlinks unit, 2 search boxes and a couple referal links?

Good points ken_b
That's why I'm advocating an application fee (longshot that it apparently is). I believe it could help elevate the publishers status to prospective advertisers. If as an advertiser I knew AdSense publishers had to pay anywhere from $100-$500 to participate in the program, I would feel more likely than not that they would be committed to running a quality site because they too were invested financially in it.