Could it be that the difference between position 5 and position 2 is less qualified traffic for the current set of ads?

Or it could be the topic, the format of the content (articles, forums, image galleries, etc.), the kinds of users who are attracted to the site, etc.

The last item mentioned above shouldn't be ignored. An inquiry for a Ferrari brochure is more likely to convert (and will be worth more to the advertiser) if it comes from THE ROBB REPORT or Forbes.com than if it comes from teen-driver.com or free-brochures.com. (That's an extreme example, but it does show that audiences can be as important as content.)

I'm afraid I don't really buy the idea that increasing serps position means that the traffic is somehow worth a LOT less, or is less likely to convert. Increase traffic and clicks by 30% and we'll knock epc down by 75% does not seem like a bargain to me.

I don't know what is meant (in this context) by "pre qualified traffic". Does it mean that by doing what Google want you to do means your site is worth less? Sounds like a stab in the dark to me! Incidentally, adsense support have no idea whatsover as to why increasing Google ranking and increasing genuine, organic traffic cuts earnings by large amounts, so I'm not expecting any answers here obviously.

As regads where the traffic comes from, that is a valid point. It's NOT from forums, adwords or other sources - it's purely from Google searches on my keywords. Why is organic traffic worth so much less?

I accept there are things that could cause a decrease in earnings such as a huge increase in traffic maxing out advertisers budgets. But in this case there is only what I'd call a mild increase - approximately by 30% as stated earlier. This is not a phenomenal increase so breaking budgets is not the case. As Google can't answer the question, I'm not going to speculate.

As regards QS - it's a failure.

Forget content as it doesn't apply. Has it meant that we are seeing less MFA's on generally searching Google? Nope.

All it's done is to charge a random selection of advertisers more to advertise. We aren't seeing a better standard of ads in search. We may be seeing different MFA's but that's about all.

I think the domain parking question is an interesting one. How can the CEO of Google (as reported here) stand up and whine about the scummy ads, yet domain parking is one of the biggest causes of them in the first place! Double standard or what.

Forget content as it doesn't apply. Has it meant that we are seeing less MFA's on generally searching Google?

We're seeing changes that are clearly the result of QS, but the problem is the solution isn't "quite enough". The MAJORITY of MFA sites we were seeing on our sites are no longer appearing. In the beginning we could see them creating new domains to get around QS, and then many of those went also.

The problem is that obviously QS doesn't "hit" MFA advertisers fast enough, or strongly enough to stop the creation of new MFA's.

And, that it takes time for sites to get penalized, and tweaks to be applied to the algo.

We all want instant gratification, and forget the long term, and that google solutions are probably DESIGNED to work over time.

I know some people disagree or simply don't want to hear this, but every one of the sites owned by someone complaining about being hit by adwords hikes that I could identify and look at were inferior sites, with at least one, and often multiple reasons why google would classify then as low quality via an algo.

I'm sure some good sites were hit. I just don't see them owned by the people who are most vocal.

So, yeah, I think QS is a qualified success that has to improve.