...but there's nothing personal in any of that, either implicit or implied.

Marcia, I'll have to agree with HuskyPup on this. You've vastly over estimated the ability of humans to be objective, and vastly under estimated their capacity and willingness to insinuate human nature into their code.

AdSense Earnings Ceilings. Natural limit caused by
amount of advertisers in your niche,
quality of advertisers in your niche,
the limitations on the quality of your site visitors,
limitations caused by the kind of content on your site...

I like it and agree..

Or is it easier to ignore real and measurable limits inherent in your site and suspect Google places an algorithmic limit for some vague reason?

Assuming that at least one high ranking decision maker at Google is - well human. You know the kind of executive that makes business decisions in the interest of their corporations profit at the expense of customers or partners? Not that in a million years anybody at Google would do this.

Could you entertain the slightest possibility that another bullet be added to your list that might read:

"Google acting in their earnings interest algo modification or tweak"?

>>There's nothing discriminatory, it's all done by an impartial algo.

Does not compute.

Could you entertain the slightest possibility that another bullet be added to your list that might read:

"Google acting in their earnings interest algo modification or tweak"?

It's more likely that any "earnings ceiling" is caused by a limit on the allocation of higher-paying ads, or on ads from a given advertiser (which could amount to the same thing). It obviously isn't in the interest of either advertisers or Google to let a handful of publishers suck up inventory that's meant to be distributed across a broad range of sites.

Remember, AdSense is an ad network, not a rep firm for individual sites.

I am most of the time trying to remain neutral in this matter and I do try to at least entertain the possibility that Google and the Googlers are pure as the driven snow and work with a 100% team outlook all the time and are not tempted to shade personal or group standing or profits to their own advantage at the expense of publishers--who are not really customers or users.

Yes, that possibility exists and that company spirit probably does prevail most of the time. But to consider that everyone posting here is always self-deluded and imagining these occasional ceilings, (not to mention my own experience) is something that also strains my credulity.

So I think it might be prudent for all parties to consider that those holding the opposite position may at least be partially right some of the time and they are not imagining things or drinking the kool aid.

edited for clarity and splleing

[edited by: OnlyToday at 4:13 pm (utc) on Sep. 20, 2008]

But to consider that everyone posting here is always self-deluded and imagining these occasional ceilings, (not to mention my own experience) is something that also strains my credulity.

I think there's a tendency for people here to look at effect (maximum earnings of $XX per day) and assume that effect = cause. They then proceed to assume that, if they aren't earning more than $XX per day, Google must be putting what they imagine to be "missing money" into its own corporate pocket.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the apparent ceiling on daily earnings is the result of other factors, such as ad allocation? Think about it: If you were Google, would you let a handful of publishers suck up a disportionate share of your best-paying ad inventory? Of course not. You'd be smart enough to know that the strength of an ad network like AdSense is its ability to spread ads across a large number of publishers, thereby making it harder for advertisers to bypass the middleman and--at the same time--making it harder for publishers to game the system at the expense of other publishers whose loyalty is essential to the network's health.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume...

No, but it would be easier to be less vigilant. I don't want to be lulled into complacency. Perhaps Google has never had an unpure thought, but it would be unreasonable and foolish for me to assume this because it goes against everything I've learned about human beings and business. I sleep well at night and suffer from very little stress because I am vigilant.

I do admire your loyalty and unswerving faith signor_john, if I had any openings I'd try to lure you away from your current employment with cash and other enticements.

[edited by: OnlyToday at 9:14 pm (utc) on Sep. 20, 2008]

publishers whose loyalty is essential to the network's health

I liken my "loyalty" to be about that of a starving peasant whose only crumbs of bread are falling from the king's table.

If I were a business in Google's position, I'd work toward a different form of loyalty.

YM

I'll contend that there are certain signals and factors that can be found that probably explain some of the reasons for variations in earnings, even differences between sites owned by the same person on the same day.

It can take a lot of probing (just like SEO does - including the SERPs), but it can answer a lot of questions and alleviate a lot of unnecessary suffering by webmasters who could be making much more productive use of their time than to be worrying.

Let me quote martinibuster's post from earlier in this thread:

Or is it easier to ignore real and measurable limits inherent in your site and suspect Google places an algorithmic limit for some vague reason?

And I'll also add that it can't hurt either, to check the number of ads for keyword phrases at www.google.com on different days of the week and different times of the month. That's something that's easily not only measurable, but visible.

[edited by: Marcia at 3:53 am (utc) on Sep. 21, 2008]

...lot of unnecessary suffering by webmasters who could be making much more productive use of their time than to be worrying.

Marcia you're still trying to pathologize a healthy skepticism. Perhaps you wring your hands when you worry, I do not. It is an intellectual process where evidence is gathered, weighed and evaluated dispassionately while keeping an open mind as to the motivations of those who work behind the curtain. Please do not try to characterize it otherwise.

It is in fact the opacity of the curtain which I object to. Perhaps there will always be such tension when there are dishonest people trying to reverse engineer the Google algorithm(s). Your own probing and reading of the patents could be interpreted that very way in fact. Are you simply interested in the workings of the algorithm or are you trying to gain some unfair advantage over the others you compete with?

I think there might be some sort of smoothing factor that Google applies, although I (nor anyone else) can be sure. Seems Google may be somehow taming fluctuations, so that you earn a more consistent amount per day than you otherwise might. Furthermore it seems you may have to "shock" the algo into placing you somewhere else on the earnings scale--for instance a 10% traffic increase won't do it, but doubling your traffic will.

I know this is complete heresy to some, and I'm not even sure I believe it. But to me, it is at least plausible.

I personally know that I can "shock" the algo when it is only showing low paying ads on my web pages. I have written about it here in the past, but some people think it does not happen, or they can't do it. I know I can. I have to reset the algo on Sunday usually or my Monday is full of low paying ads. I have left the algo alone and it will correct in a few days, but if I want to correct it from showing low paying ads in just a few hours, I have to "shock" it.

Mike

There is one other kind of ceiling that you didn't mention, martinibuster - the limit to which one lets himself believe that AdSense earnings must be fixed by Google, and no efforts as far as redefining your place in your niche, adding traffic, content, or expanding your portfolio can control or raise it. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy!

I have to "shock" it.

I suspect that if you intended to tell us how you do this you would have already. Would this be too much of a shock? Send me a message privately if you think it would shock the forum and cause it to change its algo. My personal algo is shockproof, go ahead try me.

ArtistMike:

I have to "shock" it.

Shocking observation. The other day I had a 10 hour 100% server outage (not nice, I can tell you, but that's a different story). Guess what? Adsense figures on that day were surprisingly high. After cleaning up the rubble, I found that:

1) eCPM : highest in 2008, and four times the average value of the preceeding three days.

2) EPC : highest in 2008

3) Absolute revenue : definitely on the better side of things.

And all that with roughly 60% of the traffic. Maybe I'll dig into this a bit more to find out which traffic has been removed by the outage.

Shocking observation. The other day I had a 10 hour 100% server outage (not nice, I can tell you, but that's a different story). Guess what? Adsense figures on that day were surprisingly high.

I have seen this symptom before, however after the shock event my earnings quickly return or adjust back to previous levels. Let’s look at a different side of this AdSense coin.

I have been removing ad units from my site in small increments for over two months. The last ad units I removed amounted to about 10 percent of the total AdSense units I display.

Every time I have removed ad units from circulation my EPC or total number of delivered ads has increased to bring my earnings back in line with recent earnings numbers. I am currently showing approximately 50 percent of the ads I was showing two months ago and making (average) the same money.

I suspect that what we MAY BE seeing is an AdSense “Earnings Target” not an “Earnings Ceiling”.

[edited by: Edge at 11:50 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

I suspect that what we MAY BE seeing is an AdSense “Earnings Target” not an “Earnings Ceiling”.

The very existence of a "target" lends credibility to the possibility of a ceiling. Now I have no proof of either, but I will argue against those who say they don't exist simply because they will go to such lengths to blame my rationalizations or laziness for my willingness to keep an open mind about this.

I think many people simply don't want to be disabused of the notion that Googlers wear a halo.

I have written about how I "shock" the algo. It is a very simple thing to do and I do it when I start seeing 3cent ads. I just did it yesterday on a web page that was showing 14 clicks with a payout of 84 cents. I am now seeing 12 clicks and over $5 for that group of ads. (Those figures are not accurate, but they are representative). Some people have written that they don't get the results that I get when they try the "shock". Shrug. Not my problem. I see a result in my earnings, what they see is not my problem. Do a search for my past messages on this topic, I have told people how to "shock" the algo.

I think many people simply don't want to be disabused of the notion that Googlers wear a halo.

Possibly. And there are also some of us who have been around for a long time, with 20 or 30 years in marketing, 5 or more years in search engine marketing, plenty of experience in AdSense *and* AdWords, who understand the ups and downs of any volatile market like this one.

...who understand the ups and downs of any volatile market like this one.

I am much more comfortable with wide swings and volatility than with the measured predictability I see over time with AdSense. After 2-3 days of good eCPM I will have a bad day sure as the day follows the dawn. Last month I had three consecutive days that came within 20 cents of each other, it's not a natural pattern.

Why obsess about patterns (natural or unnatural, real or imagined) when the really important metrics are eCPM and earnings?

You can't control what Google does, but you do have control over your own business decisions. If the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it?

Why obsess about patterns

You ask why?

Well, when a 100% loss of traffic over a period of ten hours results in highest eCPM *and* highest EPC in 2008, I am very much interested in examining and discussing why. If Google wants us to block/remove certain traffic, then I am happy to do that. It would be easier, if they told us what they want, but yeah, I understand they won't do that anytime soon.

I do think the 'smartpricing' algo decides how much it wants you to earn which is not based on impressions or clicks and manipulates the EPC to get close to that figure.

Why obsess about patterns (natural or unnatural, real or imagined) when the really important metrics are eCPM and earnings?
You can't control what Google does, but you do have control over your own business decisions. If the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it?

And so signor_john, you're saying that since I can't control Google I should simply accept what they do without complaint or quit?

Why are you obsessed with my complaints? You can't control what I say, but you should be able to control your self. Patterns matter, they matter a lot to me. I don't think I'm obsessed with them, but you're entitled to your opinion. My complaints notwithstanding, AdSense has been a good program for me and has worked better than any other. And Google has apparently responded to my complaints in the past so my efforts have not always gone unrewarded.

Google seldom speaks to these things but I do believe they sometimes listen and react. I don't do this just to irritate you signor_john.

If Google wants us to block/remove certain traffic, then I am happy to do that.

It is in your hand and fully up to you to experiment with what traffic and inventory to give Google and see what works best for your site and traffic. Who knows you might even run into optimum networks combination for your traffic mix.

And so signor_john, you're saying that since I can't control Google I should simply accept what they do without complaint or quit?

Not necessarily, but if you continue working with Google despite your stated belief that "something smells fishy," your complaints will be reminiscent of a joke that someone shared on this forum a while back:

"The food here is terrible."

"Yes, and the portions are so small!"

...but if you continue...

I will, and I understand your need to ridicule. Carry on.

"The food here is terrible."

"Yes, and the portions are so small!"

It's sad to see even the few useful threads in the Adsense forum that are on topic (for a while) to be dragged down into the dirt.

The OP believes that there is an earnings ceiling on the Google Adsense program, and some jump in agreeing, some jump in disagreeing, both parties providing "evidence" (for their sites). Fine.

Then one person comes in and states that Google can't be controlled. Which is not (repeat - not) helpful at all. It's just one more reason to stay away from here and reduce postings. It's a waste of time. (Mission accomplished?)

To get this thread back on topic. I think that Seb7 has something here:

I do think the 'smartpricing' algo decides how much it wants you to earn which is not based on impressions or clicks and manipulates the EPC to get close to that figure.

This would be the best explanation for the phenomenon I have been experiencing. As I know the actual time period of the 10-hour-outage on my servers, I would be VERY surprised if the blocked traffic was not valuable. Very surprised. So there must be something else, and I think Seb7 got close. Do we have others experiencing the same situation? Sudden loss of major traffic, and then good/unaffected figures?

I would be VERY surprised if the blocked traffic was not valuable. Very surprised.

Be careful you don't take any hasty action without first ruling out that Google could have done a click dump, a dollar dump or a combination of the two on that particular day when you had an outage.

On a different note....

I'm not saying it's impossible for Google to know your pain threshold and steer within it but over the last week or so, for no apparent reason, several sites of mine broke all previous "ceilings" and I'm a few hundred dollars a day better off. Unless they've calculated a new ceiling for me ;)

If Google were to apply such a ceiling I believe it would be a project undertaken by just a manager and a few trusted coders on an ad hoc experimental basis.

I imagine the manager responsible for AdSense performance calling a few top programmers into his/her office and saying, "I want $x profit this month, I don't care how you do it but don't mess with any big accounts." The manager would offer a piece of the action under the table to the coders. The money would pass to the manager in the form of bonuses and promotions for good performance.

So the coders figure out a way to skim occasional clicks from a lot of smaller publishers but since they don't have the resources of the entire company behind them, they must keep their program a secret and it is done sloppily and unevenly--which is why we notice but can't nail down a real pattern because they turn it on and off arbitrarily as needed to meet their goals.

Viewed from the outside of the black box by us blind men touching the elephant the possibility of their getting caught from this end is very slim. Some of those trying to discredit us on this forum may even be the corrupt Googlers themselves.

Now removing tin-foil hat...

[edited by: OnlyToday at 7:03 am (utc) on Sep. 25, 2008]