| LED Digest 2061: Refining AdSense |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. December 23, 2005 Issue #2061 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= <Moderator Comment> ~ Holiday thanks & schedule --== Offline Marketing and Radio ==-- ~ Beth Earle "Props to Lee for a very astute post..." --== Screen Display Sizing ==-- ~ Tom Aman "Why do some designers want to 'optimize' pages for the monitor width?" ~ Mark Medlicott "...tables or divs can be set to percent and degrade nicely." --== AdSense Supported Sites ==-- ~ Mike Collins "...I place AdSense on articles whose purpose is to add content and value to the site..." ~ Brad Waller "Any publisher worth advertising on really is better off selling their own advertising..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== .org Domains and Search? ==-- ~ Michael Martinez ~ Stephen Mareches ======== CONTINUING =============================== <Moderator Comment> Greetings LEDer, I'm glad we're back to the old schedule around here, things are active as ever. I've been working away on the new site - I'll be looking for feedback right around the first week in January. Special thanks to James Haley for his help with Mambo. To Mike Banks Valentine, John Smart, Chris Nielsen, Eva Rosenberg and everyone else who has been so helpful - my sincere appreciation and thanks. For the holidays we'll be taking Monday off - so see you back here on Tuesday. Hope you have a great weekend -- be well and my best wishes to you and yours. -adam ------------------------ From: Beth Ann Earle Subject: Radio > Every advertising medium has its own advantages and > disadvantages. Learning the advantages and disadvantages > of each can help you develop a strong marketing campaign > capable of bring in many great leads and sales. - Lee Roberts, LED 2059 Props to Lee for a very astute post -- this applies to so many different aspects of our businesses (and even our personal lives -- some things work well for certain people and not for others), plus it has quite a direct bearing on the continuing AdSense thread running through the LED lately. Beth Earle Polysort LLC ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Tom Aman Subject: Display size > Our policy is to design for 1024x768 on sites with > corporate clientele, but to stick with 800x600 if we > believe there will be visitors with older computers. - Paul Bromby, LED 2057 > For novapdf.com we have it optimized on 1024 but > on 800x600 the right column disappears - which still > doesn't affect the overall usability of the website. - Claudiu Spulber, LED 2058 > ... just because the monitor is a certain width does not > mean that the user keeps their browser at that full width... - Brad Waller, LED2058 Why, oh why do some designers want to "optimize" pages for the monitor width? I am glad to see that Brad understands that, just because a monitor is a certain width, it does not mean that a page should be that width. Paul, why do you assume 1024 for corporate clientele and 800 for others? Aside from the fact that many (possibly most) surfers do not run full screen, what about those who have their task bar at the side of the screen instead of along the bottom. Or those (like me) who have something on their computer that, in addition to the usual task bar at the bottom of the screen, may involve a task bar at the side? Also what about heights? A screen set to 800 x 600 with a task bar at the bottom does not have 600 pixels of display area available. Same problem with 768 height. Or Claudiu, you say "we have it optimized on 1024 but on 800 x 600 the right column disappears...doesn't affect the overall usability of the website". Want to bet? What if, as I did when I checked the site, my browser window is set to less that 800? Now the usability is really affected because part of the main body of the page is also cut off. The usability is also affected even if I am set a bit wider than 800 and see the cut-off column because I, like almost every surfer, will be curious about what is hidden and may take the time to side scroll. Or, more likely, unless they really, really need whatever is on the site and there is no other place to get it, just go elsewhere to a more useable site. My wife is a case in point. She has a 1024 wide screen but seldom runs her browser full screen. She is a jewellery maker and mostly uses her computer to search for materials she needs to buy to make jewellery. If she hits a site that requires side scrolling, she just leaves without looking at anything and does not include the site in her bookmarks of potential sources. She tells me she would do without something rather than put up with the annoyance of side scrolling. So, designers, listen up: ** Stop Designing Pages For A Certain Screen Width And Stop Assuming That Everyone Runs There Browsers Maxed. ** Many (most?) of us don't run our browsers full screen. And even if we do, full screen does not necessarily mean monitor screen width because of other task bars, scroll bars, etc. Even though my screen is set at 1024, I run my browser at a comfortable reading width. And, depending on what else I am doing, that "comfortable reading width" may even be less that 800. As a result, I get very annoyed with sites that are "optimized for ... ". As for "optimize for higher than 1024 resolution", please forget that. On a 21 inch monitor, 1024 is already a really uncomfortable reading width. My son now has a wide screen monitor. I don't know the resolution for width, but I would not even attempt to try reading text in a browser running full screen on that monitor. "Optimized for ..." - optimized for whom??? I think it means "optimized for the page designer" because "optimizing" for a specific width makes designing the page easier. It takes a lot more effort to "optimize" for whatever width the surfer happens to be using. When I see "optimized for ... ", my personal reaction is "lazy designer". By optimizing for a certain width, a designer is assuming a lot of things and I hope everyone knows what "assume" did. (In case you didn't, it made an "ass" out of "u" and "me"). Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Mark Medlicott Subject: Display size Firstly, I am taking this chance to wish Adam and his family, along with all LED'ers all the best for Xmas and the New Year. I am writing this on a 17" monitor, set for 800x600 display like for many of us 'older' people. I struggle at a 1024x768 resolution to read the screen easily (who needs headaches), and as such also design my websites with this in mind. I have also noticed that maybe people in New Zealand like myself haven't upgraded so quickly to larger monitors or laptops and as such the stats below tend to reflect this compared to statistics shown by overseas websites. 46.88% 1024x768 39.58% 800x600 13.54% 1280x1024 Another point I wish to make, is this not a reason that you would design in percentages and not pixels? I understand that images should be in pixels, but tables or divs can be set to percent and degrade nicely. Generally all you add or subtract is whitespace, which can't be all bad. Thats my last post for the year, but I look forward to the continuation of this great digest, and to even more issues each week to run in from the sun (its summer where I live) to read! Regards Mark Medlicott Medlicott Design www.medlicottdesign.orcon.net.nz Cheers from all us LEDers, Mark! Say hello to the sun for me when you get a chance. -adam -------- new post - new topic ------- From: Mike Collins Subject: Adsense > I may discontinue the AdSense on my weight loss site > anyway because the ads are generally for services and > products I do not promote... [and often are] worthless > weight loss products and gimmicks. - Kathryn Martyn, LED 2059 I came across a similar situation in which I promoted a legitimate product and on the same page AdSense showed ads for products that not only would be considered competition to the product I was promoting, but were in my opinion were worthless scams. My solution was to remove AdSense from that page altogether. As a general rule I place AdSense on articles whose purpose is to add content and value to the site as a whole, rather than promoting a specific product. But for the pages where my goal is to direct the visitor to a specific product, I leave out the AdSense. Better to remove the distraction and keep the visitor focused on the products that bring a higher return. Mike Collins http://www.saving-money-and-living-debt-free.com -------- new post - same topic ------- From: Brad Waller Subject: AdSense > I'm using AdSense but I may stop due to their new > "advertise on this site" message contained at the > bottom of their ads. I don't appreciate the implication > ... and it is misleading, if not outright deceitful. - Kathryn Martyn, LED 2059 I have read similar misconceptions that you cannot opt out of the "Advertise on this Site" feature. This is an error, as I have tested the process and have opted out of the feature. If you do not want to let users see this, you can edit this from the "My Account" area once you log in. Scroll to the bottom and click the "edit" for "Onsite Advertiser Sign-Up" and you can turn off the preferences. > If you wanted to advertise on my site, perhaps a related product or > service that would compliment my weight loss program, and then you > clicked that text, you wouldn't find anything about advertising on > my site, but instead would find yourself at Google's AdSense page. A smaller problem is the landing page itself. It is very limiting and is the only one you get. You can edit this page and add your logo and some text if you did want to sell ads. For those who own multiple sites, this is a bigger issue because they really should have one page per site. With a 100 pixel graphic and 384 characters to describe your site, it is tough for a single site to really sell a placement, let alone five or ten sites. The real issue, which many sites share, is that Google is not the best source of revenue for site advertising. It works well, but in no way can it match site targeted advertising for your site and your site only. Most sites either sell or want to be able to sell their own advertising. So why would a publisher want to distract advertisers and send them to AdWords where they will "have the opportunity to place ads on your site" and "compete for your inventory". What does this really mean? It means that "advertisers will bid for your inventory on a pay-per-impression basis, and the ads they create will compete against all other Google site- and content-targeted ads relevant to your site" To illustrate this further, check out these answers from Google about their service: --------------------- Q: How do I know if advertisers are bidding on my site? A: At this time, we aren't able to provide details about how many advertiser sign-ups are made through your links. However, if advertisers are bidding on your site, you may notice more CPM ads appearing on your site and/or an increase in your earnings. Q: Can I customize the landing page for each of my sites? A: No. At this time, we only offer the ability to customize one landing page for each account. Advertisers will access the same custom landing page from ad units on any of your sites. --------------------- For this feature to really work, you need competition for your site or your rates will not rise much, if at all. Meanwhile you will be distracting from your own site advertising efforts. Instead of getting order of magnitude jumps from placements bought for a large number of impressions on your site, you will potentially get incremental increases from advertisers who pay to just beat out your existing rates on AdSense. Any publisher worth advertising on really is better off selling their own advertising or else they will be letting the advertisers set the rates and minimizing their revenue, not maximizing it. Brad Waller Manage and Sell your own site advertising http://adjungle.com waller, adjungle.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Michael Martinez Subject: org domains > Web site stats indicate that MSN, Google and Yahoo > robots have visited daytongreenways.org numerous > times... yet when searching for the site's domain name > the result is the same: no information found for that site. - Stephen Mareches, LED 2059 You appear to have no inbound links. Who is linking to your site? > Someone told me recently that search engines > don't try to index .org sites... Any ideas? That is aboslute nonsense. .ORG sites are indexed just fine, thank you very much (I operate Xenite.Org and it has done very well through the years). Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Stephen Mareches Subject: org domains Thanks to Lee Roberts and Bob Gladstein for their responses about the .org site, I appreciate the corrections I need to make. Now for some reason it's suddenly showing up at MSN at the top of the rankings for "dayton greenways". How odd. It wasn't there the day I sent the post, honest! Stephen Mareches, Web Consultant Sophia Solutions www.sophiasolutions.net ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Leave the beaten track occasionally and dive into the woods. Every time you do so you will be certain to find something that you have never seen before." - Alexander Graham Bell |
