Google Adsense should be punched in the face

[familychoice]

About 6 months ago my average page click through rate for publishing Google Ads was about 2%. Not a lot but I had a fair few sites and the average cost per click was about 35p.

The income was worth pursuing so I added a few more sites and feeds and managed to double my earnings for a while. Then a few months ago my earnings started to drop, quite substantially - despite having much more traffic coming through.

Over the last two months I've almost doubled the traffic to my sites, and although I've dramatically increased the number of clicks I receive the actual click through rate and payment per click has dropped. A pain but at least I managed to keep the earnings as they were before Xmas.

However the last 5 days have been a joke. Page views are still increasing (they're genuine visits, not spammers and bots), but suddenly the click through rate has fell from 1% average to 0.3%, and average click payment from 20p to a penny. So up until December my earnings paid the mortgage. Last month they halved. This month I doubt they'll even reach 5% of last years average.

I can only presume Google aren't recording all of my clicks, and the ones they are are earning sod all.

[Dom]

Perhaps they've altered the way that they decide what each click is worth. They change their algorithms every now and then (just to keep us developer folks on the ball) and so maybe they've made a change in the last week or two.

From what I can tell in your post it sounds like your sites are scraping RSS feeds and publishing them on your own site (or posting links back to the original site) which I know Google has frowned upon recently due to a large number of link farms poisoning search results.

Perhaps this has reduced the "value" of your site, which in turn would reduce the value of each ad click.

I'm no expert though. I never dabble in advertising, RSS scraping, pyramid schemes, referral links, or Nazi conventions.

[familychoice]

From what I can tell in your post it sounds like your sites are scraping RSS feeds and publishing them on your own site (or posting links back to the original site) which I know Google has frowned upon recently due to a large number of link farms poisoning search results.

Perhaps this has reduced the "value" of your site, which in turn would reduce the value of each ad click.

Some of the sites do feature RSS feeds, not all though, but I'm not sure why the source of the content should have anything to do with how much revenue they pay - ads have been clicked because someone's interested in visiting the advertisers site and the advertiser has been charged for it. Yeah, knock my SEO score down but a clicks a click regardless of how you've managed it.

I've had three clicks today and a total of 3 pence in earnings. Fascists.

[Dom]

Some of the sites do feature RSS feeds, not all though, but I'm not sure why the source of the content should have anything to do with how much revenue they pay - ads have been clicked because someone's interested in visiting the advertisers site and the advertiser has been charged for it. Yeah, knock my SEO score down but a clicks a click regardless of how you've managed it.

Yeah but Google (and a lot of content creators) don't see it that way. Someone could have spent hours producing some nice original articles about a particular subject, only for someone else to come along, scrape the content, then reproduce it (in full or in part) on their own site. Other SEO factors then push the site that copied the content above the site that created the content in the SERPs, and suddenly the copy-cat site is getting more visitors than the original site. Therefore the owner of the copy-cat site benefits from ads being clicked on their site, whilst the original author sees their visitor numbers (along with the ad revenue) shrink massively, because everyone's gone to the copy-cat site and clicked their ads instead.

To stop this, Google changed their ranking algorithm to try and tackle the problem. From the sounds of things, they tackled it in more than one way - they changed their PageRank algorithm, and also the algorithm that determines what each ad click is worth. After all, the people Google have targeted here usually only scrape RSS feeds and the like to produce content for their own site in the hopes of drawing more visitors, and hence ad clicks.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything, but I've seen this happen before.

[familychoice]

Someone could have spent hours producing some nice original articles about a particular subject, only for someone else to come along, scrape the content, then reproduce it (in full or in part) on their own site. Other SEO factors then push the site that copied the content above the site that created the content in the SERPs, and suddenly the copy-cat site is getting more visitors than the original site. Therefore the owner of the copy-cat site benefits from ads being clicked on their site, whilst the original author sees their visitor numbers (along with the ad revenue) shrink massively, because everyone's gone to the copy-cat site and clicked their ads instead.

I understand the 'copycat site' (or a site genuinely featuring links to relevant news content on other sites for it's visitors) being penalised for duplicating content (or picking up Google news feeds...) via their page rankings, though considering the original site will benefit from the back links I'm not entirely sure it's justified, but why is an ad click on the 'copycat' site worth less than someone clicking the same ad on the linked 'original' site?

And more importantly are Google similarly reducing the costs for advertisers on any of their links clicked on 'copycat' sites?

After all, the people Google have targeted here usually only scrape RSS feeds and the like to produce content for their own site in the hopes of drawing more visitors, and hence ad clicks.

The ads aren't clicked just for the fun of it, they're clicked because visitors want to visit the linked content. An ad clicked on a 'copycat' site is no less likely to result in a sale than it is on an 'original' website.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything, but I've seen this happen before.

It's no biggie, I'll remove their ads and replace them with something else and if that doesn't work I'll delete the sites and sulk.

[Dom]

I understand the 'copycat site' (or a site genuinely featuring links to relevant news content on other sites for it's visitors) being penalised for duplicating content (or picking up Google news feeds...) via their page rankings, though considering the original site will benefit from the back links I'm not entirely sure it's justified, but why is an ad click on the 'copycat' site worth less than someone clicking the same ad on the linked 'original' site?

Well I guess if someone clicks an advert on a copy-cat site, that only received that visitor in the first place because it scraped content from the original site, then authors of the original site would have been robbed of an ad click. If the visitors are reading the same content, and clicking the same ad, but on a website that only gets it's visitors by stealing content from other sites, then many people would ask why the copy-cat site should get anything at all.

I see what you mean about it not making much difference to the company that placed the ad - after all, a click on their ad might get them a sale, regardless of where that ad was placed and clicked on - but in all likelihood, if the copy-cat site hadn't scraped content from the original site, then that visitor would have found their way to the original site to read the content, and clicked on the ad on the original site. The author of the copy-cat would be profiting from the work of the original site.

So by reducing the ad revenue on sites that scrape content from elsewhere, Google are discouraging the practice. That means fewer sites with duplicate content clogging the search results, and more relevant search results for Google. And the more accurate it can be, the better for everyone.

The ads aren't clicked just for the fun of it, they're clicked because visitors want to visit the linked content. An ad clicked on a 'copycat' site is no less likely to result in a sale than it is on an 'original' website. Sounds like Google are trying to save out on a bit of commission with some high horse excuse about content scraping. Pots and kettles....

I imagine Google do still charge the same to the advertiser, regardless of where the ad click came from. But like I said before, Google obviously want to discourage the practice of making money by copying other people's content, so by reducing the money they pay out on those sites, the more likely they are to do that.

[suedenem]

As a general rule, I think that MFA/scraper sites are worthless, pixel-wasting, SERP-pollutiing scum-of-the-earth piles of shite, and anything that Google does to discourage them can only be good  

However, I'll assume that your sites aren't like that at all.  So...

Do you have any Analytics installed?  Are there any changes to your traffic (types, not quantity)?

E.g:

 - have referals from some sites dropped off, whilst traffic from others grown?
 - are you ranking for different keywords than you were 6 months ago?
 - are you attracting Primark shoppers to your Selfridges shop?

Perhaps your traffic has changed and they are clicking on different ads with lower payouts.

In regards to content, has that changed at all?  Has the competition for the key phrases contained within changed?

Have you changed the design/layout/hosting/anything else on your site?  You did test these changes, didn't you?

Is some of your content seasonal in any way?  Could some regional traffic be particularly affected by local events?

Have the advertisers changed much?  Is the ad auction market being dominated by a few, whereas it was more competitive a few months ago?

Has a placement advertiser stopped targeting your site?

Is your market being more ad-savvy?  Do they use ad blockers or noscript?

Are some sites performing badly, which is reflecting badly on your wider account profile?

Perhaps it's a combination of several of the above.

Maybe the traffic that you are sending the advertisers way is crap (scraper sites do tend to produce crap traffic - not that I'm saying your sites are like that), and Google is smart-pricing your pages as a result.

[familychoice]

Well I guess if someone clicks an advert on a copy-cat site, that only received that visitor in the first place because it scraped content from the original site, then authors of the original site would have been robbed of an ad click. If the visitors are reading the same content, and clicking the same ad, but on a website that only gets it's visitors by stealing content from other sites, then many people would ask why the copy-cat site should get anything at all.

If it's just blatantly stolen content then fine but what about sites with legitimate RSS news feeds that feature excerpts specified by the original site, that point back directly to the originating site with a full credit to the original author? If you're going to start penalising sites for doing that then you might as well delete 90% of the internet, including the BBC news website. Oh, and Google News.

I imagine Google do still charge the same to the advertiser, regardless of where the ad click came from. But like I said before, Google obviously want to discourage the practice of making money by copying other people's content, so by reducing the money they pay out on those sites, the more likely they are to do that.

And make a hefty saving on commission in the process.....unless they're passing on the ad revenue to the sites with the full news content? No, thought not.

[suedenem]

I imagine Google do still charge the same to the advertiser, regardless of where the ad click came from.

And make a hefty saving on commission in the process.....unless they're passing on the ad revenue to the sites with the full news content? No, thought not.

Nope.  Google will charge their advertisers less and pay the publishers less when pages have been shown to send crap traffic.

[familychoice]

I imagine Google do still charge the same to the advertiser, regardless of where the ad click came from.

And make a hefty saving on commission in the process.....unless they're passing on the ad revenue to the sites with the full news content? No, thought not.

Nope.  Google will charge their advertisers less and pay the publishers less when pages have been shown to send crap traffic.

Why is it 'crap' traffic?

[suedenem]

If it's just blatantly stolen content then fine but what about sites with legitimate RSS news feeds that feature excerpts specified by the original site, that point back directly to the originating site with a full credit to the original author? If you're going to start penalising sites for doing that then you might as well delete 90% of the internet, including the BBC news website. Oh, and Google News.

Google has been looking to cut out 'thin affiliate' and MFA sites for a while now - they provide a low quality service for both the end punter and advertisers, so it's in Google's interest to get rid of them.

Unless your sites have substantive & unique content, then the only surprise is that Google didn't catch on to them much sooner.  I'm sure they do have it, though  

[suedenem]

I imagine Google do still charge the same to the advertiser, regardless of where the ad click came from.

And make a hefty saving on commission in the process.....unless they're passing on the ad revenue to the sites with the full news content? No, thought not.

Nope.  Google will charge their advertisers less and pay the publishers less when pages have been shown to send crap traffic.

Why is it 'crap' traffic?

It's crap if it converts (to a sale, signup, whatever the CTA on the landing page is) at a rate considerably lower than what is typical.

I'm talking generally, incidentally, based on experience as an advertiser, not about your sites or visitors.

[familychoice]

However, I'll assume that your sites aren't like that at all.  So...

Absolutely not(all of them)

Do you have any Analytics installed?  Are there any changes to your traffic (types, not quantity)?

E.g:

Traffic has changed and always will due to many of the factors you've listed, but if anything I've been wheedling out more crap than before via sites like Cloudflare. Most traffic is genuine, usually from Twitter posts with visitors following links to particular item they're interested in. They generally stay for a decent period and look at other content on the site.

Have you changed the design/layout/hosting/anything else on your site?  You did test these changes, didn't you?

No/sometimes/yes.

Have the advertisers changed much?  Is the ad auction market being dominated by a few, whereas it was more competitive a few months ago?

There was a period a few months back where there were very few advertisers about (a fact that was criticised by publishers on the Google forum) but recently there's been good quality ads on my sites.

Maybe the traffic that you are sending the advertisers way is crap (scraper sites do tend to produce crap traffic - not that I'm saying your sites are like that), and Google is smart-pricing your pages as a result.

Ironically the 'quality' sites that I have, which only feature a smidgeon of RSS content are the one's doing the worst. My terrible crap 'scraper' sites have been fine.

[familychoice]

It's crap if it converts (to a sale, signup, whatever the CTA on the landing page is) at a rate considerably lower than what is typical.

I'm talking generally, incidentally, based on experience as an advertiser, not about your sites or visitors.

Makes sense I guess, but I doubt they have an algorithm canny enough to pick that up - more likely they're penalising everyone based on a sweeping generalisation.

Unless your sites have substantive & unique content, then the only surprise is that Google didn't catch on to them much sooner.  I'm sure they do have it, though 

Most do, or have other features that are going to be of interest to visitors. However if Google have decided to penalise my sites and reduce my revenue I wish they'd be a bit more upfront about and send an email explaining what they've done, instead of continuing to pocket the spoils I'm providing for them, otherwise they're in danger of toppling off that high horse.

[sarahA]

I've experienced Adsense earnings go downhill on several sites with no real reason. One site we run used to make about £60-75 a month. Now it makes £1 if we're lucky.

I know from advertising POV, you get charged varying amounts for the same search phrase (for visits via google search) depending on the quality and relevance of the page visited in relation to the search terms and also the position of the advert and numbed of visits. So I would imagine that there are similar factors when charging for visitors via the Adsense network, probably quality of content, overall click through rate, relevance of advert landing page to the content and positioning on the page.

[/2p]

[familychoice]

I've experienced Adsense earnings go downhill on several sites with no real reason. One site we run used to make about £60-75 a month. Now it makes £1 if we're lucky.

I think for me the suddenness was a bit of a surprise. If I'd just neglected the sites then I'd expect a gentle tailing off maybe, but they're promoted and the hits have been increasing steadily, so even with the reduced click payments I'd expect earnings to hold steady. Instead it suddenly halved just before xmas, and the last week earnings dropped off the cliff and are about 5% of what they were, if that. One day I was on around 1-2% CTR, the next a tiny fraction of that.

It's as if someone's pushed a button somewhere, a button marked 'NO'.

Ironically - and this is where the Google 'cleaning up the internet' stance starts to look a little flimsy - search engine rankings haven't been affected at all, and in fact some of the new sites (on autopilot) I've added recently have leapfrogged up to the top of the pile on the search criteria I've been targeting, and I'm trashing some of my long established competitors. Amazon earnings seem to have picked up a bit so maybe that's the way to go instead.

[Mr Anderson]

These may help:

http://knol.google.com/k/syed-hassan/google-adsense-earnings-dropping/2ui87sle9e6v7/2#

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html

[familychoice]

Thanks for the links, interesting reading. Ironically I've had a series of emails from Google saying I was missing out on income by not having enough Google ads on my sites - 1 or 2 when I could have up to 3 on a page. They're literally pushing more ads at me, for the sake of a usable website.

[vee]

Our Adsense earnings have progressively dropped from around £700 - £800 per month to a couple of hundred quid. It was a nice little earner but now just holiday cash. Google is becoming too big for its boots all round. Hopefully the latest complaints from Twitter et al regarding their over promotion of G+ will sharpen them up but I doubt it. Everything they do these days seems to be geared to ploughing cash into their coffers. Take "personalised search" - arguably all geared to push more and more businesses towards PPC? Going off Google!

[familychoice]

Our Adsense earnings have progressively dropped from around £700 - £800 per month to a couple of hundred quid. It was a nice little earner but now just holiday cash.  

Definitely, they've really knackered our earnings over the past 7 days - the drop is ridiculous. Yesterday 6 clicks earned a total of 3 pence (though there were other, better clicks registered as well) and a few clicks on a blogging site (genuine, original content) today have earned 0. I've had a look and the ads should be paying out.

This months earnings will be around 5% what they were last month, if we're lucky.

Google is becoming too big for its boots all round.

I think you're right. I'll be replacing most of my Google ads with other options. Encouragingly a couple I changed yesterday have bought in earnings from Amazon.

[Whatever]

Not quite the same as Adsense but I took a couple of spare domains, threw Amazon on using Associate o Matic's free version and I've already earned £16 from 10 items sold. Not a lot but that's with absolutely no promotion whatsoever and the sites even look shoddy, so much so I wouldn't order through them if I found them!

Now I know they work I'm going to spend a bit more time and money in actually making them look good and professional enough to hopefully tempt some of the other browsers who haven't purchased.

[familychoice]

Amusingly my earnings have rocketed in the last four days. Similar number of clicks and visits, just bigger payments for the clicks I've had. Plus I've had a load of sales via Amazon as I've been pushing those links instead.

I think Google read this forum.

[Steve Lampkins]

They're so nosy.