RKG Logo 434-978-4300

pigeonrankGoogle announced two upcoming changes to Quality Score (QS) on the AdWords blog on Thursday.

One change improves how Google estimates click-through rates.

The other change introduces a “hop-scotch” algorithm for picking ads for the top of the search results page.

We’ll allow an ad that meets the quality threshold to appear above the search results even if it has to jump over other ads to do so. For instance, suppose the ad in position 1 on the right side of the page doesn’t have a high enough Quality Score to appear above the search results, but the ad in position 2 does. It’s now possible for the number 2 ad to jump over the number 1 ad and appear above the search results. Inside AdWords, 10/30/08

Does anyone else find that explanation boggling? Makes me wonder if pigeons rank the paid listings too.

Google sells four times more ads than anyone else online. QS is central to how those ads are sold. QS determines what each advertiser pays per click. QS determines how many clicks each advertiser receives. But QS is a black box. The details of the algorithm are secret. Sure, QS depends heavily on CTR, but it isn’t just CTR. Vague issues like “other relevance factors” (what does that mean?) are also folded in.

With all due respect to Hal Varian, I’m challenged to call Google bidding a true “auction” because bidders aren’t provided the relationship between bid price and winning. Pay more and you usually get more clicks — we all understand that dynamic. But there’s a large amount of implicit trust required: “Rest assured Google always chooses your pricing and position to maximize Google revenue user happiness”. Got it.

Paid search is a remarkable advertising mechanism. And Google is an amazing company. Google dominates search, deservedly so. But please, please, Google, consider providing more transparency into quality score, pricing, position, and the click auctions. Done well, all sides could benefit.

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

Comments

  1. Matt L, November 3, 2008:

    If Google’s ultimate goal was for the user to benefit, they would want to make this information as public as possible so all these companies could get their act straight - benefiting the user quickly as possible.

  2. Nicholas Busbee, December 19, 2008:

    After getting these “Quality Score” notices every few days, no matter what you try, eventually I think anyone who has a life to live just gives up on trying to improve the quality of their ads or website landing pages. For the sake of time, and sanity we simply raises our bids. This is how it seems to work:Position #6… you need to raise your quality score or increase your bid. #5 gets the same message at the same time.Finally, positions #6 and #5 give up on quality scores and raise their bids. Then position #4… you need to raise your quality score or bid. #3 gets the same message at the same time, Raise Quality score or bid.They finally give up on the quality score and raise their bids. This eventually causes position #2 to raise their bid. Position # 1 raises their bid automatically. Guess who’s next in line? Yep good old position number 10. You need to improve your quality score or raise your bid. Position # 9 gets the same message at the same time! And the circle starts all over again!

    Next thing you know, a 5 cent keyword is selling for 10.00 dollars! And lets look at the end result. If every position complies, and everyone either improves their Quality Score, or raises their bid, The potential customer will still be looking at the exact same ads, maybe slightly different wording. And these ads will lead to the exact same websites. The information seeker or potential customers will find the exact same end result they would have seen if nothing had changed at all.

Your Comment

Tags

RKG Tags: ,

Technorati Tags: ,

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2008/10/31/quality-score-explained/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Pingback: Google Quality Score Gains More Importance | The ClickEquations Blog on November 2, 2008

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Nancy Kast: I am writing about your billing and online services. I have been receiving calls saying my bill is not paid. My husband pays all our...
  • Marc Adelman: George, Thanks for sharing this data. From an online buzz perspective, Bing is making a big splash. Everyone is talking about it....
  • George Michie: Hi Dennis, I’m not a lawyer, so take anything I say on this with a grain of salt (and please don’t sue us if we’re...
  • survey online: unfortunatelly i have to say that Google tools are the easiest survey web
  • Dennis Yu: Alan, We’ve had several C&D’s sent to us for seemingly innocuous issues. One of our casual dining clients bid on a...
  • George Michie: Hi Vivek, Haven’t had time to put together a full update, but I did take a look at the numbers. No material gains in market...
  • Karridy: You should checkout ClickPath’s call to KW tracking.
  • Vivek: George, really enjoying reading about the analysis you guys do. Was wondering if you have an update on this given a couple more weeks have...
  • Vicki Swaim: Dear Mr.Ullman, I hope you can help me with my problem. I ordered a TV stand the end of April that was advertised as a close out item....
  • Luke: It’s a shame we live in such a litigious society. Why should we have to set up an association? Surely we can prevent senseless...
  • George Michie: Josh, we have had shots fired over our bow and our client’s in the past. Usually responsible companies are reasonable about...
  • Ryan: Ok, George, I’m sufficiently scared… Thanks… :-) Incidentally, are there any trademark resources (other than Google...
  • Josh: We have run into trademark issues for several clients, although it has so far been a matter of trying to make “fair use” of a...
  • Mike: THANK YOU! I love you man!! :)
  • Matthew: Francis, We’ve likewise seen the “A-List” phenomenon in the past. Perhaps with Bing.com, there won’t be anymore of...

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 871
  • Words: 392,916
  • Comments: 2,079

Administration