Adwords gives Wikipedia Page Poor QS

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PSU4Life

New member
Aug 10, 2006
306
4
0
I've never had success with Adwords Search and always had poor quality scores. I wanted to see what kind of quality score G would give to a wikipedia page. I assumed it would be great and get low click costs. Ad is below with results.

Internet Marketing
Info on Internet Marketing
Learn Internet Marketing Here
display url: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
destination url: Internet marketing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I first put the ad up I got the "first page bid estimate is $25 and a quality score of 5/10. After a bit it said, "Ads rarely show due to low quality score" and showed a score of Poor 2/10.

I was shocked since wikipedia is an authority site and my one keyword, "internet marketing" is all over the page. There are no affiliate links on the page and its filled with outbound links to quality pages. Can anyone explain why a wikipedia page would get such a low score? If they can't get a high score I don't know how I'm supposed to.

Or does this just mean my account history is so bad that any ads I put up get terrible scores? I'd be interested to see what kind of scores others get if they put up the exact same ad.
 


i think because its content duplication and seeing how wikipedia is the biggest place for info on stuff a lot of it is copy pasted on landing pages so im not surprised it got you a bad quailty score.
 
erifdekciw said:
i think because its content duplication and seeing how wikipedia is the biggest place for info on stuff a lot of it is copy pasted on landing pages so im not surprised it got you a bad quailty score.
Click to expand...

I dont think duplicate content is penalized much in google, as long as the site has links and trust.

There is a group of sites in a niche im in that all have the exact same content and all rank well because the sites are old and have alot of links.
This guy has about 8 doorway sites, with the exact same content.
Ive even reported it to G and they didnt do anything

So i dont think duplicate content would matter too much with wikipedia
 
erifdekciw said:
i think because its content duplication and seeing how wikipedia is the biggest place for info on stuff a lot of it is copy pasted on landing pages so im not surprised it got you a bad quailty score.
Click to expand...

I'm almost 100% sure that G doesn't give a shit about duplicate content when it comes to PPC.
 
Yesterday I built a landing page optimised for 1 keyword. It had unique content that I wrote just for the lander. I masked my affiliate links and added site maps, outgoing links to authority sites, echoes the keyword throughout the page, title amd meta.

The result - score of 2/10, minimum bids to show on first page of $25.

This is an account I have spent around $100k with in the last 12 months. Some of my campaigns had an awesome QS. everything got hit hard.

Google are fucking crazy.
 
the thing that is so messed up is that it doesnt have anything to do with affiliates.
A content site i tried to advertise that has 0 aff links and 100 pages of original content is getting 2/10 for some groups.
 
gopher said:
No surprise, your account QS is shit.
Click to expand...

I was thinking it might be my terrible account history. To resolve a bad account QS is it as simple as getting the MCC and putting a new account into it?

Any else try putting the wikipedia ad in? Did you get the same or better score. Would be interesting for someone with a good account QS to test it.
 
^^^^ that doesn't make sense nicky. are you saying the reason the wikipedia internet marketing page has a crap quality score is because it doesn't have any inbound links using the anchor text "internet marketing"?
 
i retract the above - its quite possible the percentage of links anchor text could be higher for "wiki" or "wikipedia" than "internet marketing".

if G has swayed their QS to rely heavily on inbound links they have just opened a right kettle of fish and it will be a boon to those with, err, toys for this purpose.

back to the lab for some experimentation.
 
itchy said:
i retract the above - its quite possible the percentage of links anchor text could be higher for "wiki" or "wikipedia" than "internet marketing".

if G has swayed their QS to rely heavily on inbound links they have just opened a right kettle of fish and it will be a boon to those with, err, toys for this purpose.

back to the lab for some experimentation.
Click to expand...


they havent swayed shit, its been like this for a long time.
 
it says in the adwords help that QS also depends on the performance of your account and other ads you run. You said you always have low quality score, someone else might put in that wikipage and get a better QS. Also its dependant on the CTR and performance of the ad, most ads that i've seen start off with a low QS then as you get more clicks and maintain a high CTR your QS goes up. I've had one that started off on 2/10 and went up to 6-7/10 on every keyword.
Just pointing that out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom