<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google&#8217;s Right Hand, Meet Your Left Hand &#8211; AdWords Gmail Spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:49:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans-Jochen Trost</title>
		<link>http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-183</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans-Jochen Trost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 05:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/#comment-183</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t seen you address this little &quot;gem&quot;:  Google apparently can&#039;t count positions.

When having the keyword tool predict a position, it comes out way too optimistic.  It says 4-6, I get more like 46 ... and the keyword quality in the campaign is reported as &quot;Great&quot;.  Well, charge that to Google&#039;s marketing if you want.

Next, take a look at, say, the keyword report for a campaign.  For four of the keywords in my campaign, the reports says the average positions were 6.9, 7.4, 12.0 and 10.0.  Using the preview in the Ad Diagnostic Tool, I find positions 4 (or 6), 21, 27 and not displayed in that same order.  (The &quot;or 6&quot; means there are two sponsored links above the search results in addition to the 8 on the right.)  In all cases, there are 40+ ads total.

Now it is okay and to be expected that the average position and the current position are somewhat different, but not by that much.  I&#039;ve repeated that exercise a number of times, and the results are much more stable than would be needed to allow for the difference.  The report numbers should be correct because they should be derived from the real data collected over time.  With a basis of only 13 impressions, 6 of which are for the best positioned first keyword, I should not be seeing 3 highly unlikely upward excursions of my ad from the twenties and worse to above or around 10.

Well, at least that keyword with the position 46 that I mentioned above is indeed reported somewhere in the 30s-40s.

Have you had any similar experiences?

Cheers,         Jochen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t seen you address this little &#8220;gem&#8221;:  Google apparently can&#8217;t count positions.</p>
<p>When having the keyword tool predict a position, it comes out way too optimistic.  It says 4-6, I get more like 46 &#8230; and the keyword quality in the campaign is reported as &#8220;Great&#8221;.  Well, charge that to Google&#8217;s marketing if you want.</p>
<p>Next, take a look at, say, the keyword report for a campaign.  For four of the keywords in my campaign, the reports says the average positions were 6.9, 7.4, 12.0 and 10.0.  Using the preview in the Ad Diagnostic Tool, I find positions 4 (or 6), 21, 27 and not displayed in that same order.  (The &#8220;or 6&#8243; means there are two sponsored links above the search results in addition to the 8 on the right.)  In all cases, there are 40+ ads total.</p>
<p>Now it is okay and to be expected that the average position and the current position are somewhat different, but not by that much.  I&#8217;ve repeated that exercise a number of times, and the results are much more stable than would be needed to allow for the difference.  The report numbers should be correct because they should be derived from the real data collected over time.  With a basis of only 13 impressions, 6 of which are for the best positioned first keyword, I should not be seeing 3 highly unlikely upward excursions of my ad from the twenties and worse to above or around 10.</p>
<p>Well, at least that keyword with the position 46 that I mentioned above is indeed reported somewhere in the 30s-40s.</p>
<p>Have you had any similar experiences?</p>
<p>Cheers,         Jochen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrew goulding</title>
		<link>http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-163</link>
		<dc:creator>andrew goulding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://askhowie.com/2008/04/04/googles-right-hand-meet-your-left-hand-adwords-gmail-spam/#comment-163</guid>
		<description>That is genuinely funny!

ADG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is genuinely funny!</p>
<p>ADG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

