Disqus - Latest Comments for Andrew Goodman

Re: » Homestars.com - Reviews of Home Improvement Companies | StartupNorth

Andrew Goodman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:36:16 -0000

Regarding user profiles and other ways of enhancing trust and interaction among trusted "online neighbors," rest assured we're working on it at HomeStars! Nice overview Jevon.

Re: Calacanis: Web 3.0 is whatever I say it is

Andrew Goodman — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:12:58 -0000

I haven't heard "diminutive" used in such a cutting way since the days of Toronto sports reporters writing about "diminutive puckstopper Allan Bester."

Re: Maybe people don’t really want UGC

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:53:37 -0000

If UGC is posed only as "creative" work - your point is definitely worth making.

Of course, there is more to the "wisdom of crowds thing" or the "wikinomics thing" than just a bunch of backyard wrasslers seeking Specialness as described in Hal Niedzviecki's last book.

That sounds like supply without demand. I think that's what a lot of the long tail is, at least in digital content. Unsuccessful artists who now have a cool web 2.0 excuse for wasting their time can talk about that whole tail thing :)

However, where the individual's contribution amounts to valuable *information* that can be shared and tapped into by others, then it becomes powerful.

It's out there. We'll find it. :)

Re: The Google API kerfuffle, and what it means for startups

Andrew Goodman — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:41:13 -0000

Re: "trusting Google's broad match".

Chris, you left out phrase match. There's not as much need for trust there as I would assume that it works as billed.

Re: Homestars.com - Reviews of Home Improvement Companies

Andrew Goodman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:36:16 -0000

Regarding user profiles and other ways of enhancing trust and interaction among trusted "online neighbors," rest assured we're working on it at HomeStars! Nice overview Jevon.

Re: Exclusive: Google’s Click Fraud Rate is Less than 2%

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:30:27 -0000

Wow indeed. Great exclusive, Andy.

Proof? Is Google blowing smoke?

I really don't see why they would. Other traffic sources have, and it has seriously impacted their credibility. Advertisers can easily cross-check this type of info against the tendency of clicks to convert.

If you're working on real accounts, you can often see during the holiday time the conversion rates and cost per order numbers trending into very affordable territory. You aren't going to see conversion rates of 5-10% on mediocre, relatively unoptimized ecommerce user experiences, if there is tons of fraud floating around out there. To me, having watched a large number of campaigns closely, Google's account rings true. I won't believe it all when it comes to the AdSense network, but then again, we all bid low on that inventory, don't we?

Re: Exclusive: Google’s Click Fraud Rate is Less than 2%

Andrew Goodman — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:40:38 -0000

Frauded,

If this is the worst example of "fraud" we can dredge up, then things must be pretty rosy indeed.

I'm not sure that this really provides much proof of actual fraud, and even if some is getting through, it wouldn't be hard to combat by lowering bids a bit. Fraud on the search network would be more serious.

400 clicks on the content network should only be costing you around $160 or less if you're bidding correctly. Just because the traffic isn't converting on those 400 clicks doesn't mean it's fraudulent. It may mean your ad is showing up somewhere it shouldn't be - somewhere that isn't very targeted.

Increases in clicks aren't surprising, either. New publishers are always being added onto the network, or your position may jump up so that you actually appear on pages that would have shown your competitors' ads previously. This may be a sign that they have lowered bids, so you should, too.

You haven't offered much evidence of anything untoward, as disappointing as it may be that $160 worth of clicks didn't convert to anything.

Re: Exclusive: Google’s Click Fraud Rate is Less than 2%

Andrew Goodman — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:45:43 -0000

Here I go again.

bg, if I may say so, you seem obsessed with click fraud.

Is there a marketing program lurking anywhere in there?

As for the class action suit. Isn't that a red herring? I've been in these before, with other similar situations. LookSmart ripped us off, misled us, and we applied and received a small credit in the suit. That's class action for you.

Meanwhile it absolutely does not mean that Google has no further obligation to you. Perhaps it means you have fewer options to actually sue them, but you weren't going to do that anyway.

What you can do, is document any click fraud that may have occurred, if indeed it did. And then directly request a refund. That process hasn't gone away just because there was a suit.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled marketing program. There is one, isn't there?

Re: Exclusive: Google’s Click Fraud Rate is Less than 2%

Andrew Goodman — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:26:09 -0000

Jim, I can't help but notice you cite your own article. Looks like you've done a lot of interesting research relevant to online marketers, user experience analysis, etc. I sympathize with the plight you must face in presenting reliable "trend analysis" in the context of some of these publication processes -- for example one of your articles from 2006 is covering long-defunct user experiences from search engines like Excite, Alltheweb; references to user interactions with Yahoo as "directory-based," and so on. The references seem to be 5-7 years out of date by the time they are published.

As to what constitutes an "academic research article," we will have to disagree. This looks to me like a short unrefereed overview article in a magazine. Some of your other articles conform more closely to the norm of a refereed journal article that would be worthy of the title of "academic research article."

Here, I don't see the research. I see some decent common-sense definitions and terse recommendations and conclusions. But no independent data or critical insight.

@hlawton: Any decent analytics package, such as Google Analytics, will give you bounce rates by keyword, and time spend on site by keyword, if that's what you want.

Re: Exclusive: Google’s Click Fraud Rate is Less than 2%

Andrew Goodman — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:17:55 -0000

Wow, that was scientific.

Re: Why You Need a “NoIndex, NoFollow” Sign in Your Front Yard

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:01:40 -0000

Noindex/nofollow in your front yard -- ha ha, good quip Andy :)

Andrew Goodman's last blog post..Google AdWords Success Stories

Re: Open Letter to AOL: You Still Don’t Get It

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:57:08 -0000

I suppose well meaning public relations operatives can often be like a dog with a particularly tasty bone - hard to get them off it.

I suggest we buy a bag of Milk Bones and toss a few in AOL's direction. Perhaps they'll chill out. :)

Re: Misguided SEO Advice

Andrew Goodman — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:40:58 -0000

The sad part is that this is transparent self-interest because that web host just got the client to buy 20 domain names so adding $180/yr. or so in extra revenue (not counting hosting). In web hosting, SEO, and a range of online services, you have your cowboys and then you have those who will be accountable for their recommendations. Telling someone to register 20 domain names for search engine visibility is about as cheesy as it gets!

Re: Reader Poll: Best SEM Email Discussion Lists

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:40:04 -0000

Lee, well, we eventually get to it :)

I think one of the strangest parts of trying to resurrect an i-search-like community at Google Groups (SEM 2.0) was people's odd view of the format/platform. I wanted something that would require less moderator "grunt work," and also felt that email was dying. Google Groups is a flexible format -- like Yahoo Groups -- read online, or on the web. Up to you. Many on there seem to *want* email. That surprises me.

SEM 2.0 is low traffic, I think, because of fragmentation. I never wanted to pour tons of energies into pushing people to post - there is enough of that going on elsewhere. But like any community it needs some active prompting, a role I guess I stepped down from when I-Search died. I had been hoping to find a successor to lead SEM 2.0 (the offer is still open but a committee might work).

All in all if good stuff is happening in other places, then I am not about to promote the heck out of a not-for-profit low-traffic group, that seems to please some people. Since some like it, I suppose it will keep going. It beats having to unsubscribe from stuff that is just too high traffic or annoying. :)

Re: As Online Ad Revenue Remains Concentrated In Few Hands, Frustration Builds

Andrew Goodman — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:02:12 -0000

I wholeheartedly agree. This whole "advertiser-supported business model thing" -- how unimaginative!

Which is why we at Digiferous.com have come up with something different.

We ask our subscribers to mail us a finger. One of theirs. We frown on the getting of fingers from other people.

We then place the fingers into a global finger auction so that these generously-supplied digits can rise to their natural price level.

Through these means, we can support our operations.

However, if this proves not to be as promising as we expect, we're considering an advertising supported model.

Re: Open Letter to AOL: You Still Don’t Get It

Andrew Goodman — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:57:08 -0000