From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broken Links[edit]

14. Xooglers: Let's get a real database —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

23. Lembo, Phil (2007-05-30). "eldapo: Let's get a real database". Retrieved 2013-06-14 CE94112 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


I propose a section on Costs:

  • What is the cost to advertisers?
  • What is the minimum ad that can be put up?
  • Can a click limit per day be setup to insure agaist paying for too many clicks?


Anonymous user left his message on my talk page, but should be here: "I do have a wikipedia name and have been contributing here for over a year. I just forgot to log in. The sentence I added to the AdWords article was not non-neutral, any more than many articles here, including the click fraud article you recently rewrote. (If you noticed, I did a little work on that and then linked the AdWords article to click fraud.) Anyway, I do not wish to get into a confrontation, but click fraud is a major part of the AdWords story and has even been acknowledged to be a significant threat by Google's CFO. Mention of it belongs in that article."

Dear anonymous-user: you added the text "AdWords has been plagued with allegations of click fraud which has caused many advertsers to abandon the program or to opt out of the search and content networks."[1] to which I reverted with comment "removed POV from click fraud statement.... should really be supported by some citation -- there ARE click fraud lawsuits against many major ppc engine, though"[2]
The anonymous users addition was a pretty clear case of not only non neutrality, but also possible Original Research. It reads like it was written by a disgruntled advertiser. It'd be just as worse as if a Google PR person came in here and wrote a glowing review that 'nothing is wrong with google!'. Both would be non-neutral.
The idea behind the text, that there is a problem with click fraud, was moved to the Legal section in a more neutral manner with this text: "The service has generated lawsuits in the area of trademark law and click fraud."
The quote from Google CFO sounds interesting -- do you have a citation? Eclipsed 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
ah...CNN report from December 2, 2004[3] looks to be the citation. Probably better content for click fraud page. Eclipsed 18:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Auction type[edit]

Academic paper on the type of auction used: Carax 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the comment on the exact type of auction quite irrelevant, even if game theory and mechanism design are a 'hot topic' right now. Few people will understand this sentence, even fewer will honor it in this article. In any case it appears much too early. I suggest to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we avoid gobbledegook (or impeccable but inadequately linked or explained) stuff like:

The auction mechanism that determines the order of the ads has been called a "generalized second price" auction. It is similar to the Vickrey auction, but is not equivalent to the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism and hence truth telling is not an optimal strategy .

Either explain what is distinctive about a "generalized second price auction" (and maybe give a citation or definition that shows this is indeed what happens). The bit about "truth telling" could be either POV or a valid criticism couched in technical terms of art - but as it is it's pretty much meaningless. For now, I've modified and reduced the offending paragraph, and added citations (unread, from Vickrey auction). If I've not quite got it right, feel free to replace it with an explanation, at a more appropriate level, of what the issue actually is. - Paul (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


What's the policy and definition of linkspam. I thought a pointer to an article about undocumented adwords feature wouldn't qualify. The wiki page is about adwords and it's an article about adwords -- why is that spam? It was removed and the comment in the revision was "linkspam". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for relevant policies. --mtz206 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How Adwords work[edit]

Advertisers place searches that google users make. If their word combo comes up, google chooses between various advertisers who bid for placement. An algorithm is used and the highest payer does not necessarily go first. Can someone explain the process? (moved this insertion by User: from article to here)

An Agencies Guide to AdWords[edit]

This is not link spam but a link to a genuine AdWords resource

Google Adwords Agency Secrets: A Free Interactive Guide

Free Learning Resources[edit]

The Coming AdWords War

I propose to add a new section with the single best learning resources on AdWords. I have been consulting people on AdWords for over 5 years and I am shocked to see at how many people keep making the same mistakes and it is sad to see more and more of the large companies crushing the small AdWords players. I have created a free report where I share the latest strategies that anyone can use to help them get a leg up in AdWords. I could have charged for this report but instead wanted to create a new complementary free guide that helps small business owners online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A few links for verification[edit]

Optimizing Google Adwords Content
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Super Affiliate AdWords Strategy
How to Start Adwords Conversion Tracking
Adwords/PPC Keyword Help
Comparing Adwords to Yahoo Search Marketing
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly support the inclusion of the Inside AdWords Blog - official fresh news from Google, so it is definitely adding value to the entry. I would also suggest the informal and unofficial Google Groups for AdWords ( Best, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here and probably haven't read all the rules that I need to so please forgive any 'newbie' errors :)

Here are a couple of links that I thought to add to this article, as well as a suggested 'expansion' of the article's coverage.

Inside Adwords: Google's Official Adwords Blog This is the official adwords 'blog' from google. Yes, there's already a link to the adwords website, but the blog is where people can find out uptodate info about adwords, as well as track the evolution of it from beta to current.

Adwords Excellence - A Free Adwords Mastermind A free website explaining Google Adwords that's up on the Internet Archive. I thought this would be a nice contrast to the 'official tour' of Adwords by giving wikipediers the insight of a practicing adwords 'pro'. Also seeing that this site's been made available to public for free I thought it would give readers a helpful and alternate view into Adwords...without having to pay for access to the information.

Adwords plays a significant role in conjunction with the search habits of people. Relevant adverts are brought to our attention, depending on what we're looking for. However, as more and more people depend on search engines to find what they're looking for, could we have a situation where the actual search results are directly driven/guided by Google Adwords beyond the targeted ads? Perhaps this broaches the area of ethics and if plausible would come under 'original research'. Still, the thought behind it is that the article could be expanded to explore 'this side' of adwords beyond functionality, and a commentary on 'click fraud' and competitors.

Am I making (ad)sense? :)

  • Thanks for asking. The official blog might be useful as a primary source, so it could be cited as a reference. The article has a link to the main Adwords page, and from there a user can find the blog. The e-book might be a valid secondary reference if it passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You should skim that article to get an idea. I don't think either of these things is needed in the External links section. Generally, you want to add content to articles, and then cite references. Most often when people come by just to add links, that's not so helpful. Wikipedia isn't a search engine, so the goal isn't to provide a list of resources. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Ad Words Program: A Update Center Since first introduced Adwords has developed in scope. Google is constantly updating how it ranks the relevance of web publishers in it's program. Even the options available to publishers has expanded. It is important for everyone to remain current and within policy. Independent Review Optimizing Google Adwords Content
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating this article[edit]

I found quite a bit of out-of-date information in this article, so this entire article should be reviewed for up-to-date information. Quality score in AdWords is constantly changing, so I updated that with the latest info. Also, the entire site-targeting (now Placement Targeting) section was out of date - it changed names in November 2007 and CPC targeting has been available since before that time, but still wasn't updated as of today (Sep 12, 2008). Tvmatt (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, AdWords sales/support is not based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Although there is a large operation there, most sales/support is based at headquarters in Mountain View, CA.


I think an example of what an AdWords ad actually looks like would be useful (not to mention illustrative). After all, a picture is worth 1000 words. It wouldn't have to be for any real product, but it would illustrate what the product actually looks like. Even a screenshot of a Google search with the ads off to the side would help. Any objections? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


As informative as this is it feels like a pitch for AdWords rather than description. Sadly this is like so much of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Criticism */[edit]

How come no one wrote anything about the awful service (only by email), or the growing customers' dissatisfaction? Unfortunately I don't have sources, but I am pretty sure this is true... Rattner2 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Douglas Edwards in his I'm feeling lucky (ISBN 0547416997) claims that he coined the name, and that it resonates with his surname. Surely this should be mentioned? JFW | T@lk 08:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Adwords Distribtuion[edit]

T his section is very confusing.

It mentions the several sorts of Networks Partner Content Display Search

But it does not describe each one correctly and often mixes them up.

This whole section is very unclear and needs re-writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmen1 (talkcontribs) 07:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Where AdWords Ads actually appear?[edit]

As far as I can tell, the introductory paragraph describes what the ads can look like, but does not actually say where the ads appear - on other people's websites? In Search Results? On the side of a bus? Somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craytina (talkcontribs) 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Certified Partners[edit]

Please do not edit the certified partners unless you are a certified partner of Google Adwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmorse7 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, that one had flown under the radar for a few weeks - I'd missed it completely. I am afraid that the list of links to "Certified Partners" (whatever that means - there was no explanation of the term) was inappropriate for Wikipedia; please see this information about why that is. And the individual links themselves violated Wikipedia's external links policy. None of the links had anything to do with the article, and so they have been removed ([4]). --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)