Adwords caused Organic Increase

[jacobwissler]

Google says that advertising with them does not impact organic results, but I think it may, in the long term. I have a non commercial page that I started in 2002 in which I describe my personal diet experience http://www.jacobwissler.com/diet.htm

This page sells nothing, and promotes nothing commercial. It always did well on Yahoo and MSN, but Google always ignored it.

Then I put $150 into Adwords at 5 cents per click, and got zillions of people all over the world reading it (everyone wants to read about a free diet). My click through rate was 1.4. Now all of a sudden, the page appears in organic listings all over the place.

I suspect that Google noticed the traffic, and the fact that people were taking the time to read the page, and thus it started to show up in organics. Therefore, a small Adwords investment can improve organic listings?

[KeithO]

were you listed in google before at all?

[jacobwissler]

yes, I was listed, but that page did not come up well in organic listings. The home page did very well, but that page was hard to find in the organic listings. You could find it on page 93 of SERPS. Now it is on page 1.

[ADAM Web Design]

I wouldn't be surprised if AdWords were a factor in organic listings, but moreso from the CTR/time on page standpoint. If Google measures that (and they may well) and your page is being read (since it is a long one, it's possible), then it stands to reason that it would move up.

This would especially hold true for users of the Google toolbar, since the GTB reports back (if the user allows it).

I can't see it being a direct tie to AdWords. I'd say AdWords was the catalytic factor, but not the only one.

[DMC_34]

There are a few possibilities to consider:

Adword sites are human reviewed before accepted which probably helps in the algo.

CTR to a site from any avenue has been mentioned in some patents. How would they track this? Toolbar possibly. But on Google Adwords this information is already availble to them.

Natural IBL's from generic sources. Most our listings are in the bonus and I have found we get a great deal on natural IBL's from sites which post information on the topic. How do they find us? Following adwords and organics.

IMO, I DO NOT believe Adwords hurts organics at all as some tend to believe. I DO believe it helps organics through the above reasons, even though Google claims it doesnt help. Just think of the outcry it would cause if Google came out and said it did help. It helps but was probably not intention to be that way. There is not a Google conspiracy.

DMC

[/list]

[lorien1973]

I think its likely that people visited the page and linked to it, which caused an increase in organic results. I don't think you can accurately say that "adwords caused my serps to increase" without looking at other factors.

[wednesday]

I think its likely that people visited the page and linked to it, which caused an increase in organic results.

I was just about to conjecture the same. Have you noticed an increase in MSN and Yahoo IBLs?


...and got zillions of people all over the world reading it...
Some natural links?

[cspelts]

I think its likely that people visited the page and linked to it, which caused an increase in organic results. I don't think you can accurately say that "adwords caused my serps to increase" without looking at other factors.
Sometimes one factor (like AdWords) can set in motion a chain of events - and the end result for him was traffic!

I've used AdWords twice for a month or so, to jump start a new site. I'm never sure exactly what the impact is, but I figure that it not only helps get some traffic when I would have very little, but that some of those people may bookmark the site or email a friend, or link to it - which gets the site higher organic listings faster.

[DMC_34]

Sometimes one factor (like AdWords) can set in motion a chain of events - and the end result for him was traffic!


Well said, that is the bottom line. Our rankings and traffic have gone up hand in hand since Adwords. We have not moved down on any keyword since June 2004 *knock on wood*. Our rankings have only gone up as well as traffic. Coincidence? Maybe, but I believe the Adwords has increased our organics. Whether this climb is indirectly or directly associated with Adwords, does it really matter? Nope, the end result is what matters.

DMC

[Mac 5]

doesn't having adwords influence organic results go against google's motto of "don't be evil."

[greeneagle]

Isn't GOOGLE flexing their industrial strength muscle to have other entities expense R&D for development of Server Side xml coded SiteMaps with "lastmod" details so that they save a great deal of computing time filtering out what should and shouldn't be indexed at any given time?

What is "evil"?

Back on Topic...

Jacob brings up a very valid point, yet no one else has responded with evidenciary statements or stats. I hope everyone is monitoring their game here.

Ken

[rivux]

The Law of Unintended Consequences is in play with AdWords and organic results. It isn't anything that Google is doing directly, manually or on purpose.

[greeneagle]

rivux

I am not familiar with any equations regarding the "The Law of Unintended Consequences", but I would imagine they become a more prominant factor along with growing algorithm complexity.

Ken

[Mac 5]

the "don't be evil" comment is on topic.

http://investor.google.com/conduct.html

when google went public, I saw an interview on 60 minutes with the founders. they stated that the two are kept seperate, adwords wouldn't influence organic results, it would not be ethical business conduct. their ads are clearly marked.

[greeneagle]

Mac 5

We were talking "indirect consequences" here weren't we?

That's really not too hard to fathom, when they haven't even wiped out some of the worst Spam yet:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=47712 .

What about CSS Spam that continues to proliferate?

Inconsequential results is just real easy to imagine here!

What is the Military term for that fallout? Do you remember? We all learned it this year.

Ken

[s_clay]

Friendly Fire comes to mind as one indirect consequence in this War On Spam

[incrediblehelp]

I am with greeneagle on this one. I am not sure how AdWords could "ethically" help your organic listings of a page other than the obvious reasons already stated above:

More people clicking to this page through plenty of AdWords spending, users then in turn link to this page from their own websites.

I supposed AdWords can lead to, but not be directly (algorithmically) responsible for the organic ranking growth. Of course statistical reasoning would help us define this as true.

[eJeweller.com.au]

I see it this way;

For Google, and others, relevancy of results is the over-riding aim. When someone clicks on an AdWords ad, this is one indication that the target url is relevant to whatever keyword was being searched.

Hence the page becomes slightly more relevant to that keyword, so the next time someone does a search for the keyword its results should be ever so slightly better.

In effect, the AdWords ad indirectly influences the organic result. I don't think this is inconsistent with Google's claim that AdWords do not influence organic results because strictly speaking it is not the placing of an AdWords ad that influences organic results, but rather the clicking, ie the success, of that ad which does it.

[incrediblehelp]

In effect, the AdWords ad indirectly influences the organic result. I don't think this is inconsistent with Google's claim that AdWords do not influence organic results because strictly speaking it is not the placing of an AdWords ad that influences organic results, but rather the clicking, ie the success, of that ad which does it.

huh?

I don't think so. What if that AdWords URL was bought last week and has been online for only 7 days, or sandboxed, or generally an un-optimized website?

Now I do see where you going with this thought, Google is tracking organic clicks and if end users are clicking on a organic ranking more often than another ranking it is probably considered as part of the Google algorithm formula. How much, we don't know. Google has assured us of that at least it is happening in the patent filling:


"[Google] may monitor the number of times that a document is selected from a set of search results and/or the amount of time one or more users spend accessing the document. [Google] may then score the document based, at least in part, on this information."

[eJeweller.com.au]

Jaan,

I am an uninformed participant in this forum and am speaking as a layman who hasn't had the time to read the entire Google patent filing. I was merely 'thinking out loud' about what happens with AdWords. I don't understand which part of my post you are rebuking with the following:


I don't think so. What if that AdWords URL was bought last week and has been online for only 7 days, or sandboxed, or generally an un-optimized website?

I was merely trying to say that I think the success of an AdWords ad will be taken into account when scoring a document for organic results. This would be consistent with the quote you gave from Google,


Quote:
"[Google] may monitor the number of times that a document is selected from a set of search results and/or the amount of time one or more users spend accessing the document. [Google] may then score the document based, at least in part, on this information."

if we assume that 'search results' includes advertising as well as organic results.

Regards,

[toyourhealth]

I would be interested to know if any one of the thousands of other webproworld readers have experienced a similar situation whereby using Adwords has had a positive impact on their own organic results.

At least one other poster suggests that it is true. Are their others?

[incrediblehelp]

I don't understand which part of my post you are rebuking with the following:

I think it is pretty obvious which part of you post I don't agree with. You "think" that Google gives preference to organic results from bidding though Google AdWords. I don't.


I was merely trying to say that I think the success of an AdWords ad will be taken into account when scoring a document for organic results. This would be consistent with the quote you gave from Google

And I am but simpleton in the whole scheme of things as well. I was simply pointing out where my opinion differs from yours, please do not get offended when words clash. I do not think (and I wont until someone shows me documented proof) that bidding on AdWords will benefit your organic listings. Also the quote from Google by no way proves your point. They are referring to organic results.


if we assume that 'search results' includes advertising as well as organic results.

I am not going to make the assumption that "search results" means CPC. I pretty sure it doesn't.

[incrediblehelp]

I would be interested to know if any one of the thousands of other webproworld readers have experienced a similar situation whereby using Adwords has had a positive impact on their own organic results.

At least one other poster suggests that it is true. Are their others?

I think those who say yes to this question might be the victim of Google algo changes coinciding with the bidding of AdWords. Personally I have bid on many different keywords, across many different business models and have NEVER seen this type of "preference" given to organic results. But I would greatly excited if someone does have proof of this existence.

[smo]

I would be interested to know if any one of the thousands of other webproworld readers have experienced a similar situation whereby using Adwords has had a positive impact on their own organic results.

At least one other poster suggests that it is true. Are their others?

Just to add one more point here. There can be others sources of getting traffic like going for a print media ad campaign ( here let us not consider the link building campaign or net advertisements which naturally ads to the algorithm ). Through this once the traffic goes up has any one experienced a rise in organic search ?

AdWords is one of the sources of traffic available. If others sources also gives same result then we can’t point finger to G. This may be a standard phenomena when we get good traffic from a source then that adds to organic result also.

[eJeweller.com.au]

Jaan,

Thanks for clearing that up.

You say,


I am not going to make the assumption that "search results" means CPC. I pretty sure it doesn't.
if so, then I agree with you, as I was assuming they included CPC.

I have no evidence that a successful AdWords campaign influences organic results. But I do think that if one wants relevant organic search results then the number of times an AdWords ad is clicked and the time subsequently spent on a site is one of many indicators as to the relevancy of that site. This is not to say that Google currently takes it into account, and there are ethical considerations also, but this does not preclude Google from using it in the future.

I agree with your other post that coincidences can sometimes make us see causal relationships where none exist.

[incrediblehelp]

This is not to say that Google currently takes it into account, and there are ethical considerations also, but this does not preclude Google from using it in the future.

Agreed!

[DMC_34]

Jaan,

Thanks for clearing that up.

You say,


I am not going to make the assumption that "search results" means CPC. I pretty sure it doesn't.
if so, then I agree with you, as I was assuming they included CPC.

I have no evidence that a successful AdWords campaign influences organic results. But I do think that if one wants relevant organic search results then the number of times an AdWords ad is clicked and the time subsequently spent on a site is one of many indicators as to the relevancy of that site. This is not to say that Google currently takes it into account, and there are ethical considerations also, but this does not preclude Google from using it in the future.

I agree with your other post that coincidences can sometimes make us see causal relationships where none exist.

I agree but why should this be considered unethical if they do take CTR, PageViews, and Time on site. It is NOT unethical to me for them to use Adwords data any more than it is to use Toolbar data collected. I am sure most will not agree with me on this but the simple truth what does Google owe you, me, or anyone else? Nothing. Their obligation is to their visitors not webmasters or site owners. I have always thought using CTR of an Adword is absurd at best. Just because my Adword says Christmas cards doesnt necessarily mean I am the most relevant for "Christmas cards". With that in mind the time on site and PageViews should be used as a primary marker for relevancy. But Adwords is capable of recording CTR but not PageViews nor Time on Site unless they are using their spyware(Toolbar) to record this.

When we throw out the word unethical the question is unethical to who? The people that do not run Adwords? IMO, Too bad too sad for those who dont. Google doesnt owe me anything nor the ones who dont run it. I would think it is a good data as to relevancy therefore if they are using it more power to them. Would it be fair to those who dont probably not but since when is Google worried about being fair to webmasters?

As to whether they are or not we can all speculate on this for years.

DMC

[eJeweller.com.au]

I agree but why should this be considered unethical
I said "there are ethical considerations" not necessarily "unethical". To consider a matter is not necessarily to condemn it.



It is NOT unethical to me for them to use Adwords data any more than it is to use Toolbar data collected.

I agree. The 'ethical considerations' would arise if Google continued to claim that placing an AdWords ad had NO effect on organic results.


I have always thought using CTR of an Adword is absurd at best.
Yes, the CTR would have to be used in conjunction with time on site and pageviews etc, otherwise a well worded ad could generate a high click-through when the target page was not all that relevant.



When we throw out the word unethical the question is unethical to who?
I did not "throw out the word unethical" but merely gently inserted the phrase "ethical considerations". I was considering the ethicality to searchers who may have been led to believe they are getting purely organic results. Having said this, I, as a searcher, wouldn't mind if AdWords data was taken into account if it meant the search results I was getting were more relevant. It is an issue of transparency.



I would think it is a good data as to relevancy therefore if they are using it more power to them.
Agreed, if they admit they use it, or at least do not claim that they do not.

[tcampione]

I use AdWords and see no evidence that it has helped me at all in SERPs.

Further, I doubt that G can use AdWords data because it is just too unreliable. Statistics show the top bidder gets the most clicks. My site could be marginally relevant but as long as my pockets are deep I’ll have a high CTR.

Conversely, my site may be the most relevant but if my ad copy is poor, or if my bid is low I’ll may never get clicked.

Also, look at a search that returns 5 million pages. There may be 50 AdWords advertisers. How can unreliable data on 50 ads give me any valuable information on how to best sort 5 million pages?

G knows this quite well and I suspect they have concluded that AdWords data is worthless in determining organic relevancy.

[eJeweller.com.au]

My site could be marginally relevant but as long as my pockets are deep I’ll have a high CTR.
This is true but if your site is marginally relevant you would expect the visitor to spend relatively less time on your site than on a more relevant site indicating that time spent and pages viewed would have to be the more important measure of relevancy and not CTR on its own.


... my site may be the most relevant but if my ad copy is poor, or if my bid is low I’ll may never get clicked.
Good point, but if your site is the most relevant this fact will have been picked up by Google's other measures of relevancy which you'd expect to be relied on far more heavily than adwords success.


How can unreliable data on 50 ads give me any valuable information on sorting 5 million pages better?

I think the data from the ads can be a small indicator of relevancy for those 50 pages being advertised. If the data is there why ignore it just because the other 4,999,950 pages dont have this particular info. I would expect google collects data on relevancy in many different ways and doesn't necessarily have to have the same type of information on all pages in order to give that data some weight when determining each page's relevancy.


G knows this quite well and I suspect they have concluded that AdWords data is worthless in determining organic relevancy.
Maybe they consider it too insignificant (at the moment) to be taken into account.

[DMC_34]

I use AdWords and see no evidence that it has helped me at all in SERPs.

Further, I doubt that G can use AdWords data because it is just too unreliable. Statistics show the top bidder gets the most clicks. My site could be marginally relevant but as long as my pockets are deep I’ll have a high CTR.

Conversely, my site may be the most relevant but if my ad copy is poor, or if my bid is low I’ll may never get clicked.

Also, look at a search that returns 5 million pages. There may be 50 AdWords advertisers. How can unreliable data on 50 ads give me any valuable information on how to best sort 5 million pages?

G knows this quite well and I suspect they have concluded that AdWords data is worthless in determining organic relevancy.


I agree CTR is not a good judge of relevancy and I have always thought Adwords using CTR in calculating whether or not to disable your keyword or position is flawed and unreliable. CTR != relevancy. But the simple truth is they do use CTR data of your ads for your Adwords position and status. As to whether they do for organics. Nobody here knows that.

I am convinced Adwords does help our organics if for only one reason we get tons of IBL's from generic sources because of it.

DMC

[tcampione]

This is true but if your site is marginally relevant you would expect the visitor to spend relatively less time on your site than on a more relevant site indicating that time spent and pages viewed would have to be the more important measure of relevancy and not CTR on its own.

How would G know how much time a searcher who clicked my AdWords ad spent on my site, or which pages they visited?

[tcampione]

....we get tons of IBL's from generic sources because of it.

What IBLs does anyone get from AdWords? The links in the ads?

[incrediblehelp]

None directly from AdWords, but lets say some finds you website because you use AdWords. They may find that you website is a resource and then choose to link to it. Same results from people finding your website on the organic listings.

[eJeweller.com.au]

How would G know how much time a searcher who clicked my AdWords ad spent on my site, or which pages they visited?
I was under the impression that this information could be collected at least from users who use the google toolbar. Further, the patent spec indicates Google might track how often users click on a page listed in the search results pages, and also track the amount of time that users spend accessing the document. If they can do this for organic results I presume they can do it for paid results.

[tcampione]

None directly from AdWords, but lets say some finds you website because you use AdWords. They may find that you website is a resource and then choose to link to it. Same results from people finding your website on the organic listings.

Ok, but that's a stretch isn't it? It's kinda like saying that Y! helps my G SERPs because someone might find me and link to me.

Dunno.... I guess I'm still stuck on taking issue with the thread title because there just doesn't seem to be evidence to support it.

Could it happen someday? Sure I guess. But, I just don't think it's happening today.

/*tom*/

[incrediblehelp]

Yes it is a very LARGE stretch. Remember I am on the side of discounting the fact that AdWords helps organic listings. I was just trying to give you an answer to the questions below. :)


What IBLs does anyone get from AdWords? The links in the ads?

[cspelts]

It's kinda like saying that Y! helps my G SERPs because someone might find me and link to me.
Everything is connected to everything. One action can have lots of repercussions – so yeah, being in Yahoo! can indirectly help your Google rankings. And AdWords can indirectly help your natural rankings. It's just the nature of things!

[DMC_34]

....we get tons of IBL's from generic sources because of it.

What IBLs does anyone get from AdWords? The links in the ads?

Keep in mind there are many info sites which have bots that crawl SE organic and PPC listings. The landing page is then index or scraped, not the ad. Many of these sites then post an info landing page with some of your scraped content and a static link to your page. We have literally thousands of links from these sources. IMO, Google may not put much weight on one spammy info page but thousand * little credit = good credit. Plus MSN and Y! give good credit.

Jaan, It is NOT a stretch, sites which put up an info landing page have been scraping other sites which rank well for the target keyword for YEARS. We get tons of links from these sources.

I'll take em anyday, they are free.

DMC

[tcampione]

Many of these sites then post an info landing page with some of your scraped content and a static link to your page.

Very interesting... I was not aware of scrapers doing any conversion to static links. If anything, I'd have guessed that they make sure they use scripted links, or at least a rel=nofollow tag.

I'll have to check my IBLs for scrapers :-)

/*tom*/

[incrediblehelp]

....we get tons of IBL's from generic sources because of it.

What IBLs does anyone get from AdWords? The links in the ads?

Keep in mind there are many info sites which have bots that crawl SE organic and PPC listings. The landing page is then index or scraped, not the ad. Many of these sites then post an info landing page with some of your scraped content and a static link to your page. We have literally thousands of links from these sources. IMO, Google may not put much weight on one spammy info page but thousand * little credit = good credit. Plus MSN and Y! give good credit.

Jaan, It is NOT a stretch, sites which put up an info landing page have been scraping other sites which rank well for the target keyword for YEARS. We get tons of links from these sources.

I'll take em anyday, they are free.

DMC

So are you saying you like scrapper IBL's? LOL, you wont one day when Google actually bans your website for duplicate content like I have seen many others. Most all of are scrapped and dont even know it. Some get demoted and some don't.

[jacobwissler]

I read somewhere that Google knows how long a person stays on a page, after they click on a listing (organic or paid). Since my diet site is long as has a lot of text www.jacobwissler.com/diet.htm I suspect a lot of people spent a lot of time reading the diet, and this caused the algo to value the page more highly. This is a catch 22. People can't spend time reading a page unless they find it.

I spent .05 cents per click, so the cost of the 1,500 clicks in June was not much. The page does not sell anything; it is just an essay on my diet experience, which probably increased interest. All I know is, it worked.

[DMC_34]

....we get tons of IBL's from generic sources because of it.

What IBLs does anyone get from AdWords? The links in the ads?

Keep in mind there are many info sites which have bots that crawl SE organic and PPC listings. The landing page is then index or scraped, not the ad. Many of these sites then post an info landing page with some of your scraped content and a static link to your page. We have literally thousands of links from these sources. IMO, Google may not put much weight on one spammy info page but thousand * little credit = good credit. Plus MSN and Y! give good credit.

Jaan, It is NOT a stretch, sites which put up an info landing page have been scraping other sites which rank well for the target keyword for YEARS. We get tons of links from these sources.

I'll take em anyday, they are free.

DMC

So are you saying you like scrapper IBL's? LOL, you wont one day when Google actually bans your website for duplicate content like I have seen many others. Most all of are scrapped and dont even know it. Some get demoted and some don't.

I believe it may happen at times but www.christmas.com , www.holidays.net , www.cardsdirect.com are scraped all the time, thousands of times, yet we are all at the top for our keywords. CardsDirect had it's entire site scraped by some swedish company they even posted our 800 phone number. LOL All 1000 pages of our site scraped. Did we drop NOPE!!! We have only climbed on every keyword we target and even some we dont. CardsDirect has about 9,910 links according to Yahoo some of which are ads, link exchanges, directories but most are scraped links.

So yes!...I like em and my sales agree. Even if I didnt I couldn't stop them. I used to fight scrapers and threaten copyright infrigement but that is fruitless waste of my time.

I have seen page hijackers hurt other sites. Simple truth is it has NEVER hurt us and even if it does some day OH WELL. Organics are gravvy and not our bread and butter.

DMC

[DMC_34]

LOL, you wont one day when Google actually bans your website for duplicate content like I have seen many others.

Sure, in 6 years I guess we should have been banned 100 times already. Just another Google paranionia. Just because of a flawed original content system might mistakenly ban a few for duplicate content doesnt mean every site will get banned otherwise I could set up a slew of 302 redirects to my competitors or scrape their sites and get them banned. Get real

DMC

[incrediblehelp]

LOL, you wont one day when Google actually bans your website for duplicate content like I have seen many others.

Sure, in 6 years I guess we should have been banned 100 times already. Just another Google paranionia. Just because of a flawed original content system might mistakenly ban a few for duplicate content doesnt mean every site will get banned otherwise I could set up a slew of 302 redirects to my competitors or scrape their sites and get them banned. Get real

DMC

I agree not every website gets banned. My point was you was you would change you tune one day if you wake up and find that you were. It doesnt matter evetually Google (and others) will have found solutions for this and no one will have to worry about scrapper sites or 302 redirects.