Comments on: Session Based Broad Match in the WSJ

By: Chris Nielsen

Chris Nielsen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:04:00 +0000

YES! Exactly my thought. The “feature” may or may not work, but debating with Google on my they would show “non-relevent” ads to a user is pointless. This is called “remarketing” and happens when you search for a specific thing on one site and then go to a different site that has nothing on the same topic, yet you see ads for the previous topic.nnWaste of money aside (but should it really be ignored?) if the benefits are not 100% positive and if people complain (Since last year I now see from my research) why would you not make it optional as they used to do with the “Expanded search” or whatever it was called in the past. That’s gone now and I don’t know if it’s a default or not. That’s a different issue.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 01:02:00 +0000

Craig, nnWhat will making the search term query (found in “see search terms”) that is posted as a session-based broad match a negative keyword do? Will this reduced future session-based broad matches in this direction?

By: Brian Broadbent

Brian Broadbent — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:40:00 +0000

I see an entirely different angle from this article. The real issue is that the small advertisers (cosmetic dentists of the world) don’t track their performance from AdWords. So you really canceled because of a few erroneous clicks? Really. I agree that the feature is a net negative for most, but if you have a positive ROI from Google it’s just a cost of doing business.

By: Rob Willox

Rob Willox — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:20:00 +0000

The theory that Google knows what the searcher is interested in during a session could be regarded as reasonable and in some cases may be, resulting in a converted clickthrough but the option should be in the control of the advertiser not at the behest of Google.nnGiven how ubiquitous many consider Google to be, the example searches given for a Monaco Palace and a dog toothbrush, would surely be that unrelated that even Google can see the disparity between them. nnWith a closer related type of search it could just be considered reasonable in terms of attracting a click whereas with the example, another Monaco ad could very well be wasting valuable page real estate displaying a completely unrelated ad unless, of course, having clicked-through and booked a Monaco palace the searcher is now looking for somewhere in Monaco to buy a toothbrush for their pet!

By: Dennis Taylor

Dennis Taylor — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:24:00 +0000

Great post, we were at odds whether we liked or disliked this feature, whether an adword appearing due to seachers past behaviour was relevant and what would it cost? We’re still not in agreement but if google allowed us to disable this feature at least we could run split tests to see if switching off affected traffic and conversions.