I've been advertising on Google for years, and I have stood by silently as they force my cost of click ever higher. But no more.
If you are an Adwords advertiser, has this ever happened to you? You log in are presented with a message like this:
"xx keyword(s) are currently inactive for search. These keywords are marked in the Status column of the Keywords tab below. Improve their quality through optimization, delete them, or raise the keywords' maximum CPCs to the minimum bids indicated. (Raising the bids to at least the minimum will activate the keywords.) "
This presumably happens if Google decides if your ad does not have a high enough "Quality Score." Google says that Quality Score, "is the basis for measuring the quality of your keyword and determining your minimum bid. Quality Score is determined by your keyword's clickthrough rate (CTR) on Google, relevance of your ad text, historical keyword performance on Google, the quality of your ad's landing page, and other relevancy factors."
What has me suspicious and raised my ire is that I feel I've caught Google with its hand in my pocket. I have a trademark on the name for one of my software products. It's a unique name. Google has determined in its obtuse wisdom that the ad for my product apparently isn't relevent enough. How could the trademark for my product not be a relevent search term for it? Perhaps it doesn't get a ton of search, but it gets some, certainly enough to be "relevant" in my mind.
I'm probably the smallest of Adword advertisers. I only spend about $1,200 per month. But I have to express just how disappointed I am in Google. During the past 18 months, my cost per click has gone up largely because of Google's strong arming me in this manner. Meanwhile, mycost per customer seems to be going up as well. I am paying more for a lower quality click. I attribute this directly to Google's doing evil. When THEY decide what is relevant to my business instead of ME, it costs me money.
Wake up Google. You're the king of the hill for the moment, but my little budget will be flowing into a different river the first chance I get. You are NOT building good will and loyalty by wringing more blood out of this turnip. I promise you, it will catch up with you eventually. I have a long memory.
I think its fitting that I use Google's own Blogger to skewer this practice, and that I've also decided to implement Yahoo Ads in this Blog. I don't make much money at all with Yahoo ads here, but I consider it a protest against Google's evil pricing tactics.
Class Action Lawsuit, anyone?
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Pluto Pluto Pluto: The New Way to Remember the 8 planets, with a Nod to Pluto
The new way to remember the "8" Planets:
Many
Very
Elite
Men
Just
Said
uuuhhh...
NO!
(to Pluto)
Lots of fun is being had today with the declassification of Pluto to a "dwarf planet." Astronomers have long berrated by son's favorite planet, because it doesn't fit in. It's too small. It's in a weird orbit.
There may be too many other objects like it. It's in an unorthodox relationship with its moon.
Though this is being hailed a triumph of science over sentiment, of logic over society, is it really?
Or is it just a bunch of jelaous elite men, once again, defining what and whom is acceptable.
My appologies to the Little People, who will probably henceforth need to contend with even more biggotted jokes about being from Pluto. I can hear it now: "hey, look a Dwarf! He must be from the Dwarf Planet! Hahaha."
I thought it was cool when scientists originally proposed to be more inclusive. They were going to expand the solar system to include Ceres, Charon and Xena as planets. Instead, the exclusivists prevailed. Rather than inclusive solar system, we now have one that is exclusive.
Pluto should be a planet, and always will be to many of us. The way I see it, whether you're a Big Planet or a Dwarf Planet, this solar system is certainly big enough for all of us.
Many
Very
Elite
Men
Just
Said
uuuhhh...
NO!
(to Pluto)
Lots of fun is being had today with the declassification of Pluto to a "dwarf planet." Astronomers have long berrated by son's favorite planet, because it doesn't fit in. It's too small. It's in a weird orbit.
There may be too many other objects like it. It's in an unorthodox relationship with its moon.
Though this is being hailed a triumph of science over sentiment, of logic over society, is it really?
Or is it just a bunch of jelaous elite men, once again, defining what and whom is acceptable.
My appologies to the Little People, who will probably henceforth need to contend with even more biggotted jokes about being from Pluto. I can hear it now: "hey, look a Dwarf! He must be from the Dwarf Planet! Hahaha."
I thought it was cool when scientists originally proposed to be more inclusive. They were going to expand the solar system to include Ceres, Charon and Xena as planets. Instead, the exclusivists prevailed. Rather than inclusive solar system, we now have one that is exclusive.
Pluto should be a planet, and always will be to many of us. The way I see it, whether you're a Big Planet or a Dwarf Planet, this solar system is certainly big enough for all of us.
Monday, August 21, 2006
The last person without an iPod speaks.
A friend was telling me today just how cool his iPod is. Whever he hears a song he can't live without, he runs out and downloads it to his iPod. Capturing it, like a butterfly in a jar.
I know that I am the last person in the world NOT to own an iPod, but so far, this fact hasn't bothered me much. I'm old enough now to have purchased certain musical treasures several times over: first on LP, then on 8-track, then on cassette, then again on cassette when the cassette wore out, then on CD. Now they want me to ante-up for buying my music piece by piece online, so I can stick it on my iPod. Or, I could spend countless hours "ripping" music from my CD's, like my friend.
iTunes launched with about 400,000 songs, and probably has upwards of more than a million songs on it today (just my guess).
My crystal ball says that in the future, we'll own it all. iTunes, that is. All of it will all reside in a handy dandy TerraPod that will dynamically update its own content. A good start would be to sell iPods pre-programmed, bundled thousands of songs.
Downloading songs to your iPod will be a quaint recollection of an old time inconvenience. "I remember back in the old days," you'll tell your grandchildren, "when we had to buy songs one at a time." Personally, I'm too busy to download and rip music (too busy blogging, that is).
As storage space continues to swell and compression can smash more and more bits into smaller spaces, you'll see this within five years if not sooner. If they won't give me every song, I'm willing to bet it'll be nearly every song that you'll ever want to listen to.
But there's too much content to fuss with. Mr. Jobs, make it easier for me to acquire content, and the last person who doesn't own an iPod may just have to relent.
I know that I am the last person in the world NOT to own an iPod, but so far, this fact hasn't bothered me much. I'm old enough now to have purchased certain musical treasures several times over: first on LP, then on 8-track, then on cassette, then again on cassette when the cassette wore out, then on CD. Now they want me to ante-up for buying my music piece by piece online, so I can stick it on my iPod. Or, I could spend countless hours "ripping" music from my CD's, like my friend.
iTunes launched with about 400,000 songs, and probably has upwards of more than a million songs on it today (just my guess).
My crystal ball says that in the future, we'll own it all. iTunes, that is. All of it will all reside in a handy dandy TerraPod that will dynamically update its own content. A good start would be to sell iPods pre-programmed, bundled thousands of songs.
Downloading songs to your iPod will be a quaint recollection of an old time inconvenience. "I remember back in the old days," you'll tell your grandchildren, "when we had to buy songs one at a time." Personally, I'm too busy to download and rip music (too busy blogging, that is).
As storage space continues to swell and compression can smash more and more bits into smaller spaces, you'll see this within five years if not sooner. If they won't give me every song, I'm willing to bet it'll be nearly every song that you'll ever want to listen to.
But there's too much content to fuss with. Mr. Jobs, make it easier for me to acquire content, and the last person who doesn't own an iPod may just have to relent.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Courts Rule For America, against Bush and NSA.
AP today reported that a federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless surveillance program indeed does violate the Constitution.
This is the case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency. ACLU argued that the surveillance program violates American's rights to free speech and privacy.
The judge ordered an immediate halt to the wiretapping program. Way to go, Judge.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first enlighted judge to preserve American's hard fought personal rights by striking down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
This does not mean that terrorists will evade surveillance. Rather, it means that Bush and NSA must simply follow the laws, and go through the FISA courts. This is the process that Congress put in place to prevent a president from assuming illegal powers. I'm convinced that it will not hinder the intelligence gathering capabilities of NSA in the least. All along, this has been about the limits of presidential powers, rather than an intelligence gathering enhancement.
Do not be deceived by lies that will be spewing predictably from George Bush's administration that this ruling is somehow a "victory" for terrorists. It's absolutely not. Nothing will change, other than Bush and NSA and the Republican congress must follow the law.
This is the case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency. ACLU argued that the surveillance program violates American's rights to free speech and privacy.
The judge ordered an immediate halt to the wiretapping program. Way to go, Judge.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first enlighted judge to preserve American's hard fought personal rights by striking down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
This does not mean that terrorists will evade surveillance. Rather, it means that Bush and NSA must simply follow the laws, and go through the FISA courts. This is the process that Congress put in place to prevent a president from assuming illegal powers. I'm convinced that it will not hinder the intelligence gathering capabilities of NSA in the least. All along, this has been about the limits of presidential powers, rather than an intelligence gathering enhancement.
Do not be deceived by lies that will be spewing predictably from George Bush's administration that this ruling is somehow a "victory" for terrorists. It's absolutely not. Nothing will change, other than Bush and NSA and the Republican congress must follow the law.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Al Qaeda's Latest Victory Over Bush, or... The Fantasy of Airliner Security
Now that the news about The Plot to Blow Up Airliners is old news, let's leave fantasy land for a flight to the Land of Facts and Figures. Lets do this before we, as the inheritors of freedoms that other generations have fought and paid for with their blood and children, decide to roll over and surrender more freedoms to this increasingly Orwellian police state called America. Lets do it while we still can.
If you thought flying was hell last Wednesday, by last Thursday airline passengers found themselves in an even worse place. Just when travelers may say to themselves, "Well, at least airline travel can't get any worse," guess what? It did.
Married to a British wife, I have the pleasure of frequent travel to England (8 hours from here, direct, 13 hours from start to finish) with three kids, ages 7, 5 and 2. While the airlines have continued to cut back on comfort services (like beverages and food), we've of course been forced to bring our own.
On Thursday, the day that British officials announced the foiling of an evil plot to destroy midair up to ten American airlines enroute between Britian and the United States. Predictably, as they have done all along, Homeland Security imposed tighter after-the-fact restrictions on airline passengers, even as the terrorists have (if history is our guide) moved on to more nefarious plans. "Oh, well," a harried traveler said on TV while being interviewed in some major US airport, "If it makes us safer, then its a good thing."
Is it? And are we truly safer?
The U.S. Government is guilty of exposing the biggest weakness of our Democratic system. That is, that democracy only works when the governed trust the government. Bush's continued lies that the war on terror has made us a safer nation is ludicrous, and patriots have the duty to challenge this lie. The fact is, if the terrorists goal is to destroy America (I believe it is), then Al Qaeda doesn't even need to blow up airplanes. They only need to TRY to blow up airplanes. They only need to be ACCUSED of trying to blow up airplanes. I don't know if a link to Al Qaeda has been proven in this instance, but just for fun, lets say it has.
Al Qaeda knows that by provoking the U.S., George W.'s administration will, predictably, overreact, overreach, overcommit, overextend, and over indebt America, especially in this election year.
Al Qaeda knows that by sacrificing just 25 of their people in an operation that will likely have cost them less than a million dollars, they will provoke George W. into doing their work for them, which is to take away the Freedoms of the American people. They know that that by provoking George W., that the U.S. will probably now spend even more billions and billions and billions of dollars, forcing America spend its children's future by adding even more debt onto the unbelievable 7 trillion dollars that we owe, and which is casting doubt on the future of our children and aged.
Al Qaeda's genius is that they are using us against ourselves. By spending millions, they provoke us to spend trillions. They only need out-wait us: out-wait our pocket book, our national resolve, our ability to endure humiliating search, and our boiling anger at losting our precious civil rights.
So what should be done? Should we not try? Should we simply allow U.S. airliners to be blown up?
If the answer has to be yes or no, then my answer is... yes.
Let me try to explain quickly before the thought police whisk me away to a secret European prison or Guantanamo Bay.
The risk of dying in a terrorist attack continues to be miniscule. Bush and Homeland Security have blown the airliner trheat out of proportion for political gain by this U.S. administration.
According to the CDC, in a post 911 world, here are your lifetime odds for dying in certain types of situations:
1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
Now your odds of dying in a terrorist attack during your lifetime:
1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )
Wow! Dying in a terrorist cause plane disaster is a fairly rare occurrence, isn't it?
According to CDC, your lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 81. This a MUCH greater risk than flying.
By making air travel so restrictive, so uncomfortable, so painful and unbearable, that millions of people will head for their cars instead of the skies, George Bush and Homeland Security will kill more Americans than Al Qaeda simply by scaring Americans out of airplanes.
The reason that I don't feel any safer on a plane today is that I know our security system is reactionary. Whatever butt-probe TSA is sticking up the ass of a traveler today, the terrorists have already found a way around it.
Lets not kid ourselves. Air travel is as dangerous today as it was last week before the British terror suspects were rounded up.
It's also just as safe.
George W. Bush, stop waging a campaign of lies on the American people to justify taking away their rights.
If you thought flying was hell last Wednesday, by last Thursday airline passengers found themselves in an even worse place. Just when travelers may say to themselves, "Well, at least airline travel can't get any worse," guess what? It did.
Married to a British wife, I have the pleasure of frequent travel to England (8 hours from here, direct, 13 hours from start to finish) with three kids, ages 7, 5 and 2. While the airlines have continued to cut back on comfort services (like beverages and food), we've of course been forced to bring our own.
On Thursday, the day that British officials announced the foiling of an evil plot to destroy midair up to ten American airlines enroute between Britian and the United States. Predictably, as they have done all along, Homeland Security imposed tighter after-the-fact restrictions on airline passengers, even as the terrorists have (if history is our guide) moved on to more nefarious plans. "Oh, well," a harried traveler said on TV while being interviewed in some major US airport, "If it makes us safer, then its a good thing."
Is it? And are we truly safer?
The U.S. Government is guilty of exposing the biggest weakness of our Democratic system. That is, that democracy only works when the governed trust the government. Bush's continued lies that the war on terror has made us a safer nation is ludicrous, and patriots have the duty to challenge this lie. The fact is, if the terrorists goal is to destroy America (I believe it is), then Al Qaeda doesn't even need to blow up airplanes. They only need to TRY to blow up airplanes. They only need to be ACCUSED of trying to blow up airplanes. I don't know if a link to Al Qaeda has been proven in this instance, but just for fun, lets say it has.
Al Qaeda knows that by provoking the U.S., George W.'s administration will, predictably, overreact, overreach, overcommit, overextend, and over indebt America, especially in this election year.
Al Qaeda knows that by sacrificing just 25 of their people in an operation that will likely have cost them less than a million dollars, they will provoke George W. into doing their work for them, which is to take away the Freedoms of the American people. They know that that by provoking George W., that the U.S. will probably now spend even more billions and billions and billions of dollars, forcing America spend its children's future by adding even more debt onto the unbelievable 7 trillion dollars that we owe, and which is casting doubt on the future of our children and aged.
Al Qaeda's genius is that they are using us against ourselves. By spending millions, they provoke us to spend trillions. They only need out-wait us: out-wait our pocket book, our national resolve, our ability to endure humiliating search, and our boiling anger at losting our precious civil rights.
So what should be done? Should we not try? Should we simply allow U.S. airliners to be blown up?
If the answer has to be yes or no, then my answer is... yes.
Let me try to explain quickly before the thought police whisk me away to a secret European prison or Guantanamo Bay.
The risk of dying in a terrorist attack continues to be miniscule. Bush and Homeland Security have blown the airliner trheat out of proportion for political gain by this U.S. administration.
According to the CDC, in a post 911 world, here are your lifetime odds for dying in certain types of situations:
1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
Now your odds of dying in a terrorist attack during your lifetime:
1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )
Wow! Dying in a terrorist cause plane disaster is a fairly rare occurrence, isn't it?
According to CDC, your lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 81. This a MUCH greater risk than flying.
By making air travel so restrictive, so uncomfortable, so painful and unbearable, that millions of people will head for their cars instead of the skies, George Bush and Homeland Security will kill more Americans than Al Qaeda simply by scaring Americans out of airplanes.
The reason that I don't feel any safer on a plane today is that I know our security system is reactionary. Whatever butt-probe TSA is sticking up the ass of a traveler today, the terrorists have already found a way around it.
Lets not kid ourselves. Air travel is as dangerous today as it was last week before the British terror suspects were rounded up.
It's also just as safe.
George W. Bush, stop waging a campaign of lies on the American people to justify taking away their rights.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Battleground Minnesota: Advice to the Democrats
As an independent voter in a Battle ground state who wants to vote democratic this election, I have some advice for Minnesota Democrats. Check that -- I have some advice for ALL Democrats.
Let your centrists lead.
This election is not about big ideas.
I repeat:
This election NOT about big ideas.
It's about winning. Leave your big ideas at the door if you want to win.
Never, ever, ever use the word "Programs." Remove that word from your vocabulary.
And don't bitch about the economy. To the middle class, the economy is fine.
I want to hear my anger at George Bush and the Republican Congress articulated.
I want you to articulate my anger at rising gas prices, at the never ending slaughter of American troops in an ungrateful Iraq, at the scaling back of aid (not PROGRAMS) to middle class college students, at the Oil Mafia, at the lack of a comprehensive energy policy (tell me how you're going to move America toward renewable energy independence), at the high cost of small business self employment taxes, at the huge trade deficit with China, at the loss of jobs being outsourced to India, at the UNBELIEVABLE DEBT this country is leaving its children, at the Cronyism that lead to the Katrina relief debacle.
Do not -- I repeat -- DO NOT run on a platform. Run as an alternative to the corrupt Republican Administration. All you have to do is remind us why shouldn't vote Republic.
You can stuff your "programs." Remain calm. Remain centrist. And you can't lose.
But...
Start bitching about gay marriage, minimum wage, universal healthcare.... start talking about Big Programs at a time when this country is running historic deficits (at this moment at $8.4 trillion, up more than $400 Billion since I last wrote about it), and you will lose independent voters.
I believe Independents can sway this election, and they want to vote democratic.
But if you want us, you need check your extreme left wing at the door.
And you better decide soon. The Republicans are rapidly moving to the center, as they always do, to try and grab centrist voters. This is always their plan: move rapidly left just before the election, and then strand the Independent middle class voters right after the election.
Democrats, if you do this correctly, you can once again enjoy majority party status.
Here in Minnesota, Republicans have brought some amazing talent to bear on the Senatorial campaign of Mark Kennedy. Goofy commercials showing his family is creating a "likeable guy" feeling among voters who don't know him. I've already seen at least 3 different Kennedy commericals introducing me to him. Here's what his commercials have told me thus far: Mark Kennedy is "willing to cross party lines," a "family man," and a "fun, likeable guy."
Meanwhile, Democratic candidate Amy has aired one commercial that I've seen. In it, she comes across as a tough bitch: pissed off about her hospital stay when she had her child. In fact, she was so pissed off that she (apparently singlehandedly) sued big business to get fair parental leave rights. Poor Amy: she's so put upon by big companies. Too bad everyone isn't as angry as mean ol' Amy, or they might vote for her.
Amy!!! Stop it!! Fire your campaign manager and start over immediately!! Do not be an angry bitch. Independent voters in Minnesota do not want a Sen. Amy Clinton from Minnesota (for God's sake, please don't bring her to Minnesota to campaign for you!!). Ok, we get it -- you're an angry tough woman from Minnesota who won't take crap in Washington. Now, what else??? Give me more, better reasons to vote for you. Talk about My children, not YOUR children.
Good luck Amy. I want you to win. It's early yet, but don't screw this up. There's too much at stake.
Let your centrists lead.
This election is not about big ideas.
I repeat:
This election NOT about big ideas.
It's about winning. Leave your big ideas at the door if you want to win.
Never, ever, ever use the word "Programs." Remove that word from your vocabulary.
And don't bitch about the economy. To the middle class, the economy is fine.
I want to hear my anger at George Bush and the Republican Congress articulated.
I want you to articulate my anger at rising gas prices, at the never ending slaughter of American troops in an ungrateful Iraq, at the scaling back of aid (not PROGRAMS) to middle class college students, at the Oil Mafia, at the lack of a comprehensive energy policy (tell me how you're going to move America toward renewable energy independence), at the high cost of small business self employment taxes, at the huge trade deficit with China, at the loss of jobs being outsourced to India, at the UNBELIEVABLE DEBT this country is leaving its children, at the Cronyism that lead to the Katrina relief debacle.
Do not -- I repeat -- DO NOT run on a platform. Run as an alternative to the corrupt Republican Administration. All you have to do is remind us why shouldn't vote Republic.
You can stuff your "programs." Remain calm. Remain centrist. And you can't lose.
But...
Start bitching about gay marriage, minimum wage, universal healthcare.... start talking about Big Programs at a time when this country is running historic deficits (at this moment at $8.4 trillion, up more than $400 Billion since I last wrote about it), and you will lose independent voters.
I believe Independents can sway this election, and they want to vote democratic.
But if you want us, you need check your extreme left wing at the door.
And you better decide soon. The Republicans are rapidly moving to the center, as they always do, to try and grab centrist voters. This is always their plan: move rapidly left just before the election, and then strand the Independent middle class voters right after the election.
Democrats, if you do this correctly, you can once again enjoy majority party status.
Here in Minnesota, Republicans have brought some amazing talent to bear on the Senatorial campaign of Mark Kennedy. Goofy commercials showing his family is creating a "likeable guy" feeling among voters who don't know him. I've already seen at least 3 different Kennedy commericals introducing me to him. Here's what his commercials have told me thus far: Mark Kennedy is "willing to cross party lines," a "family man," and a "fun, likeable guy."
Meanwhile, Democratic candidate Amy has aired one commercial that I've seen. In it, she comes across as a tough bitch: pissed off about her hospital stay when she had her child. In fact, she was so pissed off that she (apparently singlehandedly) sued big business to get fair parental leave rights. Poor Amy: she's so put upon by big companies. Too bad everyone isn't as angry as mean ol' Amy, or they might vote for her.
Amy!!! Stop it!! Fire your campaign manager and start over immediately!! Do not be an angry bitch. Independent voters in Minnesota do not want a Sen. Amy Clinton from Minnesota (for God's sake, please don't bring her to Minnesota to campaign for you!!). Ok, we get it -- you're an angry tough woman from Minnesota who won't take crap in Washington. Now, what else??? Give me more, better reasons to vote for you. Talk about My children, not YOUR children.
Good luck Amy. I want you to win. It's early yet, but don't screw this up. There's too much at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)