Adwords has finally implemented the new quality score system and is based on a scale 1-10. Also another difference is that none of the keywords will be inactive. What do you think about this change?

Advertise

Hmm I guess its time to buy some Google stock since this will no doubt affect their bottom line in a highly positive fashion.

Yeah its about time they give some clarity about the whole QS.. fu*k I had no idea with the old system being.. good.. ok.. great... now atleast I know if I am a 8 / 10 then I;m rocking..

Time to do some more research and get your quality up. But you should have done that in the first place or you're just wasting money.

__________________
.

Any ideas?

I've heard a page relating to the keyword helps? So individual pages for each keyword. Argh!

Also, privacy policy, sitemap, blog etc.

Actually it as always been a scale of 1-10 they are just now showing us.

dont forget your ads should have the keyword as well, so use dynamic ads.

It's probably not your case, but you need to be sure G is not rating your site incorrectly. I had that recently where my QS went into the toilet and cost through the roof on a brick and mortar business. After they evaluated the site they found there was a mistake. Imagine that!

QS is so black boxed, it is almost useless. That being said, take note that QS applies differently based on the level of competition. The more competitive the keyword, the more important QS becomes.

Best way to think of QS is how to do I make G the most money. If my bid is high but CTR is low, I won't. If CTR is high but bid is low I won't. You need to be somewhere in between these.

Thought #1: It blows chunks of donkey sperm infested with AIDS & Ebola after having been pumped into a vulture's anus and seasoned with spicy Bird Flu.

Thought #2: HAHAHAHA! They're STILL inactive (even though they don't tell you they are). Why else would they ask for a random "first page minimum bid" even when you have no competition for a keyword? Do they hope you're feeling charitable?

Thought #3: See Thought #1 & Thought #2 Above.