<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AdWords Algorithm Changed</title>
	<atom:link href="https://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/</link>
	<description>Reflections on Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:00:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.40</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Schestowitz</title>
		<link>https://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/comment-page-1/#comment-4221</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roy Schestowitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/#comment-4221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;Dmitri:&lt;/b&gt; from a technical point-of-view, I quoted unimportant parts, so you are right. I was trying to support my reference to Google&#039;s manipulation of adverts, which often neglects the publisher.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Dmitri:</b> from a technical point-of-view, I quoted unimportant parts, so you are right. I was trying to support my reference to Google&#8217;s manipulation of adverts, which often neglects the publisher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DA</title>
		<link>https://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/comment-page-1/#comment-4218</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/07/09/adwords-algorithm-changed/#comment-4218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am not too sure you&#039;ve quoted the right part of that article:
For one thing you could never bid for a certain position, being that number 1 or number 5 or anything in between. So, this first paragraph is simply technically plain wrong.

The other idea you could have copied from the article (but you did not) is that the changes (BTW, I personally did not notice anything out of ordinary in the time frame you are referring to) are done to improve region-specific ad targeting. I do not find that idea controversial, on the contrary it only helps if you DO KNOW your target audience. If you have no idea about your audience, then you might see decrease (or increase) in your ROI, and, as far as I can remember, AdWords lets you geo-target your ads since three years ago, so what&#039;s the buzz?

The other paragraph you quoted is simply lame: any comany that posts approx $500M profit in a quarter is BOUND to have lawsuits because everyone would want to have a piece, that&#039;s just the fact of life. So there was no need to emphasize that as a problem that only Google faces.

My 2c worth.
Cheers,
D.A.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not too sure you&#8217;ve quoted the right part of that article:<br />
For one thing you could never bid for a certain position, being that number 1 or number 5 or anything in between. So, this first paragraph is simply technically plain wrong.</p>
<p>The other idea you could have copied from the article (but you did not) is that the changes (BTW, I personally did not notice anything out of ordinary in the time frame you are referring to) are done to improve region-specific ad targeting. I do not find that idea controversial, on the contrary it only helps if you DO KNOW your target audience. If you have no idea about your audience, then you might see decrease (or increase) in your ROI, and, as far as I can remember, AdWords lets you geo-target your ads since three years ago, so what&#8217;s the buzz?</p>
<p>The other paragraph you quoted is simply lame: any comany that posts approx $500M profit in a quarter is BOUND to have lawsuits because everyone would want to have a piece, that&#8217;s just the fact of life. So there was no need to emphasize that as a problem that only Google faces.</p>
<p>My 2c worth.<br />
Cheers,<br />
D.A.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
