What do you mean? The logical thing is $. That's it. Nothing hidden here. Google knows how many times it sends people there. I can't imagine that it's any significant numbers in Google terms of numbers. The author says it "gets a steady stream of traffic", but no definition of what that actually means. It's probably a rounding number of a rounding number to Googs. With that in mind, yeah, it's not worth it to Googs even if it magically returns this site when the very niche phrase "apportionment calculator" is used. I can say that until this article I had never seen those two words together.
If a simple useful site already gets a high percentage of clicks from Google Searches for its functionality, and wants to show ads, that’s $.
Right?
Why would PageRank rate a site highly, and funnnel people to it, while Adsense doesn’t want to monetize it?
I can’t come up with a sensible reason.
All I can think is Adsense is becoming so gamey, so sophisticated at monetizing spam and low quality content, that they are dropping the ball on engagement with simple quality, even when it leaves money on the table. I.e. this is an oversight.
You’re ignoring the part about numbers of visitors and the lack of actual numbers. While the author may feel they are decent, Googs may think they are not.
> For years now, the site is consistently the top Google search result for "apportionment calculator," and gets a steady stream of traffic.
What does not enough traffic mean? As a measure? As a rationale? What threshold was not achieved here that makes actual sense?
High quality links to pages with Google ads are all Google should care about at its most self-interested. There is no “too small” because it is all incremental. Why send someone somewhere and not have an ad there?
If they got more traffic due to the intentional crap additions, what does that tell you about Google Search?
This is an example of full failure of Google to even take care of their own interests.
