If you look at the quarterly earnings reports, it's typically 20-30% year over year, not quarter over quarter. Keep in mind that the population of internet users is estimated to be growing about 10% year over year alone (though not always in places where Google is dominant), google's usage rate is still increasing in many places outside of the US, and then there's the fact that we all use the internet more every year, etc.
Besides, without any other data or even a clear mechanism of action, you could just as easily say they're just better achieving their stated goal of only showing ads that the people who see them are interested in seeing. That's supposed to be one of the benefits of the auction-based approach of adwords. 20-30% is a lot for that, but who knows?
Really, I think you're seeing a pattern there that you want to see, and I'll second comex's call for real evidence.
A lot can be attributed to more ads on pages, true. But do people go there to see a page full of ads or "most relevant" and "unbiased results"? How many know ads from content?
But growth in places where Google makes its real money (US, EU, Canada etc) has plateaued for a while, IIRC. Growth in ad clicks mirrors growth in revenue and we know a click from Guatemala is not the same as one from NYC.
>>Besides, without any other data or even a clear mechanism of action, you could just as easily say they're just better achieving their stated goal of only showing ads that the people who see them are interested in seeing.
Maybe, but if you read the comments, people are accusing Google of making results worst to boost the ad click rate. That's wrong on so many levels.
> But growth in places where Google makes its real money (US, EU, Canada etc) has plateaued for a while, IIRC. Growth in ad clicks mirrors growth in revenue and we know a click from Guatemala is not the same as one from NYC.
Actually, average cost per click has been going down for a while now. I don't see any breakdown by geography, and wall street had been all worried about what that means for an ever-more-mobile world, but, again, the data isn't there to back up your supposition. A large part of it could be growth in regions that bring in lower ad revenue.
> Maybe, but if you read the comments, people are accusing Google of making results worst to boost the ad click rate. That's wrong on so many levels.
Er, what is wrong on so many levels? I can't tell what you mean from that sentence construction. You say, "maybe", so you don't disagree with me, but you backed up the only other "accuser" in your post above, so I don't think you disagree with him...
In any case, the considerably more obvious and likely explanation is the one I think most people have tended to assume: google disambiguates terms automatically because it's what works in the 90% case. It's annoying for power users, yes (even back when it was less of an issue, at least we could +terms, so I miss +ing terms like crazy with today's google), but it makes no sense to attempt to optimize for ad revenue that way. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence...or in this case, any evidence.
Google's user base or searches are increasing by what % a year?
Is there a difference and what makes that difference?
Google's recent stock growth and revenue also match Google's highly publicizes Panda and Penguin updates. Or supposedly fighting "spam" but in reality also ruined a lot of small businesses. My educated guess is that Google is sending a lot less "free clicks" to other sites.
Cost per click can be brought down by a supply gut or a poor ROI for the advertiser.
>> In any case, the considerably more obvious and likely explanation is the one I think most people have tended to assume: google disambiguates terms automatically because it's what works in the 90% case.
In any case, the considerably more obvious and likely explanation is the one I think most people have tended to assume: Google makes sure that any algorithm changes (at least) don't hurt their Adwords business. That's their bread, butter and dessert.
Besides, without any other data or even a clear mechanism of action, you could just as easily say they're just better achieving their stated goal of only showing ads that the people who see them are interested in seeing. That's supposed to be one of the benefits of the auction-based approach of adwords. 20-30% is a lot for that, but who knows?
Really, I think you're seeing a pattern there that you want to see, and I'll second comex's call for real evidence.