Google Mocking Those Impacted By Farmer/Panda Update?

Apr 1, 2011 • 8:16 am | comments (14) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google AdSense

Google Panda LaughingThere are many sites suffering by the Google Farmer / Panda update and you'd think Google wouldn't want to pour salt on an open wound but some are experiencing just that.

A WebmasterWorld thread has some publishers complaining that the Google AdSense team is emailing publishers that their AdSense income is down. They are trying to find out what Google can do to help the publisher bring up their AdSense income to the levels before this update.

The thing is, the AdSense team doesn't realize that Google is the reason that these publishers have drastically lower AdSense income.

Google hit a ton of sites with this update and if they do not rank well, they do not make money for the publishers or Google.

Some feel these AdSense emails are insulting and downright hurtful.

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Our ongoing coverage and stories on the Content Farmer/Panda update:

Image credit Jamie De Cesare on Flickr.

Previous story: Poll: Do The Google Doodles Impact Your Traffic?



04/01/2011 12:32 pm

Different teams that don't spk to each other :)


04/01/2011 01:31 pm

This is like when Google's Page Speed tool was reporting slowness on a page that was caused mostly by Google's javascripts -- analytics, adsense, etc.

Panda Sucks

04/01/2011 02:06 pm

A week before people got hit the adsense people emailed me and everyone else to add more ads to the pages, suggesting that a 300X250 block on to of the content would be best. As Panda hit, too many ads and on top were seen as a main reason for a demotion. Stupid pr*cks


04/01/2011 04:03 pm

Panda Day = The last day, I every take a call or email from adsense about the design of my site. Not that I think ads are to blame for Panda. But from now on; no one tells me how to design my site. @Rusty Brick - Love the April Fool's joke... I refreshed my browser 4 times before I realized it.


04/01/2011 04:05 pm

Another dead giveway of the joke was that Danny S. would never publish a headline that critical of Google. That's why we have your site. Say it like it is.

Ben Pfeiffer

04/01/2011 04:21 pm

LOL, okay you had me confused or a couple seconds. Nice April Fools Barry!

04/01/2011 06:26 pm

Obviously a joke since Google would never write such an email.


04/01/2011 07:20 pm

Not a joke people, I've got the email from Google if you would like to see it.

SEO Services

04/02/2011 12:21 am

Hilarious. This is exactly what happens when companies get too big.


04/02/2011 11:45 am

I personally find the image that goes with this article insensitive.

UK Cloud hosting Services

04/02/2011 12:11 pm

But some site have lost their ranking and postilion.


04/02/2011 05:29 pm

Yes, but if those sites are not relevant to searchers then why would Google want to show their Ad sense there. As an advertiser why would you want to have people click on low quality sites ads and Im sure Google doesn't want that either.

Barry Schwartz

04/03/2011 12:50 am

OMG, is that picture from recent events? I did a Flickr search for "laughing Panda" and this came up. Do you think she is not laughing but crying? It was taken on February 8, 2009 and it was at some party event. So I hope you didn't confuse this with something else.


10/16/2011 02:46 am

" As an advertiser why would you want to have people click on low quality sites ads" Is that even an important question? If I advertize a product, and my ad shows up on an article you are directed to after a click, then that's what I want. I think these "relevant content" and "quality content" apologies for Google are without substance. Consider: If a link to my article appears in the first five listings of page one, then what more would I, as an advertiser, ask for? And the proof that this worked for advertisers is in the historically high yield of so-called "low quality" articles, because if it didn't we wouldn't be hearing from people who are losing revenues being paid by the advertisers that the Google apologists claim are somehow adversely impacted by "low quality " or "irrelevant" content. They are, after all, paid for click-through, which is prerequisite to that ad's success. Ergo, the ad worked. Now, whether the clicker actually bought something or not leads me to my next question. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that so-called "high quality" content out performs for any given advertiser?

blog comments powered by Disqus