Not knowing enough about internet ads, I was basing that on if the advertiser had the option to select websites to be listed on. If I pick a site that has "x" visitors per day (verified, not claimed) and my cost is based on that, when that website doesn't display ads to that "x" number, it would be unfair. See what I mean ? Sounds like it doesn't work that way, so disregard
I don't think either of us are claiming it won't work to gain revenue for Satelliteguys. I imagine it will, for the reasons you (Scott) mentioned. It just amazes me that CTR is a valid/desirable/fair figure of merit on which Google bases it's business. If I were an advertiser, I would want to pay for actual clicks (click-through count) on my ad, not potential eyeballs or some irrelevant number such as the CTR. In the worst-case scenario using the CTR, I (as an advertiser) would be paying the same for a single customer coming from an insignificant website as I do for thousands coming from Satelliteguys. I guess that's why I'm not a Google Adsense customer.
OK... I think I understand CPC and CPM, but neither one are the CTR that Scott described above! The suggested mechanism of showing fewer higher paying ads might make sense, but why would getting rid of the cheaper ads result in higher revenue for anybody? Maybe it's the psychology that Frank describes.Well CTR is sorta like what you are describing.. There are two ways you can advertise using google. You can advertise on a CPC (cost per click) or CPM (Cost per thousand impressions (dont ask why its M)). By changing satguys to show less ads, what it does is makes google show the highest paying ads. Instead of google trying to fill the space for 100k ads, it only needs to fill the space for say 75k.. Thus the odds of higher paying ads showing is better for scott.
OK... I think I understand CPC and CPM, but neither one are the CTR that Scott described above! The suggested mechanism of showing fewer higher paying ads might make sense, but why would getting rid of the cheaper ads result in higher revenue for anybody? Maybe it's the psychology that Frank describes.
BTW - M is the roman numeral for 1000, which is confusingly separate and distinct from the SI unit M for 1,000,000.