<?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: Search query history in AdWords</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/</link>
	<description>greg yardley on online product management</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:04:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/comment-page-1/#comment-1365</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/#comment-1365</guid>
		<description>Hi Greg - you may be right, and its&#039; a left-hand/right-hand thing. However, monetisation is a function of the whole page. If Google is so stupid as to let the paid search crew drop the cumulative relevance of the page, they deserve every nasty thing that happens. They haven&#039;t been that stupid in the past... My guess, as you&#039;ve seen, is that this is intended to shift the Nash Equilibrium by increasing the size of the market and thereby driving up prices. The algorithm *badly* needs tuning, though. Thanks for your insights :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Greg &#8211; you may be right, and its&#8217; a left-hand/right-hand thing. However, monetisation is a function of the whole page. If Google is so stupid as to let the paid search crew drop the cumulative relevance of the page, they deserve every nasty thing that happens. They haven&#8217;t been that stupid in the past&#8230; My guess, as you&#8217;ve seen, is that this is intended to shift the Nash Equilibrium by increasing the size of the market and thereby driving up prices. The algorithm *badly* needs tuning, though. Thanks for your insights <img src='http://yardley.ca/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greg</title>
		<link>http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/comment-page-1/#comment-1364</link>
		<dc:creator>greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/#comment-1364</guid>
		<description>Very good point.

Perhaps search isn&#039;t talking to ads and vice versa?  As an employee at a mammoth Internet company I know cross-department cooperation is always brutal.

Or perhaps you&#039;re right, and this is just a revenue grab.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good point.</p>
<p>Perhaps search isn&#8217;t talking to ads and vice versa?  As an employee at a mammoth Internet company I know cross-department cooperation is always brutal.</p>
<p>Or perhaps you&#8217;re right, and this is just a revenue grab.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/comment-page-1/#comment-1362</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yardley.ca/2008/03/12/search-query-history-in-adwords/#comment-1362</guid>
		<description>Hi Greg,

Good hypothesis, except that *organic* results are static for the search history. See the examples in my article - identical organic results. If Google was trying to improve search results, they&#039;d mess with organic? I mean, they change organic results all the time... That&#039;s where personal search was introduced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Greg,</p>
<p>Good hypothesis, except that *organic* results are static for the search history. See the examples in my article &#8211; identical organic results. If Google was trying to improve search results, they&#8217;d mess with organic? I mean, they change organic results all the time&#8230; That&#8217;s where personal search was introduced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

