Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > General Search Issues > Search Technology & Relevancy
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-02-2005   #1
rustybrick
 
rustybrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2,810
rustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud ofrustybrick has much to be proud of
New PPC Ranking Algo: "Truthful Auction Pricing of Keywords"

Abstract and link posted by Gary Price at http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/051101-221356

Quote:
We present a truthful auction for pricing advertising slots on a web-page assuming that advertisements for different merchants must be ranked in decreasing order of their (weighted) bids. This captures both the "Overture model" where bidders are ranked in order of the submitted bids, and the "Google model" where bidders are ranked in order of the expected revenue (or utility) that their advertisement generates. Assuming separable click-through rates, we prove revenue-equivalence between our auction and the non-truthful next-price auctions currently in use.
http://dbpubs.stanford.edu/pub/showD...me=2005-31.pdf [PDF]

Thoughts?
rustybrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2005   #2
vinniesmith2227
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 37
vinniesmith2227 is on a distinguished road
It appears that the link is bad or the site is down....

Last edited by vinniesmith2227 : 11-02-2005 at 01:37 PM.
vinniesmith2227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2005   #3
cline
Aderit Internet Marketing Consulting: www.Aderit.com
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 146
cline has a spectacular aura aboutcline has a spectacular aura about
False Assumptions Lead to False Conclusions

Their assumptions are seriously flawed.

1. Their model assumes that conversion rates, order values, and customer returns do not vary by ad position. But such factors do vary by position.

2. It assumes that advertisers have perfect knowledge of the value of a click. Actually, we're making estimates with often huge error margins and considerable long-term uncertainty, in the case of lifetime value assessments, for which a profit premium is required.

3. It assumes that advertisers should be willing to cede all excess profitability to the ad medium. We can't do that because the extra profitability is needed to cover testing and other areas of "excess" unprofitability.

4. From p2. "there may be an incentive for a merchant to bid less than its true value for each click on its bid, but there is never an incentive for over-bidding." False. We even have a term for it: "bid jamming". And there are good reasons why an advertiser would pursue either as a strategy or as a tactic bidding more than a click is worth.

Lastly, perhaps "truthful" has some specific meaning in this academic context, but as a practitioner I find it to be both inaccurate and offensive.

-- just the opinion of one of those "expensive consultants" (p2) whose services would be unnecessary, the authors claim, if their system were adopted.
cline is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off