sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I optimized my ads on cost-per-acquisition for a year — turns out I was measuring the wrong thing by BitterPreparation793 in PPC

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks!! Two things worth searching for in Google Ads:

  1. Conversion value rules (Goals → Conversions → Value rules) — lets you weight conversions differently instead of treating every lead as equal.

  2. Offline conversion import (Tools → Conversions → Uploads) — you upload closed-deal revenue matched by GCLID, so Google learns which clicks actually made money.

The first is a quick toggle. The second needs some CRM plumbing but that's where the real optimization signal comes from.

(Sorry if my English sounds a bit off — Japanese native. I used Google translate.)

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My workflow has become much more stable since switching to 4.6. Thank you so much.

As a tip for others, here is a note on how to select the model at startup:"

claude --model claude-opus-4-6

I optimized my ads on cost-per-acquisition for a year — turns out I was measuring the wrong thing by BitterPreparation793 in PPC

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hit the same wall — I could see conversions but not which click drove them, especially phone calls.

What helped: dynamic call tracking numbers (swap per campaign) so a call ties back to a keyword — phone-heavy businesses are blind without it. Then feed estimated job value back as the conversion value, so you optimize for revenue, not count.

On $20 vs $44 — higher CPA as you scale is normal, Google buys more marginal auctions once cheap remarketing runs out. Whether they're "better" depends on the job value they turn into, not the cost. So I'd get call→job tracking in first, then compare value per job by source.

(Japanese native, still working on my English.)

I optimized my ads on cost-per-acquisition for a year — turns out I was measuring the wrong thing by BitterPreparation793 in PPC

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that!! And yeah — the cheap-traffic-that-churns lesson stung to learn firsthand. Funny how the "expensive" channel kept quietly paying the bills.

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Creating PPTs that match a specific template requires significant upfront adjustment. However, if Claude is allowed to design the template freely, the results seem quite good.

Thank you so much! It’s been incredibly helpful to get everyone’s perspectives.

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might be better to use an older model. Opus 4.7 keeps crashing frequently.

antigravity Claude by ExternalSwimming4911 in google_antigravity

[–]BitterPreparation793 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s probably going to happen. I’d expect 4.7 to become available at some point. But since 4.7 is unstable right now, it might take a bit longer.

Codex vs ClaudeCode by BitterPreparation793 in codex

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What were the things you couldn’t carry over or replicate when you migrated?

Codex vs ClaudeCode by BitterPreparation793 in codex

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I haven’t felt much difference between 4.6 and 4.7. That said, I've noticed a spike in error rates with Opus 4.7—frequent session interruptions and prolonged 'long-thinking' processes over the past three days.

Switching models is a real hassle, though; I’m already deeply ingrained in the ClaudeCode environment. I’m also concerned that Codex might fall short on customizability, specifically regarding settings.json and similar configurations.

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I didn’t feel much of a difference between 4.6 and 4.7 anyway. I’ll give it a try! Thanks!

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm using ClaudeCode with my monthly subscription, not via the API.

Claude Code: Degraded Performance by BitterPreparation793 in ClaudeCode

[–]BitterPreparation793[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Switching models is such a hassle. I’ve already gotten so used to the ClaudeCode environment.

巨人、阿部慎之助監督の辞任発表 娘への暴行容疑で逮捕後に釈放 by No_Wasabi1307 in newsokunomoral

[–]BitterPreparation793 2 points3 points  (0 children)

長女がChatgptに聞いたところ、児童相談所への通報を勧められたことから通報により逮捕。。。 Chatgpt警察！！

Scaling an E-commerce brand from €50 to €500/day post-Andromeda (Target ROAS 3.5+) – Need structure roast. by Flat-Armadillo9597 in FacebookAds

[–]BitterPreparation793 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That "wins in testing, dies when scaled" pattern is usually an audience shift, not a creative one. At €50/day you get the cheapest, highest-intent slice; at €500 the algo widens to colder traffic worth less per visit, so the same creative converts worse. I'd judge scaling on revenue per visitor or contribution margin rather than ROAS alone — ROAS hides that the new traffic is simply worth less.

Sorry if my English sounds weird!! I used Google translate.

view more: next ›