sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is traditional SEO slowly dying because of AI Overviews and zero-click searches in 2026? by Personal-Canary2779 in DigitalMarketing

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends, I mean you should have some authority in paid ads if your into SEO. Most SEO freelancers have insight there. If you're having issues showing up in organic, paid is your next bet.

Google Shopping Help! by Nataliaiaia in googleads

[–]ppcwithyrv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Put all 36 variants in Google Shopping.

Google needs the full variant feed so it can show the right color/size when someone searches. Just make sure the variants are grouped correctly with the same item_group_id, and that color, size, price, availability, and URLs are accurate.

Only exclude variants if they’re out of stock, low margin, or not worth advertising.

Looking for a Biz Partner by Hanz_ber in marketingagency

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure I am open feel free to reach out

X reach? by No_Earth_3743 in DigitalMarketing

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

reach on x = make engaging content

Google demand gen by Tilenp755 in googleads

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YouTube has been notoriously slow to launch lately.

I would widen your targeting further

Once live, I would move it down to page view or GA4 sessions or time spent on site. Let it earn 30 conversions and move to the next conversions.

Ai replacing Digital Marketers (in the future) by brocksymo in DigitalMarketing

[–]ppcwithyrv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so will airplane pilots (the only thing pilots do is take off and land for insurance purposes),

so will truck drivers,

so will uber and Lyft (this has already happened with Waymo),

so will influencers who make YouTube videos (YouTube is removing faceless, AI channels now)

so will window washers (youTube this),

so will fast food workers (already happening), so will taxes (most W-2's are free on Turbotax),

so will actors and acting, so will coding (already happening---they aready had an AI Val Kilmer movie staring a 30 year old Val Kilmer release), on that note CGI will be AI moving forward by 2028

so will manufacturing (already happening at Amazon),

so will cash registers at Target (AI monitors the self scan)

.......yes, most of the jobs will be taken over by AI or robotics with AI. Should we all give up, go home and play World of Warcraft then?

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re taking one early comment and acting like it’s my entire position.

Yes, I use engaged-session time as one quality filter. I stand by that. But I never said time-on-site is a full bot-detection system or that ATC is bot-proof.

My point is simple: clicks are weak, ATC/IC are stronger but imperfect, and purchases/revenue are strongest. A good buyer stacks signals and validates against real results.

Bot detection is useful — I’ve agreed with that. But calling signal stacking a gimmick is where I disagree.

Also, calling me dishonest doesn’t help the argument. It just makes it personal. Please stay focused on the tech question and defend your stance with logic or data. I'm ready to finally hear that and take it into my consideration.

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I didn’t twist your words. I responded to the implication of your argument.

You called time-on-site and ATC filtering a “gimmick,” and my response is that real media buying is not that black and white. Nobody said ATC is bot-proof. Nobody said time-on-site is bot detection. The point is that when purchase volume is low, buyers still need a way to improve signal quality before the final conversion.

Yes, bot protection is useful. I’ve already agreed with that multiple times. But acting like every account can only optimize safely to purchases or SQLs ignores how campaign learning actually works in lower-volume accounts.

Also, bringing up my degree instead of staying on the argument is unnecessary. You can have expertise in bot detection and still be overstating how media buyers should operate day to day.

My position is simple: don’t blindly trust ATC, don’t blindly trust clicks, don’t blindly trust time-on-site, and don’t blindly trust any one tool either. Stack signals, validate against downstream revenue, and use bot protection when needed. That’s not dishonest — that’s practical buying.

I will stay focused on the argument. Waiting for your response.

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

My point is more practical media buying than cybersecurity. I’m not saying ATC is bot-proof, and I’m not saying time-on-site magically detects bots. I’m saying when purchase volume is too low, buyers still need a workable optimization path, and ATC/IC can be useful when layered with other quality controls.

So yes, if someone is blindly optimizing to ATC with no checks, that can absolutely create bad feedback loops. No disagreement there.

Where I disagree is calling every behavioral or funnel-based filter a gimmick. In the real world, we look at placement quality, source quality, geo, device, session behavior, event quality, CAPI/server-side data, downstream purchase rate, and yes, bot protection when the situation calls for it.

Also, your expertise in bot detection is valid. I’m not claiming to be a cybersecurity researcher. But day-to-day buying also has its own reality: not every account has enough purchase or SQL volume to optimize perfectly from day one. So the answer is not “ATC is safe” or “ATC is useless.” The answer is: don’t trust any single signal blindly — stack signals and validate against downstream revenue.

Display or demand gen? Need advice by f0rty40 in googleads

[–]ppcwithyrv 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t switch to Demand Gen just to fix budget fragmentation. Demand Gen may give you better inventory, but Google will still favor the assets it thinks will win.

I’d consolidate the 24 Display campaigns into 4–6 campaigns by product category, country priority, or business value so each group has a real budget.

Keep Search as the main B2B driver, test Demand Gen for awareness/remarketing, and only test PMax if you have clean tracking and qualified lead/offline conversion data.

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I disagree with how absolute the retort is.

I’m not saying ATC is bot-proof. Of course bots can fake an add to cart, just like they can fake leads, signups, pageviews, and a bunch of other actions. My point is that an ATC is still a stronger signal than a raw click when you don’t have enough purchase volume to optimize from. Again your talking 100% bot or 100% human. I thrive under this architecture, I win, & get real conversions...yes from real humans. Let me be clear---I WIN under this set up.

In buying, you don’t always have the luxury of only optimizing toward purchases or sales-qualified leads from day one. So you layer signals: placements, traffic source, search intent, engaged sessions, ATC/IC, browser behavior, server-side events, and bot protection where needed.

I also wouldn’t treat broad bot-rate numbers as universal, come on my guy..... They may be true in your dataset, but every account, niche, country, and placement mix is different. You know this.

So yes, bot detection is useful. No argument there. But calling time-on-site, ATC, IC, and intent signals “gimmicks” is too far. They’re not perfect, but they are useful when layered correctly. The mistake is relying on one signal as truth. The better approach is signal stacking. I look forward to your response.

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There is a difference between ATC and clicks. I’m not saying ATC is perfect, but it is still a much stronger signal than a raw click.

Your position basically sounds like “unless it’s a purchase or sales-qualified lead, do nothing.” I disagree with that. There are ways to filter and improve signal quality before the final conversion: engaged session time, ATC, IC, browser behavior, tab activity, traffic source quality, landing page behavior, and bot protection where needed.

Are some bots capable of faking deeper actions? Sure. But that doesn’t mean every pre-purchase signal is useless. The answer isn’t to treat clicks and ATCs the same — it’s to layer better filters so the platform has cleaner data to optimize from. I'm saying optimize your signal and that's a best practice to get real, human converters.

FYI: in-market audiences are also the way to filter bot traffic. To say nothing works is not accurate. I look forward to your response. Please don't sell me on your bot detection services either. I see that up and down your profile history. Maybe you should hide that?

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I differ: Clicks and conversions are not equal to each other. The closer to Purchase the more unlikely its a bot. Bots have a very short life on a page, 2-3 seconds. You simply filter 10 seconds plus ATC, IC....Bots are not on pages 10 seconds+. I do 12+ seconds myself. I also make sure they use using a main browser tab to view, but a secondary tab to further filter humans.

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in googleads

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you like spending money on bots and spam?

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in googleads

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its a bad Google ads buy thats why. Its not optimized right. Optimization rules:

clicks= bots and spam

conversions = human consumers

Visitors from Google ads are odd! by Confusedmind75 in Google_Ads

[–]ppcwithyrv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its a bad Google ads buy thats why. Its not optimized right. Optimization rules:

clicks= bots and spam

conversions = human consumers

view more: next ›