Recently there has been quite a lot of brouhaha (great word isn’t it?) about Google’s new Landing Page “Quality Score” and the effect it is having on some marketers. There are a range of rumors flying around from this is an attempt for Google to raise prices across the board to it is a conspiracy to kill off affiliate marketers given that Google has announced a possible CPA based advertising model to anywhere in between.

Hard to say, I think there is a grain of truth in all of this, though it seems Google does also care about deceptive ads and making sure their are certain standards to the pages that are served up. It doesn’t help their image to allow deceptive ads that offer a free ipod but give you the finger instead.

HOWEVER….they really could have been a bit clearer about what is a “quality” page. The fact there has been so much debate at Webmasterworld and other places is not a good form of PR. Many advertisers that have spent millions with Google are essentially getting the finger without any clear indication why. It is one thing to say something like “no pornography, guns, pharmaceuticals” and another thing to have a policy that no one knows why it is being applied. Especially when there are pages dedicated to the random ebay ads for “dead squirrels” and other fun keyword choices.

The problem with allowing a vague quality score to determine whether an advertiser gets a higher price or not is that it could be used to hide discriminatory practices. Who is to say whether one person’s business model is “better” or whether there offer is “too much like other offers” as some have suggested?

Advertisers must have had enough users who though their landing page was quality and met their needs or they wouldn’t have found it cost effective to keep advertising. Businesses which do not serve their customers do not survive.

If Google doesn’t want free ipod offers or things like that, how about saying,  ”No free ipod offers.” Or tell sites that there have been complaints about their offer. This isn’t the same as trying to fight spammers and the truth is those looking to game the system will figure it out anyway. Otherwise, it is bound to cause advertisers to feel they are being treated unfairly and also appears to give the shaft to the little folks who helped build Google to what it is today.

Maybe Google feels it is a bit like pornography — “you know it when you see it.” Tell me, how do you write an algorithm to do THAT?