Understanding Google’s Latest Landing Page Quality Score Release

google-adwords-numbers-featuredAs Pamela Parker described at SEL recently, Google has announced that going forward, landing page quality will be a larger factor in an ad’s overall Quality Score.

Given that my last post for SEL was on Quality Score and suggested that landing page quality was mostly a hammer used to beat up bad actors and didn’t have much meaning for legitimate businesses, this announcement was a bit embarrassing. It also made me curious as to how quality will be defined.

I got a chance to speak with Jonathan Alferness, director of product development on the Google ads quality team, to delve deeper into the purpose of this initiative and try to glean insight as to how landing page quality would be measured.

Jonathan was very helpful with respect to the former question and understandably protective when it came to the latter.

Below, I’ll make a clear distinction between what Google is willing to say publicly about landing page quality and what I believe this means. I’ll summarize what Google has said either through my conversation with Jonathan or elsewhere in print in italics. My speculation will be in normal font.

Why Did Google Do This?

Jonathan made the case to Pamela and to me that the intent is to improve user experience.

When landing pages don’t line up well with the user’s search, the user has a poor experience, and ultimately that’s bad for everyone.

It’s bad for the user because they don’t end up where they expected to end up; it’s bad for the advertiser because they clicked on an ad and ended up somewhere they didn’t want to be, winning the advertiser no great brand impression; and it’s bad for Google, because that user is more likely to seek a different search experience and less likely to use Google sponsored links in the future.

This makes perfect sense. As I argued in last month’s post, Google maximizes its immediate term revenue by making QS 100% based on anticipated Click-Through Rate (CTR). Factors related to landing page or anything else reduce Google’s revenue per SERP view by reducing the importance of CTR.

However, poor landing page experiences might reduce Google’s long-term revenue by training users not to click on sponsored listings. That could jeopardize the business.

By creating a finer gradation between “your landing page stinks” and “it doesn’t stink” — essentially where we’ve been with landing page QS — Google rewards advertisers that pay attention to landing page decisions and creates another incentive to provide a great user experience.

In the long run, better landing pages lead to higher conversion rates, which in turn means an increase in the value of traffic, therefore allowing higher bids and correspondingly more traffic at the same efficiency. It’s a beautiful virtuous circle.

It’s also at least part of the reason that Google bought Urchin and made Google Analytics free. Giving advertisers the tools to diagnose user behavior and improve website effectiveness should ultimately lead to better monetization of traffic and higher bids in the paid search auction. Smart. Very smart.

How Much Weight Will Be Given To Landing Page Quality?


Google isn’t saying much on this topic, and what they’re saying is a bit of a mixed bag. Jonathan told Pamela that ads with high-quality landing pages will get a “strong boost”; he told me it would be a “slight boost”; and on the AdWords blog post it says: “We expect most campaigns will not see a significant change in overall performance.”

They began the roll-out in South America a month ago and appear to be rolling it out to smaller accounts in the US first. This suggests to me that they think it could have a material effect that they want to watch very carefully. Perhaps not.

Making even minor changes to software should be tested thoroughly before roll-out. Perhaps most campaigns won’t see a significant effect because most landing pages are roughly equivalent, so this change will mostly impact the “outliers”?

It’s hard to imagine that Google will sacrifice revenue on this, either. They’ve likely done the math to see how much gradations in landing page quality affect the propensity of people to use sponsored links in the immediate future, and have tuned this dial to be revenue positive even in the short run. It will go on to be yet another one of Google’s revenue dials, subject to periodic “tuning.”

How Will Google Determine ‘Quality’?

Jonathan said: “Google is focused on both relevance and content on the landing page in addition to the user response to such landing pages.”

I pressed on this with the question: “Will advertisers with Google conversion tracking on their sites have an advantage over other advertisers, given that conversion rates are a very clear signal as to whether users found what they wanted?”

His response was: “There is no special information derived for some customers but not others. We apply the principles of landing page quality and relevance to every ad and every landing page. The advertising system is dynamic, as an auction takes place for each query.”

The behavioral signals that Google traces must therefore be related to what they can track for all advertisers, not just those with Google conversion tracking: bounce rate, propensity to search again in short order, time on site, etc. I’d love to know how much of this behavioral data is gathered through Google toolbars as a sampling method rather than from watching browsers return behavior from Google.com, but I don’t know that.

With respect to the relevance and content on the page, Google means to determine: Does this page match the user’s intent? Behavior is one guide, but content on the page will matter as well. Pages that seem to be about the topic of the user’s search will do better here than general landing pages.

It would be surprising if something as simple as blowing the user’s search string or the keyword back at the user dynamically on every page would be meaningful in terms of content on the page unless it affects user behavior.

I suspect the advertiser will be rewarded for landing a “ball peen hammer” search on a page with ball peen hammers on it, rather than a page with only wrenches.

High quality landing page for “ball peen hammer” search:

Previously high quality landing page in Google’s eyes — ie: “not spam, and loads fast” — now considered low quality content:

Another High quality landing page for the same search: I bet they like a product page just as much

Whether the advertiser selects the ideal ball peen hammer page chosen among several options is probably beneath the level of detail they’re getting into at this point on the “content on the page” piece of the equation.

I’d be stunned if Google tried to differentiate between the first and third based on content on the page, but our experience suggests that the conversion rates will probably be higher for the first page.

One worry that I expressed was that Google would bake in some preconceived notions about good pages and bad pages.

For example, we’ve heard it expressed that Google thinks taking someone from a Google SERP to someone else’s SERP is a bad experience, therefore a website’s search results pages might be frowned upon as a landing page choice.

Would Google arbitrarily say this was a poor quality landing page for a “ball peen hammer” search?

That would fly in the face of our experience, which suggests that often a good site-search results page outperforms a well-chosen sub-category page in terms of conversion rates.

Similarly, a “view all” page often outperforms landing folks on page 1, but it’s conceivable that latency considerations due to loading “all” the images will trump what we know to be better performance from a conversion rate perspective.

Google could also conceivably decide which page on an advertiser’s site ranks highest for them in organic listings on a given search and reward folks who choose that page for paid search ads as well. That would rankle those of us who believe smart humans who pay attention pick better pages than Google does. More on that in a later post.

Jonathan responded that Google wasn’t baking in preconceived notions, that relevant content and user behavior would define the landing page quality.


Within e-commerce, this could serve as one more penalty for those who aren’t mass merchants. If you sell office chairs of the $500 variety, not the $40 variety, you’ll likely find your conversion rate on the term “Office chairs” to be worse than a “competitor” who sells the $40 version even with qualifying ad copy to wit “Starting at $499.”

The conversion rate is lower, the bounce rate is higher, so behavioral signals after the click incur a landing page quality penalty on top of the CTR penalty incurred by the qualifying ad copy. This double whammy may make it even tougher to compete.

Maybe that’s the “right” result for users, but maybe it takes away diversity of choices for those who actually read the copy.

At the end of the day, it appears likely that this change will primarily reward advertisers for doing what they should have done all along. Pick the best page among the available choices for your PPC landing pages, and design those pages for maximum effectiveness in monetizing traffic. If you’ve been doing that since day one, expect a bit of a boost in traffic in the coming weeks.

(Stock image via Shutterstock.com. Used with permission.)

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land.

Related Topics: Channel: SEM | Paid Search Column


About The Author: is Co-Founder and Chief Marketing Scientist of RKG, a technology and service leader in paid search, SEO, performance display, social media, and the science of online marketing. He also writes for the RKG Blog. Follow him on Twitter at @georgemichie1.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+


Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  


Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • Chas

    How much stock do you own in Google, or were you paid directly for this piece?
    Thankfully, I have found an alternative that actually serves the customers that provide their meal-ticket, instead of giving them 40 lashes, and it is out of the dictator, Goog’s reach.

  • http://www.stormstudios.co.uk Simon

    Will Google just be grading landing pages for pay-per-click web sites, or will ALL web sites be graded?

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Chas, no question that this is just more bad news for scam artists. I’m okay with that.

    Simon, great question. The heart of what Google tries to do is to match user searches to the most relevant pages available, so pretty clearly ‘yes’. The Panda updates have been about better identifying low quality pages and on the flip side, high quality pages.

    In some ways I think they’ve assumed that advertisers would pick good pages for themselves for all the reasons I outlined, but have found that in many instances they don’t. Ane, they’ve recognized the second-generation of AdSense Spam sites produce a lousy user experience and taint the sponsored links as a class. They’re trying to eliminate that threat to their business as well.

  • http://www.findmefaster.com Matt Van Wagner

    George – good analysis, as always.

    Sure hope Google gives much more transparency on LP QS than it does on KW QS.

    I’ve got many QS4 KWs that are my best converting KWs by far, and yet, because Google ties QS to the economics of the auction, I am likelye paying much more than I should be with a QS of 4. Clearly users view our pages as relevant or else they would not do business, so if Google’s wisdom of the crowd were always right, these KWs should be 10s.

    Now, as for landing pages. If Google are really serious about wanting to improve the quality of websites/landing pages in the eco-system, then Google should provide much greater transparency in how they develop their LP QS.

    Google should trust us that we will try to game the auction if we know too much. What could possibly be bad about knowing exactly – exactly – why a LP is considered to be sub-par (or super-par, for that matter)

    Microsoft’s AdCenter’s approach to QS for LP is to give as much info to the advertiser as it can – aka transparency – without punishment by tying QS into their economic model in the auction. I prefer that approach because it implies equality and trust between them and their advertisers.

    How can Google possibly determine what LPs will work without applying conversion rate data?
    Conversion rate (CVR) is to LPs what CTR is to ads. CTR is clearly king on ad relevance for Google’s auction model. Why wouldn’t Google want to apply the same ‘wisdom of the crowd” calcluation apply to LPs?

    How can Google possibly avoid the temptation to use, even in a generalized sense, conversion rates of page types in modelling best practices? How can a best practice for a LP NOT include conversion rate as a strong criterion?

    In general, I am in favor of good advice from trusted, respected business partners, even if delivered in heavy-handed, data-driven and costly ways like Google’s QS does for ad auctions.

    I just hope that Google will find a way to be much more open and enlightening about what it likes or dislikes about a particular page.

  • http://www.findmefaster.com Matt Van Wagner

    Oops, I meant to say, “..Google should trust us to NOT game the auction…” in my comment above…

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Thanks for the excellent comments, Matt. I agree with you that conversion rates are the ultimate metric for determining the quality of the user experience in eCommerce and for lead gen folks. It’s a bit trickier for publishers and information sites that make money off of page views and time on site. Moreover, Google simply won’t have conversion data for many of its advertisers who won’t share that info. Giving preferential treatment to folks who share conversion information might open up a whole can of FTC issues.

    Interesting to see how this plays out, but if my read is right folks like you and me are already taking care of this to the degree that Google expects us to. This may just serve to help those who manage campaigns well and punish the sloppy and slothful.

  • http://about.me/alexedlund Alex Edlund

    Great analysis George.

    To Matt’s point, it seems to me that if Google is really trying to assign a quality score of a landing page, they need to include metrics that matter. Bounce rate is one of the best metrics in determining relevancy and user engagement. Still, I don’t envy them for taking on this task.

  • http://ReachableHQ.com Charles

    This is great for anyone who has already been using well crafted landing pages. The key here is “Does this page match the user’s intent?”. Google is trying to do this as best as possible, when it does it is good for Google, good for the user (the searcher) and good for you (the site owner).

    Even starting with a page title that closely matches the PPC ad’s promise will help the conversion rate. We have talked about this before on our site (http://reachablehq.com/blog/how-to-choose-a-landing-page-title/). — ‘Google’s guidelines are that “Users should be able to easily find what your ad promises”. A page title that closely matches your ad text is a great place to start.’

  • http://jamesbutler.net James

    Mr. Mitchie,

    Your comment: “…they’ve recognized the second-generation of AdSense Spam sites produce a lousy user experience and taint the sponsored links as a class. They’re trying to eliminate that threat to their business as well.”

    If only that were true … but it isn’t, because AdSense spam sites are big money-makers for Google. In fact, just the opposite is true. (http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=50002) AdWords reps even argue that clicks from “parked domains” are MORE valuable than clicks from Google Search, because the “parked domains” are so single-topic focused. (Totally unsupported, in my lengthy experience.)

    The real problem is that Google heavily values AdSense spam sites (a.k.a. “parked domains”).

    Google, bless them, is simply using spin terminology (“good user experience”) to try and communicate one of the challenges they face as a somewhat-indiscriminate advertising vendor: What do you do when a substantial percentage of your customers (advertisers) simply game your system?

    The first answer is … make them part of your Network! Instant validation! Problem gone!

    With this latest pronouncement, Google says that the landing pages should be “higher quality”, implying or else they will punish the advertiser by (a) making their ad less visible and/or (b) making it more expensive for the advertiser to participate.

    And that’s Google’s prerogative as an ad vendor, for sure, but if they are serious, then “parked domains” should be entirely out of their Network. Until that happens, all of their statements about “quality” need to be taken with a big grain of salt. “Do as I do” needs to come into play, somewhere, or else it’s all just weaseling.

  • http://www.rimmkaufman.com George Michie

    Alex, Charles, thanks for your comments.

    James, your point is very interesting. I do think Google struggles to algorithmically differentiate between quality sites and well-crafted spam. That said, I really do believe they have enough vision to want to protect the user experience. If customers sour on sponsored links it’s game over for Google. The whole reason Google created QS and its original minimalist landing page component was to eradicate AdSense Spam pages, and it largely worked. The well disguised pages survived though as you point out.

    The auction dynamic is complex. The fact that spammers are big spenders on AdWords doesn’t mean Google would lose much money by crushing them. Other higher quality listings move up the page and take that traffic, so Google’s loss is ‘only’ the delta on the CPCs, not the whole amount.


Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest


Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States


Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech

Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!



Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide