 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wiseowlbookshop
Posts: 14
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:10 pm Post subject: Advertisements |
 |
|
I have a brand new store and ads are already appearing in three positions.
Other stores I have viewed at random are ad-free.
Is there some way to turn of ads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PegsBUTTONS
Posts: 733
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| could be because your images are to small? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SheilaDeesPostcards
moderator
Posts: 4620
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your main photos are too small in every item I viewed. Your main photo must be at least 250px on both sides or you will have ads on your page. Every item I viewed your main photo was less than 200px on both sides. Your photos need to be at least 800px on one side or your item will place lower in the marketplace search. Once your item is feed to Google Shopping, Google Shopping recommends a minimum size of 800px on both sides.
There are other reasons for having ads show on your item page in your store, but the size of your photos is the problem at this time. There is a list of reasons in a topic on the FAQ forum here in the community. I don't remember all of them, but one other big one is no activity in your store for more than 60 days.
Take a look at this item from CosmicRay:
http://cosmicray.ecrater.com/p/1666843/lego-7104-desert-skiff and you'll see how the photos should look. His main photo is 936px × 936px and can be seen at that size when zoomed. The system will reduce the photo for the item page and for the thumbnails. I used his item because he is using the same type template you are using and I wanted to see how your photos should display. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elpereles
Posts: 3430
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Waooo! I took a random item. Another small photo. Only 43 items. It isn't difficult to update. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wiseowlbookshop
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:19 am Post subject: Advertisements |
|
|
PegsBUTTONS, SheilaDeesPostcards and elpereles
Thank you all for the inspection and suggestions.
A few days ago, I had discovered a forum topic on size and shape of images, suggesting that they needed to 1) be square and 2) be of a certain pixel ratio (I believe 250 somehow figured in to the advice).
Some contributors to the thread were dismissive of thumbnails which did not show the entire aspect of a product.
That not being acceptable to me, I experimented by downsizing more and dropping the edited PS image file into a square in MSPaint.
I have now resized the MSPaint square and increased the PS pixel width dimension to 350.
That seems to have worked for one book… now on to the other 42.
If you have any other suggestions to simplify the process, I would be grateful.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FoxAndFish
Posts: 1585
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Advertisements |
|
|
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | A few days ago, I had discovered a forum topic on size and shape of images, suggesting that they needed to 1) be square and 2) be of a certain pixel ratio (I believe 250 somehow figured in to the advice).
Some contributors to the thread were dismissive of thumbnails which did not show the entire aspect of a product. |
I think you might be getting tangled in a coupla different issues.
As Sheila said, to avoid (unwanted) ads in your listing, photos must be at least 250 px on each side.
Here are the issues that will trigger ads in the listing:
http://community.ecrater.com/viewtopic.php?t=16812
This is a different issue than allowing ads in the listing.
See http://community.ecrater.com/viewtopic.php?t=28046
To place well in the eCrater marketplace and satisfy Google Shopping, photos should be at least 800 px on each side.
See: https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/188494
About photos being square. The thumbnails in our listing are basically square. And some sellers get agitated when their entire product doesn't show in the thumbnail. If a seller sells a basically square product that lends itself to a basically square photo, such as a toy box or book, then it's not a big deal. There are sellers, however, who sell products that do not fit comfortably into a basically square thumbnail format. So their options are either to grossly distort the image by adding a lot of white space, which does not do service to displaying the product...or to focus in a smaller detail of the product that lends itself more readily to a basically square format for the first image...or to just trust that buyers understand that a thumbnail doesn't represent a whole product and create images that best represent the product being sold.
So, short version: you do not have to have square photos if your products are not well represented by square photos. If your product do shoot well as squares, no issue with thumbnails.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | If you have any other suggestions to simplify the process, I would be grateful. |
My way of simplifying the process is to not let the tail wag the dog. I shoot the best quality images of my products I can so that customers get the best possible sense of what is being offered...and don't really care what shape they are. I also don't really care what size they are. Many of my photos were taken in 2007-08, before Google decided it wanted to rule the e-commerce search universe by imposing ridiculous and ever-changing "recommendations" that benefit Google over its consumers. As we learned with attributes, which many of us tediously filled in based on Google's "recommendations"...only to have the "recommendations" change thereafter... constantly tweaking to Google's tune is time-consuming and wasteful.
But that's just me. If you want to avoid ads and comply with all the "recommendations," then you need to shoot and/or edit to fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmicray
Posts: 7286
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
@wiseowlbookshop
I picked one item at random
http://wiseowlbookshop.ecrater.com/p/20847377/a-selection-of-dishes-and-the-chefs-reminder
The main image is 478px × 572px
The current suggestion is one dimension has to be a minimum of 800px. The recommended image size has changed over time, so you may want to ignore older posts in the Community.
Making your images square has an added benefit, but that does not remove the 800px recommended minimum (above). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wiseowlbookshop
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:01 am Post subject: Marketplace Exposure |
|
|
FoxAndFish
I suppose I will need to make a decision regarding how much exposure I want from eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping. I am indeed one of those who prefers a thumbnail of the entire item, and, as of yet, I have not discovered a means of making it so unless the PS pixel width dimension is no greater than about 325. I have provided additional full-pixel images for some books. Do you know if that will satisfy eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping, or must the default image conform to the 800 px minimum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FoxAndFish
Posts: 1585
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmicray wrote: | | The current suggestion is one dimension has to be a minimum of 800px. |
Here's what Google says about its photo size "recommendation" of 800px at https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/188494 , which I assume is current :
"We recommend images at least 800 pixels in height and width."
Here's what you (Cosmic) said about that dimension issue in July at http://community.ecrater.com/viewtopic.php?t=34835 (emphasis yours):
"That, if correct, is new. That means that both dimensions need to be 800px or larger. Sigh."
Again, it's a recommendation. Not a requirement. A bit further down in that forum thread cited above, I quoted an eCommerceBytes article that says:
"Will Google reject product ads that don't comply with these new requirements once they take effect in September? A Google spokesperson told EcommerceBytes the image quality tips, including use of background colors, are recommendations to help improve the quality of images shown on Google Shopping, and are not mandatory."
So, summary: Google recommends that both dimension be 800px. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FoxAndFish
Posts: 1585
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Marketplace Exposure |
|
|
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | I suppose I will need to make a decision regarding how much exposure I want from eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping. |
Traffic has declined so sharply since Google started messing with its algorithm in 2010, which was the first algorithm change (MayDay) that really damaged (some) eCrater sellers, that the more exposure the better. That said, there are limits to how much time in a day can be devoted to snapping attention to Google, so it's the individual seller's decision.
Specifically as for attention in Google Shopping: now that it's pay-to-play, and we don't know what eCrater is spending its money on, it's hard to know if anything we do will have an effect. Based on Google attribute "recommendations," I carefully filled in ISBNs for hundreds of books. For a while, a few years ago, Google Shopping was organizing books by ISBN, so my book would be listed in the results with every other seller selling that book with the same ISBN. Not great, but visible after a fashion. Now, when I (rarely) search on my books' ISBNs, usually nothing shows up. So is that Google re-organizing its search results or eCrater not paying for that ISBN or who knows what? This is why I don't let the tail wag the dog. There's too much we don't know and can't control...and what once was relatively straightforward is now out of control.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | I am indeed one of those who prefers a thumbnail of the entire item, and, as of yet, I have not discovered a means of making it so unless the PS pixel width dimension is no greater than about 325. |
Yeah, can't help you with that. If PS means PhotoShop, I don't understand why you can't make the image or canvas size whatever you want. But, again, I don't spend time resizing photos, so can't really say.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | Do you know if that will satisfy eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping, or must the default image conform to the 800 px minimum? |
According to my understanding of the current information, and I could always be wrong, a 325 x 325 px image will keep ads off your listings, b/c it meets eCrater's required minimum of 250 x 250 px. If you want so-called "better" visibility in eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping, then the "recommendation" is that the photo be 800 x 800 px. But again, there are other factors influencing placement in pay-to-play Google Shopping, so I can't swear that an 800 px photo is going to do you any good. It may, but I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmicray
Posts: 7286
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:12 am Post subject: Re: Marketplace Exposure |
|
|
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | FoxAndFish
I suppose I will need to make a decision regarding how much exposure I want from eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping. I am indeed one of those who prefers a thumbnail of the entire item, and, as of yet, I have not discovered a means of making it so unless the PS pixel width dimension is no greater than about 325. I have provided additional full-pixel images for some books. Do you know if that will satisfy eCrater marketplace and Google Shopping, or must the default image conform to the 800 px minimum? |
I'll try to present this is a way that is easily understood. There are two different issues involved here.
The first issue is how large your images are. The current requirement is at least 800px in one direction. Images that meet that goal are good for Google, and cause the listing to be ordered in the first group in the marketplace. Images that are smaller than that, but still have one dimension at least 500px, are ordered into a second group in the marketplace. Images that do not meet the 500px minimum, may be ordered in a last group in the marketplace (but this is conjectural).
The second issue is the shape (square or rectangular). Images which are rectangular (but not square) will be displayed on the product page correctly, but everywhere else the long dimension will be truncated/clipped to be the same as the short dimension. Everywhere else being marketplace results, store gallery, random products at the bottom of the listing page. making your images square will defeat this behavior (and prevent the clipping). For example, an image which is 800px tall and 600px wide, will be clipped to 600x600, then reduced to fit the appropriate tile. Adding 100px of white space (on either side) will make the image square (even if it still looks rectangular). The 800x800 image will then be reduced to fit the tile (and nothing important will be lost). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wiseowlbookshop
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:25 am Post subject: Uncertainties |
|
|
FoxAndFish
Reading from “New requirements for Google Shopping”
http://community.ecrater.com/viewtopic.php?t=34835
it might be interpreted that 800X800 is not a requirement for product exposure at Google:
My initial intention, with respect to eCrater marketplace, and Google Shopping specifically, is ambivalent. And if I understand the terms correctly, the only way service at Ecrater is 100% free is under a condition where no sales are driven from either eCrater marketplace or Google Shopping.
I have experimented extensively with pixel density an image size, using only MSPaint or PS, or combining them. Thus far, 325X325 on a square background yields the best result.
I defer to the wisdom of Ecrater sellers with considerable experience.
I certainly would prefer as many sales as possible, but also hope to minimize costs, in other words, as close to zero as possible. I have a bad taste in my mouth from Ebay.
It appears, that in some respects, if I understand correctly, it is difficult to determine what benefit accrues from compliance with Google specifications.
I do want to “get things right” from the very start. That’s why I am asking so many questions.
I may be making a mistake, but I believe I will take my chances now and, if it comes to that, pay for them in the future.
I am grateful for the generosity of advice from everyone.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A-Better-Way
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe the thumbnails are purposely cut off so some bot or person can't just swipe them en-mass and use them on another website. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FoxAndFish
Posts: 1585
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: Uncertainties |
|
|
That is also my interpretation. Recommendation, as opposed to requirement.
That said, the "recommendation" could change tomorrow. I take it as given that Google does nothing for anyone's benefit but its own...so all their blahblahblah about image size and background color and object size in the image etc is for them, not us, not our potential customers. I'm not working for them. If another set of "recommendations" work better for Google in the future, the "recommendations" could change.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | if I understand the terms correctly, the only way service at Ecrater is 100% free is under a condition where no sales are driven from either eCrater marketplace or Google Shopping. |
Correct. Your individual store is 100% free. The marketplace used to be 100% free also, until Google Shopping started pay-to-play...so eCrater began charging a modest 2.9% on product price only (not shipping) for sales thru the marketplace as of May 2013. The Google Shopping search results send viewers to the marketplace, not to your store.
See http://community.ecrater.com/viewtopic.php?t=33039
To get traffic to your store, rather than the marketplace, you need to promote heavily. But here's the little clump of dirt on the turnip. After Google assured its users that changes to Google Shopping would have no effect on Google organic search...guess what happened? Changes to Google Shopping affected Google organic search. And not for the better. So some eCrater sellers tend to show very poorly in organic search. Maybe some sellers still show up. I have not, with few exceptions, since 2010...and it got worse after pay-to-play Google Shopping was instituted. My sense is that if your marketplace presence is fed to Google Shopping, your individual store does not appear in Google organic. That's just my experience. So even if you promote, there's no guarantee your individual store will show up. I don't know what happens if you opt out of the Shopping feed...whether you'll show in organic search. I haven't tried it.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | I have experimented extensively with pixel density an image size, using only MSPaint or PS, or combining them. Thus far, 325X325 on a square background yields the best result. |
Good. So you should not have any more (unwanted) ads in your store.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | I certainly would prefer as many sales as possible, but also hope to minimize costs, in other words, as close to zero as possible. I have a bad taste in my mouth from Ebay. |
Understood (tho I've never sold on eBay and never will). However, while it came as somewhat of a surprise to many sellers that eCrater started charging a marketplace fee last year, and no one is happy about giving up income, I (for one) pay it gratefully (tho eCrater is not going to have to open a Swiss bank account on what they earn from me). eCrater is, hands down, the most straight-shooting, seller-oriented venue I've ever found...and I respect its founder for doing exactly what he said he was going to do: offering us little people a clean, simple site to sell our stuff. We are not nickle-and-dimed to death, we are not handcuffed by ridiculous rules, we are allowed to conduct business as adults, we have not gotten shafted nor are we constantly under threat of getting shafted. There are very few venues like that. So if eCrater wants 2.9% of my marketplace sales, they can have it.
| wiseowlbookshop wrote: | | It appears, that in some respects, if I understand correctly, it is difficult to determine what benefit accrues from compliance with Google specifications. |
Yes, true. Some sellers here used to say they never got sales thru Google Shopping so didn't care about compliance anyway. But see above. If you can make yourself visible in Google organic search, great. Otherwise, Google Shopping is the current conduit for sending customers to eCrater, and that's to the marketplace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A-Better-Way
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My regular google search is up, direct ? organic ? I think they call it in analytics.
Bing and yahoo are doing better also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
