<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Scobleizer]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://scobleizer.blog]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Robert Scoble]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://scobleizer.blog/author/scobleizer/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Advertisers must hate &#8220;accidense&#8221;]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>TDavid wins the &#8220;come up with a cool new word of the week&#8221; award for <a href="http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20051127/2674/">noticing &#8220;accidense.&#8221;</a> What&#8217;s that? That&#8217;s what happens when people accidentally click on Google Adsense ads (he noticed that some Google ads have more clickable whitespace than others, which increases the chance they&#8217;ll receive &#8220;accidense.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Oh, I&#8217;ve seen people accidentally click on ads. I wonder if Google is able to discern how much of this goes on? Usually it&#8217;s accompanied by a very fast click on the &#8220;Back&#8221; button.</p>
<p>Shel and I are seeing a very similar behavior. Turns out if you search Google for &#8220;Naked&#8221; our Naked Conversation site is the 14th item on that list and it&#8217;s <a href="http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Naked&amp;FORM=QBHP">#3 on MSN Search</a>. Almost every single one of those visits is a short term visit and people very rarely stick around.</p>
<p>This is an example of when picking a popular keyword isn&#8217;t exactly going to bring you the best results. I wonder how many commercial sites track their advertising effectiveness by how long the browser sticks around?</p>
]]></html></oembed>