Talk:Google Ads

Unexplained content removal

@Graywalls: could you explain the rationale behind two of your recent edits to this page, removing Cost section entirely and gutting Conversion tracking? Both of your changes refer to WP:UNDUE, which makes no sense as no conflicting points of view are involved. Did you mean something else?

You also seem to hint that sources are problematic, but what is the exact problem with the sources' reliability in these instances? If one were to follow the reasoning from the edits' comments and do a blanket removal of all parts of this article that reference Google's own WP:PRIMARY sources and expert blogs, that would pretty much leave two sections: "Use by fossil fuel companies for greenwashing" and "Use by Israel".

I may be biased because I wrote one of the removed paragraphs, but I do fail to see how one could talk about Google Ads conversion tracking mentioning enhanced conversions and third-party offline data and not mentioning click ids (as Conversion tracking does after your edit), and neither how you can have an encyclopaedic article on Google Ads that doesn't mentioned that ad prices on the platform are determined by an RTB auction (which was explained in the Cost section).

Whatever the difference of opinions on the sources might be, these edits are not an improvement. --PaulT2022 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel that if it was relevant, it would have been picked up by other sources. Articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources, because it's not a manual or a website of the article subject company. WP:PSTS Graywalls (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This is such a non-answer.

The Conversion tracking part you removed was picked by a multitude of WP:SECONDARY expert blogs and trade publications, one of which was referenced, so 'Articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources' has no bearing. (The referenced primary sources were to provide additional primary reference.) Have you actually looked into what secondary sources exist and what they say before removing?

You also ignored the crux of my question: 95% of this article, with the exception of "Use by fossil fuel companies for greenwashing" and "Use by Israel", is based on WP:PRIMARY or trade sources. Are you implying WP:TNT per WP:PSTS is needed? If not, then you must have had other motivations for removing some primary-sourced parts of the article and not the others, which you didn't disclose in the edit comments. --PaulT2022 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you could only source it to google published and related materials; it's probably undue. Just because things are verifiable doesn't mean they ought to be included and this is another reason having secondary source coverage is important, because it gauges things having taken notice by independent parties. Who decided inclusion of all this, based on Google sources? Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It was decided by editors at their discretion, as always.

You keep implying that these are very obscure topics with no significant independent coverage. They're anything but, and the only thing your comments demonstrate is that either have done no own research into existing WP:SECONDARY coverage or misrepresenting what you found.

Google Ads use of click IDs for conversion tracking was discussed in detail by WSJ, for example: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579479672289163220

Bidding in Google Ads is an even bigger topic, covered as a whole and described as a core of Google's ad/search business (https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-googles-advertising-dominance-is-drawing-antitrust-scrutiny-11560763800), as well as having various facets of the technology covered in press like Wired, FT and Bloomberg regularly (for example: https://www.wired.com/story/google-dv360-banned-audience-segments-national-security/).

Whatever your motivations for trigger-happy removal of those sections were, stating that these topics don't get secondary coverage is completely disingenuous. --PaulT2022 (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

So, fix it by reintroducing it with secondary coverage, and only to the extent covered in secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't broken. As you correctly say on NPOV noticeboard, there's no blanket ban on use of primary sources and, as far as I understand, reliability of the sources and verifiability aren't being questioned.

I agree with the framing of this article's issues in your NPOV post. There's a lot of space to improve this article. I'd have even understood if someone were to make a WP:TNT argument based on an orthodox interpretation of WP:PSTS. I'm only saying that removing parts of the article without explaining why you chose to remove some content referenced to primary sources while keeping the rest intact and then offering others to 'fix' the article after your edits by reintroducing removed content with different citations doesn't improve the article and isn't very collaborative. --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Because, like every other article, WP:TIND. It's an unrealistic expectation that someone make all the changes all in one edit. Just because you find trash and you pick it up as a good citizen, that doesn't build an obligation for you to pick absolutely everything. All Wikipedia articles are indefinitely work-in-progress. Graywalls (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

@PaulT2022:, The Conversion tracking part you removed was picked by a multitude of WP:SECONDARY expert blogs and trade publications, one of which was referenced. Which specific source are you referring to as an "expert blog" just so that we are both looking at the same source? Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the referenced Able CDP blog, which was the best available source at the time of writing (due to substantial 2021 changes since e.g. WSJ article was published). There's a multitude of similar publications by other companies in the industry if you Google 'gclid wbraid gbraid'. All of these are both independent from the article subject and WP:SECONDARY in relation to Google's actions. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@PaulT2022:, Having reviewed it again, it doesn't even name the author so it's kind of hard to evaluate the author for their expertise or WP:USEBYOTHERS. I'm not seeing how it would have been an appropriate sourcing. When editors come across something like this, it's reasonable to remove it. If it's not incorrect, but established source is found, replacing it with the more reliable source is a generally accepted good editing practice. I'm not seeing "Able CDP" which you said is an "expert blog" referenced in books and nothing beyond passing mentions in web sources. Who authors it and why do you call it an expert source? Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't used to support any facts that Google's own website doesn't state. I used this source to make it clear that the sentence cited to is consistent with how it is understood in the industry and not something that an editor synthesized from 5 different pages of Google Ads website.

I understand your allusion to how it doesn't quite meet the WP:RS/SPS threshold, but the same guideline also says Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. In my opinion, the source that was used (or any equivalent source, as suggested) is sufficiently reliable to verify that the summary of the tracking process in the article is adequate and doesn't contain WP:SYNTH. It wasn't used to support anything contentious that can't be verified at Google's own website or via a multitude of similar industry WP:SECONDARY sources available. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@PaulT2022: I don't see the source cited by others. I don't know who authors it. You still haven't said who the author is. There's no indication it's more than one of the many run of the mill blog/websites on the internet. Do you happen to know who authored it? Just because I haven't heard of the author doesn't make them a non-expert, but the lack of author's name and the lack of others referring to the Able CDP site as a authoritative source means it's a self-published source or a user generated content. Graywalls (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's the argument is about now. I just said it's a WP:SPS myself. But it's a company from the industry, not a 'run of the mill blog', and I considered its use being reasonable for what it's used to support (because it's consistent with other self-published industry publications providing similar WP:SECONDARY coverage of the topic, as well as Google's own website which spreads the same facts across multiple pages). In my opinion, using it (or a similar self-published, but current WP:SECONDARY) would be preferable to omitting this information in the article or using the WSJ article as a source, as information in the latter, while correct at the time of publication more than a decade ago, is now outdated.

I think it'd be reasonable if I stop participating in this discussion at this point and leave the matter to other editors. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@PaulT2022:, Please identify the author and some information on where to find some references to the source in question so others can determine whether it's proper per WP:EXPERTSPS. If the source in question was an article about tuning cars on a fictional website called Lightning Fast Speed Racing written without an author's name; providing author's name or some background on the company would allow others to determine if it's just a run of the mill blog/personal website (which we almost never use on Wikipedia per WP:UGC and WP:QS) or someone/company considered credible source. Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

questionable sourcing

I have removed contents from the controversy section that was sourced to Google's policy, then asserted said policy is controversial using a super bloggy Medium (website) which is considered unreliable per community consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible AI-generated content

@Caleb22022: Was this section of this article generated by a large language model? Jarble (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jarble:, seems highly likely. I removed the section, because it was written entirely from Google controlled sources anyways and the editor has no other substantial edit, so the account is question is possibly a single purpose account. Graywalls (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)