There’s an interesting bit in Cringely’s 13 October 2005 piece re Google AdWords. Scroll down past his video iPod conversation and read the AdWords study and the quote from Google:

We are not intentionally introducing “noise factors” or any other perturbations in the style the proposed theory suggests to affect near-term or long-term revenues.

I know it’s not quite as exciting, but our model is pretty simple. We want our users to have the most relevant possible content, so we work really hard on an on-going basis to optimize end-user perceived quality. We want our advertisers to have a great return on their investment spent with us.

What’s interesting are two points. First, the results of the Taguchi analysis wherein the behaviour of the adwords system experienced a consistency blip would indicate something introduces variance runs into the system. Second is Google’s use of the word “perceived” with regard to the end user quality experience.

Cringely notes correctly:

Notice how in Jeff’s explanation, above, he said the AdWords system adjusts for maximum profitability for Google and “maximum user perceived quality for the advertisers.” Not the maximum return on investment for their AdWords budget. The key word is PERCEIVED.

And something appears to be introducing a variability into the system. It would be rational for Google to optimise its revenues by managing the variability in order to help bids for AdWords higher however per Cringley’s piece they appear to deny they are the responsible party. So what gives?

I’m not privy to the details of the analysis performed by Cringely’s friends so we can’t rule out an error on their part. Read Cringley’s piece and if you have any thoughts on what could be causing the variability feel free to private me your comment.