<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The ClickEquations Blog - Latest Comments in The Perfect Match Type</title><link>http://clickequations.disqus.com/</link><description>Paid Search Marketing and Analytics</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:18:13 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Perfect Match Type</title><link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2008/06/the-perfect-match-type/#comment-8711696</link><description>Thomas - I wrote a post about that very issues - &lt;a href="http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/01/the-match-type-separation-rap/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/01/the-...&lt;/a&gt; - I believe in separating match types by Ad Group, and have done it with campaigns of 250K KW and higher.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">craigdanuloff</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:18:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Perfect Match Type</title><link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2008/06/the-perfect-match-type/#comment-8618648</link><description>Hi Craig,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;thank you for this great article about match types. It was really a pleasure to read it.&lt;br&gt;But I wonder about one thing: You mention to put every match-type to a single adgroup, so you can analyze adgroups and figure out different performances etc.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But how do you structure your whole account then? Do you put all keywords with the same match-type and the same subject to one adgroup or do you put every keyword with its match-type to one adgroup - so you would get a bunch of adgroups in the end?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To be more exact: I'm managing accounts with around 70.000 keywords (yes, already same keyword with different match-types) and I'm thinking about re-structuring it. So my question is, what would be the perfect account structure in the end?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks in advance for your feedback and keep up the good work!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Best,&lt;br&gt;Thomas</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Thomas</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:27:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Perfect Match Type</title><link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2008/06/the-perfect-match-type/#comment-4454148</link><description>you exactly right, thanks for the theory</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">pinayseo</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:29:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Perfect Match Type</title><link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2008/06/the-perfect-match-type/#comment-964597</link><description>BRILLIANT - really helped clear up some confusion!!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sandra</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:01:14 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>