Welcome!

Welcome to the official BlackBerry Support Community Forums.

This is your resource to discuss support topics with your peers, and learn from each other.

inside custom component

BlackBerry Advertising Service

Reply
Developer
pfluger
Posts: 100
Registered: ‎02-10-2009
My Device: Q10, Z10

Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

[ Edited ]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before. We have been using the BBAD Service for quite some time now. What we have been seeing is our request numbers jumping all over the place (10-fold up and down in a couple of days).

 

We have apps on other platforms using Admob and those huge jumps don't make sense. The request numbers we get on BBADS are also usually way too high compared with other platforms. 

 

Here is what I think is happening. 

 

BBADS doesn't count one banner request as one 'request'. Instead it counts each request for a banner to one ad feed (ad network) as one 'request'.

 

The problem with this is that a low inventory inflates the numbers of requests. Assume there are 10 ad feeds and your app asks for one banner. BBADs might have to try the first 9 feeds without result and only gets a banner at number 10. It will count this as 10 requests even though it was just for one banner display that in end end even got filled. (Hope this makes sense ;-))

 

So in this example you would have 10 requests, 1 impression and 10% fill rate, even though the request number is actually 1 and the fill rate is a perfect 100%.

 

If this is true the request and fill rate numbers would be totally unusable and make BBADS look worse than it is.

 

This would also explain why we always see the number of requests coming down whenever our number of impressions is up. (Better inventory, less need to check multiple feeds)

 

Maybe anyone has switched to another ad provider and can compare request numbers?

Please use plain text.
Contributor
samdonly1
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎11-17-2012
My Device: -

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

I am also fed up with BBAS, i am now planning to switch ad service, please if you find any good ad service then let me know too
Please use plain text.
New Developer
TungstenX
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎03-06-2009
My Device: Bold

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

This whole thing is confusing. My "net worth" over a year is jumping wildy, the other day it was $12 now it is $0.02

 

Also, the site seems unsable, as I frequenly get "No data to display" or "Download statistics failed. Try again later." when I go beck to the dashboard , or the little wheel just spins.

 

I'm prepeared to start searching for alternatives! 



There is no sex in your violence
Please use plain text.
BlackBerry Development Advisor (Retired)
gbeukeboom
Posts: 2,559
Registered: ‎10-16-2009
My Device: BlackBerry Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?


pfluger wrote:

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before. We have been using the BBAD Service for quite some time now. What we have been seeing is our request numbers jumping all over the place (10-fold up and down in a couple of days).

 

We have apps on other platforms using Admob and those huge jumps don't make sense. The request numbers we get on BBADS are also usually way too high compared with other platforms. 

 

Here is what I think is happening. 

 

BBADS doesn't count one banner request as one 'request'. Instead it counts each request for a banner to one ad feed (ad network) as one 'request'.

 

The problem with this is that a low inventory inflates the numbers of requests. Assume there are 10 ad feeds and your app asks for one banner. BBADs might have to try the first 9 feeds without result and only gets a banner at number 10. It will count this as 10 requests even though it was just for one banner display that in end end even got filled. (Hope this makes sense ;-))

 

So in this example you would have 10 requests, 1 impression and 10% fill rate, even though the request number is actually 1 and the fill rate is a perfect 100%.

 

If this is true the request and fill rate numbers would be totally unusable and make BBADS look worse than it is.

 

This would also explain why we always see the number of requests coming down whenever our number of impressions is up. (Better inventory, less need to check multiple feeds)

 

Maybe anyone has switched to another ad provider and can compare request numbers?


A request represents one call from your app to the mediation layer. The mediation layer works with the ad providers to find an ad for your app, but these inquiries do not constitute requests.

 

A Banner will make more requests over time, so based on the number of Banners present, their set refresh rate and number of users you could see multiple requests come in at once.

Garett
@garettBeuk
--
Goodbye everybody!
Please use plain text.
Contributor
samdonly1
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎11-17-2012
My Device: -

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

inneractive is working good for me, you also have the option of using javaScript Ad tag.

hoping it helps
Please use plain text.
Developer
pfluger
Posts: 100
Registered: ‎02-10-2009
My Device: Q10, Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

In the recent 2 weeks we have seen the fill rate rise considerably from somwhere in the single digits to now over 50%. Interestingly the number of impressions only doubled, (but at the same time our number of requests went down dramatically to only 10%) 

 

Here some samples from our ad stats:

 

Time range 1:

Requests: 2,190,213

Impressions: 17,884

Fill rate: 0.82%

 

Time range 2:

Requests: 579,349

Impressions: 42,683

Fill rate: 7.37%

 

Time range 3:

Requests: 108,014

Impressions: 64,337

Fill rate: 59.56%

 

This is definitely not the usage of our app going up and down that much. We have seen the correlation between fill rate and number of requests for quite a time now. Whenever the fill rate goes up, the number of requests drops and vice versa.

Please use plain text.
BlackBerry Development Advisor (Retired)
gbeukeboom
Posts: 2,559
Registered: ‎10-16-2009
My Device: BlackBerry Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

[ Edited ]

@

Garett
@garettBeuk
--
Goodbye everybody!
Please use plain text.
Developer
pfluger
Posts: 100
Registered: ‎02-10-2009
My Device: Q10, Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

[ Edited ]

This is mostly using the SDK for BB7.

 

Suppose I have set the ad refresh to 60 seconds. I would assume the SDK tries to load a banner every 60 seconds, if there is one or none doesn't matter, it will load again in 60 seconds. Shouldn't that be the expected behavior?

 

If I understand correctly you are saying that the SDK will automatically try reloading for an unspecified number of times right after failing to get a fill? Why would the system be expected to return a fill right after it failed to deliver one? Sounds a little bit like what I was writing in the original post of this thread?

 

The point is, this behavior wouldn't be common industry practice and totally messes up the numbers.

Please use plain text.
BlackBerry Development Advisor (Retired)
gbeukeboom
Posts: 2,559
Registered: ‎10-16-2009
My Device: BlackBerry Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?


pfluger wrote:

This is mostly using the SDK for BB7.

 

Suppose I have set the ad refresh to 60 seconds. I would assume the SDK tries to load a banner every 60 seconds, if there is one or none doesn't matter, it will load again in 60 seconds. Shouldn't that be the expected behavior?


It *should* be, however there could be a bug or someother logic issue. Tough to say without knowing more details. Have your metrics stabilized over time or do they continue to jump around?

Garett
@garettBeuk
--
Goodbye everybody!
Please use plain text.
Developer
pfluger
Posts: 100
Registered: ‎02-10-2009
My Device: Q10, Z10

Re: Requests / impressions misleading? Fill rate not as bad as it seems?

It has been jumping around for many months now. I think it started when some of the ad networks left (Millenial) and the fill rate went down.

Please use plain text.