The Pause Rulebook's concepts, translated to search terms: when a query becomes a negative keyword, when it never can, and how the "usa map" problem is handled. A negative is more permanent than a pause, so the bar is higher and the review loop is stricter.
Hover or tap any Like this. Every icon on the page opens the definition or the arithmetic behind the number or rule next to it. for the calculation behind a number or a rule.
A paused product type keeps generating data around it, expires after 90 days, and reverts on its own. A negative keyword does none of that. The moment it is applied, the traffic stops and so does the data: there is no report showing what a negative blocked or what it would have earned. You cannot re test a negative without removing it. So three things change:
A search query can declare its intent in words, which a product never can. Intent routing happens before any performance math, in both directions.
Cheap high volume traffic makes conversion rate meaningless. Every verdict is ACoS: what it cost against what it returned.
Because a negative silences its own evidence, the whole list is re justified quarterly against a 12 month window, and negatives that no longer hold are removed.
Anyone typing "bulk" or "wholesale" is someone we want in front of, full stop. The interesting work is everything else.
| Lane | Signals | What happens | The evidence at WSD, 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declared for us | bulk, wholesale, case of, pallet, reseller, distributor, liquidation, piece counts | Protected. Never negated, at any performance. A qualified term that loses money is an Investigate item: a landing page, pricing, or bidding problem. Blocking declared B2B demand treats our conversion problem as the buyer's fault. | 8,658 terms · $49,864 57% of search spend$49,864 ÷ $86,948 visible search spend = 57.3%CVR = orders ÷ clicks within the lane. ACoS = lane cost ÷ lane conversion value. 2.87% CVR · 15% ACoS |
| Declared against us | brands we do not stock, freebie intent (free, printable, template, diy, clipart, how to) | The fast lane. The only relevance based negatives. Eligible at a $5 per year floor because the query names the wrong buyer in its own words.Fast lane floor. The 12 month spend of every query the phrase would block must reach $5. Intent is already declared against us, so no performance test applies; the floor only keeps one click noise off the list.pool spend over 12 months ≥ $5 Every candidate still passes the guardrails below. | WSD test run: 5 phrases · ~$7/mo 5 held by guardrails |
| Marketplace names | amazon, walmart, temu, dollar tree, five below, costco, etsy and the rest | The evidence gates, same as ambiguous. Moved out of the fast lane on the owner's call: a person searching a marketplace can still be our buyer comparison shopping, so marketplace names must prove they lose money before they are blocked. The first test run proved the point, see below. | WSD test run: 0 of 27 qualified to block dollar tree converts at 31% ACoS |
| Brands we stock | hanes, fruit of the loom, gildan, disney and the rest of the carried brands | The evidence gates, monthly. Stocked no longer means untouchable, on the owner's call: a brand we carry still has to earn its spend. Failing brands usually route to Investigate rather than a block, because a brand phrase would also silence its bulk and wholesale searches. | WSD test: hanes left alone at 25% ACoS fruit of the loom flagged at 57% |
| Ambiguous | everything else: "socks", "backpacks", "usa map", terms with no qualifier either way | The evidence lanes below. This is the pool where a general consumer and a business buyer type the same words. No single query here is ever judged alone. | 23,969 terms · $33,479 1.31% CVR · 14% ACoS |
The variations trap: some versions of a query convert, most do not. Here is what that looks like for real.
Judged one query at a time, nearly the entire map cluster looks dead and gets negated. Judged as what it actually is, one pool of near free traffic hitting a placemat product that schools buy by the case, it is the cheapest revenue in the account. The same trap runs in reverse: a phrase can look fine on its converting variations while the negative you write would also block them. Two rules follow:
A phrase negative blocks every query containing that word sequence. So the thing we evaluate is never a query, it is the entire pool of traffic the proposed negative would block, pulled from 12 months of terms plus the PMax export. If the pool earns its keep, there is no negative, no matter how many individual variations sit at zero.
The map cluster converts at 0.11%. It is also the best ROAS in the account, because the clicks cost a cent and the orders are $600+ case purchases. Conversion rate is not a verdict on anything. Cluster ACoS is the only performance test a negative candidate faces.
The exact match scalpel. There is a second way past "can't carve", because negative keywords do not expand to close variants the way normal keywords do: an exact match negative [backpacks] blocks only that literal query (plus misspellings), never "bulk backpacks", "backpacks wholesale", or even the singular "backpack". So when a phrase pool is protected by its converters, the bare query can still be judged on its own evidence and blocked alone if it fails. Plural and singular are separate negatives and are listed as a pair. The reach is limited by design: it removes one query's spend, not the pool's, and at this account the failing pools live almost entirely in the long tail. The bare query "school" is $5 of its $1,206 pool.
The carve out, translated. Products get carved out of a type exclusion; queries get carved out by narrowing the phrase. If "usa map" as a pool failed, we would not negate "usa map", we would look for the word that separates the failing traffic from the converting traffic ("printable usa map", "usa map tattoo") and negate only that. And if no word sequence separates them, there is no negative: traffic that cannot be carved cleanly is a bidding and landing page problem, not a blocking problem. Can't carve, can't cut.
Every candidate phrase, always evaluated as the full pool it would block. First exit wins.
| Rule | Threshold | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Fast lane floorFast lane floor. The 12 month spend of every query the phrase would block must reach $5. No performance test applies because the query names the wrong buyer itself.pool spend over 12 months ≥ $5 | $5 / 12 months | Intent is already declared against us; the floor just keeps the list from filling with one click noise. |
| Evidence floor, ambiguous poolCost per order is all visible search spend divided by all visible orders over the 12 months.$86,380 ÷ 1,989 orders = $43.43Spend floor = 2 × cost per order = $87. Spend path = 3 × = $130. Click floor = the clicks worth three expected orders at the ambiguous pool's own conversion rate. That rate is measured on unqualified, non brand, non freebie, non marketplace queries with the map cluster removed, because its near free clicks would drag the rate down and inflate the bar.ambiguous CVR ≈ 1.05% (map cluster excluded) click floor = 3 ÷ 0.0105 ≈ 287 clicksA pool clears the floor with spend ≥ $87 and any one of: clicks ≥ 287, spend ≥ $130, or 3+ orders landed. | spend ≥ 2x cost per order, plus one of: clicks ≥ 3 expected orders · spend ≥ 3x cost per order · 3+ orders landed | Three ways to earn a verdict. The click path suits cheap click pools; the spend path catches expensive click pools that would never reach the click count (a $3 per click pool with zero orders on $130+ is not luck); three landed orders make the pool's ACoS itself trustworthy. At WSD the numbers are $87, 287 clicks, $130. |
| Losing moneyACoS is ad spend divided by the conversion value it produced. For a candidate phrase both are summed over every query the phrase would block, 12 months, Shopping and Search.pool ACoS = pool cost ÷ pool conversion value losing money if above 0.35Conversion rate (orders ÷ clicks) is never a verdict: the map cluster converts at 0.11% and is the best return in the account. | pool ACoS above 35% | Same gate as the pause rules. Judged on the whole pool the phrase would block. Conversion rate is never consulted. |
| Fine last yearFine last year is the same pool over the same 12 months one year earlier.LY pool spend ≥ $50 and LY pool cost ÷ LY pool value ≤ 0.35 → InvestigateUnder $50 last year is no evidence either way and the test is skipped. | LY ACoS ≤ 35% on $50+ | A pool that worked in this window last year is an Investigate item, not a negative. |
| ConfirmationConfirmation. An ambiguous pool phrase is applied only if it fails gates 4 to 6 on two consecutive monthly sweeps, each over its own trailing 12 months. A single failing reading puts it on the confirmation list, not the account. | two consecutive monthly runs | Because a negative cannot be re tested without removing it, nothing in the ambiguous pool is blocked on one reading. |
| Peak guardPeak guard. Each phrase is matched to the product category its traffic lands on. No new negative is applied if that category's indexed peak month is within 60 days. The index is the same one the pause rules use: for each year 2022 to 2025, a month's orders ÷ that year's orders × 12, averaged across years; the peak is the highest month.no block if days to category peak ≤ 60 | no new negative within 60 days of the matched category's peak | Seasonal search demand gets the same protection seasonal products get. |
| Converter protectionAOV is a query's conversion value divided by its conversions. The phrase is rejected if any converting query inside its pool has AOV of $100 or more, or contains a bulk or wholesale qualifier.query value ÷ query orders ≥ $100 → protected any qualifier match → protectedRejected phrases go to narrowing: find the word that separates the failing traffic from the converter. | AOV ≥ $100, or any bulk/wholesale qualifier | The standing owner rule: a phrase is rejected if it would block any converter meeting either test. |
"usa map" blocks every query containing those two words in that order, including ones that convert. Every candidate is tested pessimistically, plural and possessive aware, against 12 months of terms plus the PMax export, for everything it could block. Pessimistic about what it blocks, conservative about what it claims to save.
The feed decides which lane a brand takes, not whether it is safe. A brand we do not carry rides the fast lane; a brand we stock goes through the evidence gates monthly, because carrying Hanes is not a reason to fund Hanes searches that never buy. A stocked brand block carries an extra flag: blocking "hanes" would also block "hanes wholesale", so the review always shows the declared B2B sub pool a brand negative would silence. Failing stocked brands usually route to Investigate, and any brand negative that does ship is re argued at the quarterly review like every other. The feed check re runs monthly because stocking changes.
Some words mean two things: "staples" is a retailer and a thing both stores sell. A bare token like that is never negated; only a longer phrase that pins the meaning ("staples school supplies") can be. When the junk traffic comes from a badly worded product title, it goes to the title program, not the negatives list.
High volume on brief terms that convert poorly ("bulk t shirts", "backpacks") are demand with a landing page or bidding problem; blocking them is self harm. And suppressing retail sized orders is a job for order minimums and value rules, not keywords.
Run 1 Sep 2026 over Sep 2025 to Aug 2026: $86,380 of visible search terms, 354,803 clicks, 1,989 orders. Bars computed live: cost per order $43, so the spend floor is $87 and the click floor is 287.Cost per order is all visible search spend divided by all visible orders over the 12 months.$86,380 ÷ 1,989 orders = $43.43Spend floor = 2 × cost per order = $87. Spend path = 3 × = $130. Click floor = the clicks worth three expected orders at the ambiguous pool's own conversion rate. That rate is measured on unqualified, non brand, non freebie, non marketplace queries with the map cluster removed, because its near free clicks would drag the rate down and inflate the bar.ambiguous CVR ≈ 1.05% (map cluster excluded)
click floor = 3 ÷ 0.0105 ≈ 287 clicksA pool clears the floor with spend ≥ $87 and any one of: clicks ≥ 287, spend ≥ $130, or 3+ orders landed.
Coverage, stated honestly: Google's API only reports search terms with cost for Shopping and Search campaigns, and Performance Max is 72% of this account's spend ($427K of $595K in the window). So this sweep saw about 15% of the account's traffic directly.PMax share = $427K ÷ $595K = 72%
visible to the sweep = $86K ÷ $595K = 14.5%search_term_view reports cost only for Shopping and Search campaigns. PMax search terms carry conversions but no cost through the API, and about half sit in a blank rollup. PMax was checked through its category labels, which carry conversions but no cost and hide half the detail in a blank rollup. That check already pulled two proposals back (below). Every remaining proposal is provisional until it clears a PMax search terms export from the Ads interface, which carries the full data the API withholds. The 17 PMax campaigns at $5K+ cover 92% of PMax spend and are the export worth doing.
| Result | What the gates found | In GoogleMatch types, Google syntax. [socks] = exact: blocks only that literal query and its misspellings "goodfellow" = phrase: blocks any query containing that word sequence goodfellow = broad: blocks any query containing all the words, any orderNegative keywords never expand to close variants, so an exact negative does not touch plurals or added words. Every fast lane proposal is phrase match: it should block every query containing the term. Struck through = a candidate the gates considered and held; it is not applied. | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propose, fast lane | 7 phrases, all zero conversions on visible spend: goodfellow (Target's house brand, the biggest at $125), levis, george, calvin klein, burlington, how to, carhartt. Unstocked brands and freebie intent only. Provisional until the PMax export clears them. | "goodfellow""goodfellow" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 13 queries $125 spend · 31 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $8 at no ordersTarget's house brand, not stocked. Zero orders on visible spend, zero last year, nothing in PMax. Fast lane: intent is declared against us, so only the $5 floor applies. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "levis""levis" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 20 queries $44 spend · 39 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $31 at no ordersBrand we do not stock. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "george""george" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 14 queries $15 spend · 21 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $6 at no ordersWalmart's house brand, not stocked. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "calvin klein""calvin klein" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 3 queries $13 spend · 3 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $1 at no ordersBrand we do not stock. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "burlington""burlington" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 7 queries $8 spend · 8 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $0 at no ordersRetailer name, not stocked. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "how to""how to" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 9 queries $8 spend · 11 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $15 at no ordersFreebie intent: someone wanting instructions, not stock. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. "carhartt""carhartt" as a phrase negative.every query containing it, 12 months · 13 queries $7 spend · 17 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $4 at no ordersBrand we do not stock. Zero orders both years. Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. | $221 / 12mo · ~$18/mo |
| Guardrails held | nike and adidas stay: their pools contain $187 and $1,506 of protected conversions (bulk buyers search branded socks); "free" stays for the same reason. And the PMax category check pulled back two phrases the visible data had cleared: crocs converts in PMax ($3,905) and so does coloring ($1,432). Stocked brands are no longer auto protected; their verdicts are in the row below. | $243 spend · 136 clicks · 2.0 orders · $240 revenue · 102% ACoS same window last year: $417 at 21%Losing money as a pool, but the pool holds $187 of protected conversions: bulk buyers search branded socks, and a phrase negative would block them too.bulk nike socks · 1.0 order · $187 nike 袜子 · 1.0 order · $52 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 3.0 orders, $182. held $28 spend · 9 clicks · 2.0 orders · $1,506 revenue · 2% ACoS same window last year: $3 at no ordersTwo orders worth $1,506 on $28 of spend. A relevance based sweep would have negated an unstocked brand; the pool is the best return in the row.adidas socks · 2.0 orders · $1,506 Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. held $106 spend · 179 clicks · 5.1 orders · $203 revenue · 52% ACoS same window last year: $114 at 27%Looks like freebie intent, but "free" sits inside product names people buy: phosphate free detergent, fragrance free cleaner. $116 of protected orders in the pool.blanca nieves powder laundry deterge… · 1.0 order · $116 scrubbing bubbles free bathroom clea… · 1.0 order · $87 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 16.5 orders, $11,367. held $21 spend · 34 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $68 at 46%Clean on visible search terms: zero orders on 34 clicks. Pulled back by the PMax check, where the word converts. Performance Max categories carrying the word: 8.9 orders, $3,905. held $6 spend · 13 clicks · 0.0 orders · $0 revenue · no orders same window last year: $21 at no ordersClean on visible search terms: zero orders on 13 clicks. Pulled back by the PMax check, where the word converts. Performance Max categories carrying the word: 13.7 orders, $1,432. held | $7,146 protected |
| Stocked brands: measured, not shielded | 11 carried brands went through the gates instead of the old blanket protection. hanes earns its place on evidence: $673 at 25% ACoS, left alone. fruit of the loom ($754 at 57% ACoS) and gildan ($190 at 41%) cleared the floors and failed the money gate, but both are held by guardrails, so they go to Investigate (price, feed, bidding) rather than the block list. The rest sit under the evidence floors and watch. | $754 spend · 2,145 clicks · 11.3 orders · $1,312 revenue · 57% ACoS same window last year: $508 at 27%Cleared the evidence floor and failed the money gate at 57%. But the pool holds $1,109 of protected orders, so a block would cost more than it saves. Fine last year at 27%: something changed, so it goes to Investigate (price, feed, bids).fruit of the loom sweatpants · 2.0 orders · $458 fruit of the loom shirt · 1.5 orders · $253 fruit of the loom colored t shirts · 1.0 order · $234 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 22.7 orders, $3,766. investigate $190 spend · 321 clicks · 2.2 orders · $468 revenue · 41% ACoS same window last year: $285 at 40%Failed the money gate at 41%, but the pool holds $456 of protected orders. Last year 40%: not a new break, a stocked brand that has never quite earned its clicks. Investigate, not block.gildan t shirts · 2.0 orders · $456 gildan sweatshirt · 0.2 orders · $13 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 8.0 orders, $702. investigate "hanes""hanes", considered and held.every query containing it, 12 months · 391 queries $673 spend · 931 clicks · 9.2 orders · $2,642 revenue · 25% ACoS same window last year: $520 at 17%Left alone on evidence: 25% ACoS on $673, $2,642 of revenue. Stocked brands are no longer auto protected; this one simply passes.girls hanes underwear · 1.0 order · $2,060 hanes · 1.0 order · $198 hanes multicolor t shirts · 2.0 orders · $180 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 21.0 orders, $6,459. left alone | $2,642 hanes revenue kept 2 brands to investigate |
| Marketplaces: zero blocks | 27 marketplace names checked through the evidence gates. None qualified. dollar tree cleared both floors and exits "left alone" at 31% ACoS with $354 of visible orders, plus another $3,498 in PMax; walmart cleared the floors at 88% ACoS but its pool contains protected converters, so it is held for narrowing rather than blocked; everything else is below the evidence floors and watches. | $203 spend · 292 clicks · 5.8 orders · $232 revenue · 88% ACoS same window last year: $95 at no ordersCleared both floors and failed the money gate at 88%. Held because the pool contains a protected converter (a $117 order on "walmart marketplace"), so the phrase goes to narrowing: find the word that separates the failing traffic from that order.walmart marketplace · 0.8 orders · $117 walmart fleece scarf · 1.0 order · $58 oatmeal shampoo for dogs walmart · 1.0 order · $57 Performance Max categories carrying the word: no conversions. narrowing "dollar tree""dollar tree", considered and held.every query containing it, 12 months · 214 queries $109 spend · 398 clicks · 3.6 orders · $354 revenue · 31% ACoS same window last year: $61 at 35%The marketplace change in one row: a relevance sweep would have negated a store name. On evidence it exits left alone at 31% ACoS, with $320 of the pool's revenue coming from bulk buyers.dollar tree clothespins · 1.0 order · $202 dollar tree snack containers · 1.0 order · $118 soilove dollar tree · 0.5 orders · $24 Performance Max categories carrying the word: 28.4 orders, $3,498. left alone | 0 of 27 blocked |
| Exact match lane: two flags, both excused | Only two bare queries in the whole account clear the evidence bars at over 35% ACoS, and neither becomes a negative: [school supplies] ($260 at 242%) converted a $100+ case order and ran at 12% last year, and [socks] ($256 at 104%) ran at 14% last year. Both are Investigate items: the head queries broke this year, they are not bad queries. If a head query fails again next year with its excuse gone, the exact lane blocks it alone while every qualified variant keeps serving. | $260 spend · 83 clicks · 1.0 orders · $108 revenue · 242% ACoS same window last year: $87 at 12%242% ACoS on the bare query this year, but its one order was a $108 case purchase (protected at $100+ AOV) and it ran at 12% last year. A head query that broke, not a bad query: Investigate. investigate $256 spend · 151 clicks · 5.0 orders · $246 revenue · 104% ACoS same window last year: $274 at 14%104% ACoS on the bare query this year against 14% last year on similar spend. Same story: the head query broke this year. Investigate; if it fails again with its excuse gone, the exact lane blocks it alone. investigate | 0 blocked · both to investigate |
| Ambiguous pool: one flag | Every one, two and three word pool in the unqualified queries was measured: 238 pools clear the spend floor and about 90 run above 35% ACoS, so the waste is real. But nearly every failing pool is a generic word (school, backpacks, wool, black, cheap) whose traffic also contains bulk and wholesale converters, and no word sequence separates the two. Can't carve, can't cut: that spend is a bidding and landing page problem, and it echoes the traffic quality finding from the pause runs. The clean exits: "nike tech" converted fine last year and goes to Investigate, and the school cluster ($1,206 at 512% ACoS, with "school supplies" at 584%) is an investigate grade collapse that matches the school supply kits finding in the September pause run. | none applied | 0 blocked · 2 investigations opened |
Key: [exact match] · "phrase match" · broad match plain · struck = considered and held, not applied. The ⓘ on each keyword shows the 12 month numbers behind it: what the pool spent, what it returned, and the exact queries that protected it. The 7 phrase negatives above are the only proposals from this run.
What the test says about this account: Wholesale Sock Deals has almost no negatable waste in its search terms. The gates' biggest output was protection, not blocks: the marketplace change alone kept dollar tree and walmart traffic alive that a relevance based sweep would have negated. The account's real search problem remains the traffic quality story in the pause runs, not keywords.
The answer to "how often": candidates monthly, blocks confirmed a month later, the whole list re argued quarterly.
Runs with the pause run, same trailing window. Two sweeps, both needed: the wrong buyer lexicon, and off catalog relevance. Ambiguous pools that fail gates 4 to 6 go on the confirmation list.
Fast lane phrases apply after your review. Ambiguous pool phrases apply only if this is their second consecutive failing run. Everything lands in the account level negative list, which covers Shopping and Performance Max together.
Every negative is re justified against a fresh 12 month window, and removed if it no longer holds. This is not hypothetical: the year view already rescued "five below" and "dollar tree", both of which converted outside the 90 day window that nominated them.
The September and October reviews specifically clear the list against holiday demand, the same 60 day peak guard the pause rules use.
Same standing rule as the pause runs: nothing is blocked before you have seen it. Each month's proposed negatives arrive as a short list with the pool each phrase would block, what it spent, and what it returned. The running All Time Trading list, 27 phrases worth about $151 a month, is built exactly this way and is still awaiting application; the Wholesale Sock Deals test sweep above proposes 7 provisional fast lane phrases and nothing else.