Summary
Google's Feedback Loop (FBL) is a tool designed to help senders identify and address the causes of spam complaints from Gmail users, with the ultimate goal of improving email quality and sender reputation. FBL relies on DKIM authentication, and the DKIM selector must be published in the Feedback-ID header, structured as `Feedback-ID: a:b:c:SenderId`, where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are sender-defined identifiers, and 'SenderId' uniquely identifies the campaign. A key principle is that FBL data should not be used for list washing (suppressing complaining recipients); instead, senders should focus on improving list quality and terminating problematic customers. Google FBL identifiers should target customers, campaigns, or traffic types rather than individual recipients. High email volumes and consistent spam reporting are needed to generate FBL data. Using broader and narrower categories for identifiers can aid in achieving sufficient data aggregation. Best practices also include monitoring sending reputation and complaint rates, proper list segmentation, regular list cleaning, adherence to email compliance regulations, and ensuring meaningful, consistent Feedback-ID header implementation. Google might not share data with senders lacking a good reputation or if data aggregation isn't sufficient. Proper authentication, including DKIM, SPF, and DMARC, is critical.
Key findings
- FBL Purpose: Identifies campaigns generating spam complaints to improve email quality.
- DKIM Requirement: DKIM authentication is fundamental for FBL implementation and function.
- Header Structure: Feedback-ID header must follow a specific format for proper identification.
- No List Washing: FBL should not be used for suppressing complaining recipients.
- Volume Threshold: Sufficient email and spam report volume are necessary for FBL data generation.
- Segmentation Importance: Effective list segmentation and targeted content reduce spam complaints.
- Monitoring Relevance: Regularly monitoring sending reputation and complaint rates is crucial.
- Authentication Significance: Proper email authentication methods ensure deliverability and trust.
Key considerations
- Data Usage: Avoid using FBL data to simply suppress complaints; address the root causes.
- Identifier Choice: Choose identifiers that represent customers, campaigns, or traffic types.
- Data Aggregation: Ensure sufficient volume for identifier categories to achieve meaningful data.
- Sender Reputation: Maintain a good sender reputation to access FBL data.
- Compliance Adherence: Adhere to email compliance regulations to maintain a clean and engaged subscriber base.
- List Hygiene: Practice regular list cleaning to avoid spam complaints.
What email marketers say
11 marketer opinions
Google's Feedback Loop (FBL) provides insights into spam complaints, enabling senders to identify and address issues affecting their sender reputation. Effective FBL implementation involves proper email authentication (DKIM, SPF, DMARC), particularly DKIM, which FBL relies on for identification. Monitoring sending reputation and complaint rates through Google Postmaster Tools is crucial. Best practices include list segmentation, regular list cleaning, adherence to email compliance regulations (GDPR, CAN-SPAM), and correct Feedback-ID header implementation with consistent DKIM selectors. Google may not share data if the sender isn't reputable or if complaint volume is insufficient, requiring enough identifiers to report daily.
Key opinions
- Authentication: Proper email authentication (DKIM, SPF, DMARC) is critical for deliverability and FBL functionality.
- Segmentation: List segmentation and targeted content reduce spam complaints and improve engagement.
- List Hygiene: Regularly cleaning email lists and removing inactive subscribers improves deliverability.
- Complaint Monitoring: Monitoring sending reputation and complaint rates is essential for identifying issues.
- FBL Insights: FBL provides valuable insights into spam complaints, enabling senders to address issues.
- Header Implementation: Correct Feedback-ID header implementation with consistent DKIM selectors is crucial.
- Compliance: Adhering to email compliance regulations (GDPR, CAN-SPAM) reduces spam complaints and improves performance.
Key considerations
- Reputation: Google may not share FBL data if the sender isn't reputable.
- Volume: Sufficient email volume and complaint volume are required for FBL data generation.
- Identifier Consistency: Ensure DKIM selectors match in the Feedback-ID header.
- Complaint Rates: Monitor and address high spam complaint rates to maintain sender reputation.
- Niche Audiences: Hyper segment audiences for extremely targeted content.
Marketer view
Email marketer from SendGrid Blog explains that list segmentation is vital for sending relevant content, reducing spam complaints, and improving engagement. Proper segmentation ensures that recipients receive emails they are interested in.
23 Jan 2023 - SendGrid Blog
Marketer view
Email marketer from Reddit r/emailmarketing shares that one of the best ways to send targeted content is to really niche down and hyper segment your audiences based on their known characteristics.
12 Sep 2024 - Reddit r/emailmarketing
What the experts say
7 expert opinions
Google's Feedback Loop (FBL) is designed to help senders improve email quality by identifying campaigns generating spam complaints. FBL data should not be used for list washing; instead, senders should focus on improving list quality and terminating problematic customers. Identifiers in FBL should target customers, campaigns, or traffic types, not individual recipients. Google generates FBL reports only if an identifier is present in a sufficient volume of emails and spam reports. Using a mix of broad and narrow identifier categories can help achieve the necessary volume for aggregation. Proper implementation involves accurate DKIM setup and consistent Feedback-ID headers. Monitoring complaint rates and correctly authenticating mail are essential for effective FBL usage. The number of identifiers shared by Google can be found on the GPT Feedback Loop page.
Key opinions
- Purpose of FBL: FBL aims to improve email quality, not enable list washing.
- Identifier Usage: Use identifiers to track customers, campaigns, or traffic types, not recipients.
- Reporting Threshold: Sufficient email and spam report volume is required for FBL report generation.
- Identifier Categories: Use a mix of broad and narrow categories for better aggregation.
- DKIM Importance: Accurate DKIM setup is critical for FBL function.
- Header Implementation: Consistent Feedback-ID headers are essential.
Key considerations
- List Washing: Avoid using FBL data to suppress complaining recipients.
- Identifier Volume: Ensure sufficient volume for each identifier category.
- Monitoring: Regularly monitor complaint rates.
- Authentication: Properly authenticate mail using DKIM and other methods.
- Identifier Information: Consult the GPT Feedback Loop page for information on the number of identifiers shared by Google.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks suggests using broader and narrower categories for identifiers to get aggregates on categories that achieve enough volume.
24 Apr 2022 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks shares that under the GPT Feedback Loop page, you should see the number of identifiers Google is willing to share.
5 Jul 2021 - Email Geeks
What the documentation says
4 technical articles
Google's Feedback Loop (FBL) is a tool designed to help senders identify campaigns causing spam complaints among Gmail users. Key functionalities include authenticating email, identifying sending sources, and monitoring spam rates. Implementing FBL requires DKIM authentication, with the DKIM selector published in the Feedback-ID header. The Feedback-ID header must be structured as `Feedback-ID: a:b:c:SenderId`, where a, b, and c are sender-defined identifiers, and SenderId uniquely identifies the campaign. DKIM is fundamental to FBL, enabling mail providers to trace spam issues back to the original sender. High email volumes are necessary to generate FBL data.
Key findings
- FBL Function: Identifies campaigns generating spam complaints.
- Authentication: Requires DKIM authentication for implementation.
- Header Structure: Feedback-ID header must follow a specific structure: `Feedback-ID: a:b:c:SenderId`.
- DKIM Core: DKIM is the core technology enabling FBL.
Key considerations
- DKIM Selector: Publish the DKIM selector in the Feedback-ID header.
- High Volume: Requires high email volumes to generate FBL data.
- Identifier Definition: Define identifiers 'a', 'b', and 'c' in Feedback-ID to track relevant data.
Technical article
Documentation from Google Postmaster Tools Help details that to implement FBL, senders must authenticate their email using DKIM. The DKIM selector used to sign the email must be published in the Feedback-ID header. High volumes of email are required to generate FBL data.
25 Jul 2023 - Google Postmaster Tools Help
Technical article
Documentation from Google Postmaster Tools Help states that the Feedback-ID header should be structured as Feedback-ID: a:b:c:SenderId, where 'a', 'b', and 'c' are identifiers chosen by the sender, and SenderId is a unique identifier for the campaign.
13 Jun 2022 - Google Postmaster Tools Help
Are abuse reports and feedback loops (FBLs) still useful in email marketing, and how do they work with different email clients?
Can ESP clients sign up for Validity FBL and how do they validate their IPs/domains?
Do ISPs provide 'not spam' feedback data, and how can ESPs use it?
How can I accurately monitor complaint rates for email marketing using Google Postmaster Tools, Yahoo FBL, and my ESP?
How can I gain access to Yahoo's Campaign and Performance Feeds as an ESP?
How do spam complaints from Google and Yahoo inform ESPs, and how should ARF reports be used?
