Summary
Google Postmaster Tools provides a Feedback Loop (FBL) system that specifically reports on spam complaints from Gmail users who actively click the 'report spam' button. This data is critical for senders to understand direct user dissatisfaction and is primarily scoped by the 'Feedback-ID' header included in emails, enabling granular insights into specific campaigns or mail streams. Without a granular Feedback-ID, or in addition to it, the data can also be identified and aggregated by the sending domain, SPF, DKIM, DMARC records, or even the sending IP address. This unique focus on Gmail-specific user feedback is vital for maintaining a positive sender reputation within Google's ecosystem.
Key findings
- Gmail-Specific Data: The Google Postmaster Tools Feedback Loop exclusively reports on spam complaints from Gmail users who actively click the 'report spam' button, rather than general deliverability across all ISPs or emails caught by filters.
- Feedback-ID Dependency: Granular spam rate data, allowing senders to pinpoint specific campaigns or mail streams, is contingent on the inclusion and proper use of the 'Feedback-ID' header in outgoing emails.
- Varied Scope and Aggregation: The scope of FBL data can range from specific campaigns identified by 'Feedback-ID' to broader aggregations by sending domain, SPF, DKIM, DMARC identifiers, or IP address, especially if the 'Feedback-ID' is broad or absent.
- Reputation Management Tool: It serves as a crucial tool for senders to identify problematic mail streams and addresses, helping to mitigate issues that could negatively impact their sender reputation with Google by showing direct user sentiment.
Key considerations
- Feedback-ID Strategy: Senders should carefully plan their 'Feedback-ID' strategy to ensure the desired level of granularity for campaign-specific insights, as some ESPs may use broad or internal identifiers that limit detailed analysis.
- Distinguish from Filter Blocks: It is crucial to understand that FBL data reflects direct user complaints, not emails automatically filtered into spam folders without user interaction, requiring other metrics for a complete deliverability picture.
- Domain and IP Impact: Recognize that even without a specific 'Feedback-ID', spam rates can be attributed to your sending domain, authenticated records like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, or your sending IP, all of which impact your overall Gmail reputation.
- Actionable Insights: Utilize FBL data to identify and remove disengaged segments, adjust mailing practices, and refine content to improve user satisfaction and prevent future complaints within the Gmail ecosystem.
What email marketers say
12 marketer opinions
The Feedback Loop (FBL) feature within Google Postmaster Tools offers a focused view into spam complaints, exclusively detailing instances where Gmail recipients manually flag emails as spam. This vital data requires the implementation of a 'Feedback-ID' header, which allows senders to gain specific insights into problematic campaigns or mail streams. However, the scope represented by an FBL identifier can vary; it might be highly granular for a single campaign or broader, encompassing an entire client's traffic or even an ESP's shared identifier. This direct feedback from Gmail users is paramount for understanding audience perception and maintaining a positive sender reputation with Google, as high complaint rates can significantly impact deliverability to Gmail inboxes.
Key opinions
- Gmail-Exclusive Complaints: The Google Postmaster Tools Feedback Loop exclusively reports on spam complaints originating from Gmail users who actively click the 'report spam' button, providing a specific view of user sentiment within the Gmail ecosystem.
- Reliance on Feedback-ID Header: Access to specific campaign or mail stream spam rate data in Google Postmaster Tools requires the inclusion of a 'Feedback-ID' header in outgoing emails, allowing senders to pinpoint problematic areas.
- Variable Identifier Granularity: The scope of a Feedback Loop identifier can vary significantly, ranging from specific campaigns to broader categories or even an entire customer base, depending on the sender's or ESP's implementation strategy for the 'Feedback-ID' header.
- Direct User Feedback: This data serves as a direct indicator of user dissatisfaction, reflecting explicit complaints from recipients rather than emails that are simply caught by spam filters without user interaction.
Key considerations
- Feedback-ID Implementation: Careful implementation of the Feedback-ID header is crucial for senders to gain granular insights into which specific campaigns or mail streams are generating spam complaints from Gmail users.
- Identifier Scope Interpretation: Senders should understand that a Feedback Loop identifier might represent a very specific campaign, a broader segment, or even an entire ESP's customer base, depending on how it is configured, impacting the detail of the insights.
- Not a Universal Metric: It is essential to recognize that this data is specific to Gmail and direct user complaints, not a comprehensive deliverability report for all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or a reflection of emails caught by spam filters without user interaction.
- Impact on Google Reputation: High spam complaint rates, as reported through the FBL, directly signal user disengagement to Google, which can negatively impact an IP address's or domain's sender reputation, potentially leading to emails being directed to the spam folder for Gmail recipients.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks explains that the complaints for a Feedback Loop identifier in Google Postmaster Tools should be specific to that identifier and filtered by the domain being checked. He also notes that the specific identifier, such as 'us1', might be unusual and hard to interpret without the full Feedback-ID header, suggesting it could represent a broader or non-campaign-specific identifier.
25 Aug 2023 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks shares that some ESPs use a single campaign identifier for their entire customer base or base them on internal logic not related to a given customer's actual campaigns, indicating that Feedback Loop identifiers in Google Postmaster Tools might represent a broader scope than just a single client's domain.
26 Mar 2024 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
2 expert opinions
The scope of Google Postmaster Tools' Feedback Loop (FBL) spam rate identification is unique, differing from standard ARF-compliant FBLs. This data originates from Google's internal systems and direct user spam reports. Spam rates are primarily aggregated by the sender's domain, identified through its association with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication. However, if an email lacks proper authentication or its signature fails, the spam rate for that mail stream will be identified and reported by the sending IP address.
Key opinions
- Internal Data Basis: Google Postmaster Tools' Feedback Loop (FBL) spam rates are derived from Google's proprietary internal systems and direct user spam reports, differing from traditional, ARF-compliant FBLs.
- Domain-Centric Identification: The primary method for identifying and aggregating spam rate data is based on the sender's domain, specifically when it is associated with successful SPF, DKIM, or DMARC authentication.
- IP Fallback for Unauthenticated Mail: In instances where an email is not signed or its authentication fails, Google Postmaster Tools will attribute and report the spam rate based on the sender's IP address instead of the domain.
- Aggregated by Identifiers: The scope of identification for spam rates is aggregated by various identifiers, including SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, allowing Google to trace the origin of reported spam back to specific sending entities.
Key considerations
- Leverage Authentication: Senders should ensure robust implementation of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. These authentication protocols are critical for Google to accurately identify and attribute spam rates to your sending domain, rather than your IP address.
- Understand Reporting Fallbacks: Be aware that if your emails lack proper authentication or if signatures fail, Google Postmaster Tools may revert to identifying spam rates by your sending IP address, which provides less granular domain-specific insights.
- Non-Traditional FBL: Recognize that Google Postmaster Tools' Feedback Loop is not a standard ARF-compliant FBL. Its data is unique to Google's internal systems and user reports, providing a specific lens on Gmail deliverability, not a universal standard.
- Holistic Deliverability View: While valuable, the FBL data from Google Postmaster Tools should be combined with other deliverability metrics and FBLs from various ISPs for a complete picture of your email program's performance across the ecosystem.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that Google Postmaster Tools' Feedback Loop (FBL) reporting is not a traditional ARF-compliant FBL. Its spam rate data is based on Google's internal system and user spam reports, with the scope of identification aggregated by SPF, DKIM, and DMARC identifiers associated with the sender's domain.
17 Aug 2022 - Spam Resource
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise explains that Google Postmaster Tools' spam rate data, derived from user spam reports, tracks messages primarily by the sending domain. This domain is identified from the FROM address if it passes DKIM or SPF authentication. If the email is not signed or the signature fails, the email's spam rate is identified and reported by the sender's IP address.
30 Apr 2024 - Word to the Wise
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
The scope of Google Postmaster Tools' Feedback Loop (FBL) data for spam rates is inherently linked to the Feedback-ID header. This critical identifier allows senders to gain precise, granular insights into specific campaigns, mail streams, or batches of emails that Gmail users have flagged as spam. Its absence means the data will be significantly more aggregated, hindering the ability to pinpoint the exact source of complaints and making it challenging to address issues effectively.
Key findings
- Granular Insight Requirement: The Feedback-ID header is indispensable for senders aiming to obtain detailed, campaign-specific spam rate data from Gmail's FBL.
- Direct Campaign Attribution: Implementing the Feedback-ID enables direct attribution of spam complaints to individual campaigns or specific email flows, aiding in rapid identification of problematic content.
- Impact of Omission: Omitting the Feedback-ID results in generalized FBL data, severely limiting the ability to segment complaints and identify the precise source of user dissatisfaction.
- Empowering Problem Resolution: The ability to accurately segment spam complaints by Feedback-ID empowers senders to quickly isolate and rectify issues within their email programs, improving overall deliverability.
Key considerations
- Intentional ID Implementation: Senders should carefully design their Feedback-ID strategy to align with their campaign segmentation needs, ensuring the identifier provides actionable granularity.
- FBL Data Without ID: Be aware that without a Feedback-ID, the FBL data from Google Postmaster Tools will still exist but will be highly aggregated, offering less specific diagnostic value for individual campaigns.
- Prerequisite for Detailed Analysis: Consider the Feedback-ID a prerequisite for any detailed analysis of spam complaints, as it unlocks the ability to drill down beyond domain or IP-level aggregations.
- Align with Campaign Tracking: Integrate Feedback-ID values with internal campaign tracking systems to ensure seamless correlation between reported spam rates and specific email marketing efforts.
Technical article
Documentation from Google Postmaster Tools Help explains that the Feedback Loop (FBL) system identifies email campaigns that Gmail users flag as spam. The spam rate data is only available for traffic that includes a Feedback-ID header, allowing senders to detect campaigns with high complaint rates and identify their source.
27 May 2022 - Google Postmaster Tools Help
Technical article
Documentation from Google Workspace Admin Help shares that the Feedback Loop (FBL) provides spam data specifically for mail streams that Gmail users mark as spam. This data is crucial for senders to identify problematic mail or flows and remove them from future mailings, with the data contingent on including a 'Feedback-ID:' header.
11 Jul 2023 - Google Workspace Admin Help
What do "Identifiers Flagged" mean in Google Postmaster Tools Feedback Loop?
What does the identifier count in Google Postmaster Tools Feedback Loop mean?
Which domain does Google Postmaster Tools Spam Rate graph use?
Why are Google Postmaster Tools spam rates inaccurate?
Why does Google Postmaster Tools show a high spam rate but a 0% feedback loop spam rate?
Why is my Gmail Postmaster Tools Spam Feedback Loop not populating?
