homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.67.26
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

    
New Rejection Reason - Site Not Secure
What's next? Issue(s): Site contains Arial font
tys0n28




msg:1124178
 5:07 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

One of my campaigns was rejected today because of:
Issue(s): Site Not Secure

Anyone seen this happen before? I couldn't find any information at Google about this. I'm an affiliate, so I can't really go in and make the site secure. The site in question has an application which users can fill out with personal and financial information. I have changed a few of the ads to point to the main page at the site instead of directly to the application, we'll see if that changes anything.

I understand why having a secure site is important - but I think Google is overstepping their bounds on this one.

 

bakedjake




msg:1124179
 5:12 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Did you ask them for more of an explaination? What did they say?

I doubt they do complex technical checks and try to hack into websites to verify them for an ad campaign, so I'd imagine it's something as obvious as the lack of an SSL cert for credit card information.

But I would ask them.

nefarious




msg:1124180
 5:13 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm glad we've got people looking out for the unsuspecting consumer who might enter his personal financials into an unsecured page.

Keep up the good work Google.

tys0n28




msg:1124181
 5:18 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Paraphrased from email:

They believe in online privacy and security and require a secure server when collecting personal information.

Just wondered if other people had seen this yet - if it was new, or had been in place.

[edited by: tys0n28 at 5:28 pm (utc) on Dec. 17, 2003]

ogletree




msg:1124182
 5:21 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Emails are not allowed on WW. Mod will nuke it if you don't.

bakedjake




msg:1124183
 5:23 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

You might want to paraphrase that email. See TOS #9.

That sounds like a reasonable requirement on Google's part. I've never heard of it before, but it's not out-of-bounds, IMHO.

Why is it again that the company you're affliated with isn't collecting data in a secure manner?

tys0n28




msg:1124184
 5:36 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure why they aren't secure - I should ask them. I'm just one of probably 100 affiliates they use, so I have no weight to request it. The site is not the best in the world, I'll admit that. It is down sometimes, slow a lot of times, and the secure thing is another point. So my guess is that they simply don't care. But its the only one of its kind, I am the only one advertising for it on Google, and it basically pays my rent.

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:1124185
 5:48 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just wondered if other people had seen this yet - if it was new, or had been in place.

tys0n28, I know that this has been a policy as long as I've been with AdWords = 18 months.

Pretty sure it has been a policy since the get-go.

AWA

eWhisper




msg:1124186
 6:00 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm glad this is a policy - never knew it. I'll have to give G some slack today. :)

tys0n28,
If they are a good site, first try using the same url with a https first. I've found that some affiliate companies have both, but they forget to tell people to initially link to them with the https instead of the http, and they aren't set up to switch to their secure server if not initially linked to in such a way.

EliteWeb




msg:1124187
 6:03 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

mMMm next index will filter out non-secured personal collector of data sites :P I can see it now.

I haven't seen them say anything before but my info collector stuff is secured.

skipfactor




msg:1124188
 6:22 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>I think Google is overstepping their bounds on this one.

Not even. Just the marketing people & lawyers doing their thing: "Well you see your Honor, I clicked on an ad sponsored by Google, and thought I was purchasing this here product, and I was actually buying into an overnight scam to harvest credit card numbers...Your Honor I wouldn't know an http from an https."

Jenstar




msg:1124189
 6:33 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>require a secure server when collecting personal information.

How much personal information will trigger this? Is a name and email address for a newsletter subscription okay without a secure server? Or is it once you get into addresses and credit card numbers that this part of the policy becomes an issue for advertisers?

bakedjake




msg:1124190
 6:36 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Original Post:

financial information

I suspect that's the answer, Jenstar.

jim_w




msg:1124191
 9:27 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Search engine company, marketing company, and now WEB police. All automated and with error free code so that they donít have to worry about stepping on peopleís livelihoods. What a great company!

Chndru




msg:1124192
 9:36 pm on Dec 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Keep up the good work Google.

Yup. ^5.

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:1124193
 5:46 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Jenstar,

Just saw your post, in which you asked:

How much personal information will trigger this? Is a name and email address for a newsletter subscription okay without a secure server? Or is it once you get into addresses and credit card numbers that this part of the policy becomes an issue for advertisers?

The scoop: If Social security and/or credit card numbers are collected, the page must be secure.

AWA

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved