| 2:15 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Definitely against TOS but that's between them and Google.
| 2:32 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
But for some reason Google hasn't noticed and I'm sure I saw this months ago.
Odd, I wonder if Google checks out the domain when they cut the check?
| 2:39 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can understand the temptation to post a disclaimer like that, given that sometimes seemingly well-targeted AdSense ads can be at odds with the subject matter. (e.g., a page describing how "Free Widget Giveaways" are often fraudulent may draw ads for "Free Widget Giveaway" offers.)
Some of the text apparently permitted on premium publisher sites makes me wonder what Google is thinking. Such as putting above or beside each ad block, "Support Our Sponsors".
| 3:24 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I doubt very much they're a premium partner. It doesn't appear to be done in bad faith though, i.e. in order to generate clicks. And given where the ads are located on the page, it's hard to even argue that the text is intended to draw attention to them.
OTOH, it seems like bad manners to subtly dis your sponsor in this way. If you don't like the ads, find the guts to not run them.
| 3:38 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The OP mentioned a political site. Political sites and blogs that discuss politics often have a targeting problem.
They have heard about AdSense and want to generate some income to offset their expenses. But if they support candidate A they will often write things about candidate B, the opponent, and thus the targeting will bring up ads that support the opponent.
For visitors to the site who have heard of AdSense/AdWords but haven't used either one, a disclaimer statement like that certainly wouldn't give them a lot of confidence in Google. But that may not be a bad thing if it encourages Google to make some improveements.
| 3:56 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree Farmboy. Political sites (or anything controversial for that matter), are definitely problematic for AdSense content targeting.
Because e I enjoy the site, I emailed them and sent them a heads up, saying their account is probably in violation of Google's TOS. I said I wouldn't want to see them banned and lose the revenue if Google ever notices. It will be interesting to see if they respond.
| 3:59 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes against TOS, no question.
But a banner saying "This site is monetized by Google AdSense" is aparently neither encouraging clicks nor drawing undue attention to ads, amazing!
| 4:22 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Because e I enjoy the site, I emailed them and sent them a heads up, saying their account is probably in violation of Google's TOS. |
If that's the only site on which they have AdSense, my guess is they won't think it to be a big loss if they get booted from AdSense. About right now, they are probably already looking around for something that earns more than AdSense.
| 12:52 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, they did respond.
They said they sent several e-mails to Google about ads that they and their readers considered offensive. Google never responded so they added language simply pointing out that these are paid ads, not something they endorse. They say if Google wants to pull them, no great loss. He said he knows they use computer logic matching ads to content, adding they should apply some human logic too.
I already have pointed out the competitive ad filter, but they did not address this, so either they don't know about it, or can't be bothered with it.
[edited by: jatar_k at 1:01 am (utc) on April 5, 2006]
| 1:37 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If that's the only site on which they have AdSense, my guess is they won't think it to be a big loss if they get booted from AdSense. |
|They say if Google wants to pull them, no great loss. |
If only I could predict Final Four participants that accurately.
| 4:04 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If you don't like the ads, find the guts to not run them. |
exactly. and by the way, adsense has no place on sites of a political party. are they nuts? what an incredibly stupid idea. by now i really wonder how many site owners make a fool of themselves by putting advertising on their corporate or presentation websites. out of curiosity how it all works with adsense and "how much their site is worth", they just slap it on in front of their embarrassed visitors. a massive reputation and credibility loss for a few bucks. it's laughable at best.
|They say if Google wants to pull them, no great loss. |
hey, let's break the tos and see for how long we can get away with it. what an ugly business approach..
[edited by: moTi at 4:06 am (utc) on April 5, 2006]
| 4:05 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Man, it's all conspiracy. A girl behind the supervisor's desk is doing OVERTIME and doesn't like the site she's looking at, emails her supervisor; supervisor's looking at her behind instead of the website and approves the thing. Does this explains the situation?
| 4:06 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I meant that she actually does like the website: just other way around...
| 1:10 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On the Amazon.com site, next to a Google ad there's a "What's This" link. When clicked the link produces a popup box with the following text:
|Sponsored Links are advertisements that Amazon.com provides to you. We receive Sponsored Links from Google's AdWords service. When you click on a Sponsored Link, we get revenue. The selection of Sponsored Links that are displayed is based on keywords. For example, if you search for "Bruce Springsteen" or view pages about Bruce Springsteen, the Sponsored Links may point to sites that sell tickets to his concerts or provide information about him. Sponsored Links are always clearly labeled. |
Generating additional revenue from Sponsored Links allows us to offer lower prices to you--something we are dedicated to doing every way we can.
The rich obviously play by different rules.
| 3:31 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|and by the way, adsense has no place on sites of a political party. |
Where in this thread has anyone mentioned ads being on a site of a political party - i.e. an official Democrat or Republican site?
I think the original poster was referring to, and I'm certain I was referring to, sites that discuss political issues, provide political news, etc.
|are they nuts? what an incredibly stupid idea. by now i really wonder how many site owners make a fool of themselves by putting advertising on their corporate |
There are some excellent ads for sites discussing politics. As was pointed out previously, targeting on these sites often end up displaying just the opposite of the ads the site owner would like to see.
| 3:48 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Definitely against TOS but that's between them and Google. |
It's depressing that people think that violations of TOS should be ignored internet users.
| 4:44 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It's depressing that people think that violations of TOS should be ignored internet users. |
I agree. But I think what is happening is some people are adopting an "AdSense doesn't care, so why should I care" attitude.
| 9:03 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The thing to do in the case of politically charged or controversial sites is to use the competitive ad filter to the best of your ability. It does require some maintenance, but it definitely cuts down on crap you or your readers disagree with. The site in question did not adddress my suggestion that they do this.
| 9:12 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have they considered running ads from a company like blogads.com? Might be a better fit than Adsense.