| 10:39 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
On second thoughts maybe there are other reasons.
| 9:30 am on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Got also a rejection. More details would be much appreciated. After all I serve over 50000 impressions per day. The site has been WELL established for 4 years, is one of the authorities for this country, and beeing a directory of companies categorized by industry should be any ad-matchers dream.
The design is a bit old fashioned, as the site was always heavy on beeing usfull and effective rather then pretty. But even though, a new design is in beta testign and I would love to submit that for review, but don't know how.
Hope the review process will be revised, and any such change will be reported to us so we know when to bother again.
| 1:39 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they think that your siteīs visitors are only interested on companies from your country, after all your site is very country targeted...
| 6:55 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I combed the conditions after my rejection. One is that you may not have a large amount of advertising, and that you may not have text advertising.
I think they probably don't like database driven sites as well.
| 7:30 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We have text ads throughout one site we submitted and were accepted. So i dont think thats a reason for intial rejection.
Bascially we understand that we dont want competing text ads, and will probably remove what we have on the test pages, until we get a definition of "text ad"
| 8:33 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was rejected because the ownership information on my application does not match that of my domain registration.
Personally, I think domain registration info is none of Google's business (or anyone else's). Is Google just playing big brother or do they actually think people might hijack sites, and run ads on them.
If the latter, you would almost certainly need access to the domain registration to hijack a site, so I think Google is just overly intrusive.
| 10:07 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
While I appreciated Google's caution with the registration to some extent, I did wonder (and asked them, too), why they couldn't simply send a verification to email@example.com asking for verification.
After all, if your postmaster account has been hacked, you have a lot more security worries than whether someone is gonna enroll your site in AdSense :D
| 10:41 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ThatAdamGuy, you can make that suggestion to GoogleGuy. I think you are absolutely right...
Some members told that Google asked them to fax them, prooving the ownership of the domain...
If we can transfer a domain with just an email, why canīt we proove the same way to Google?
| 10:50 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm guessing (hoping :) that GG is continuing to read many of the AdSense threads, and I know he earlier indicated that he and some colleagues were doing so.
I did already drop a note to Google about the postmaster suggestion via their AdSense form, and after that, I also noticed that they offer two e-mail addresses:
Hopefully the former is the right address for suggestions :)
| 11:55 pm on Jun 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The only rejections I've seen are when a lot of other advertising exists on the site. Kill the other ads - Google is the best income I'm seeing. I just don't think it'll last. Google will most certainly drop the revenue share to something like 3 cents a click.
| 12:02 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I sure hope Google doesn't significantly reduce their payout!
On an optimistic note, maybe the expanded reach will encourage more folks to enroll in AdWords... thus driving up the competition amongst advertisers, raising the prices of AdWords, and allowing Google to maintain high payouts to AdSense folks ;)
| 12:58 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, so far I'm averaging 63 cents per click, and Overture would never pay that much. I'm guessing it'll get dropped way down once the user base has been built up.
| 3:28 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Google will most certainly drop the revenue share to something like 3 cents a click. |
Unlikely, because sites with significant traffic or easily monetized topics would drop AdSense and stick with conventional ad networks or affiliate sales. If one were to apply the 80/20 rule, AdSense would be left with the 80% of the sites that generated 20% of the revenues.
I wouldn't be surprised if AdSense offered a sliding scale of percentages, with the bigger percentages going to higher-revenue sites. That would make a lot of sense, because:
1) It isn't uncommon to have sliding commission or royalty scales in other fields; and...
2) A sliding scale would make it easier for Google to compete with other ad networks and affiliate programs at the high end of the revenue scale without paying more than necessary to smaller or less easily monetized sites that have fewer revenue options.
It's also possible that AdWords could be sold with different content-site options, such as:
1) Adwords Run-of-Network: Your targeted AdWords appear on any site that matches your keywords, regardless of quality, traffic, or clickthrough rates.
2) AdWords Premium: Your targeted AdWords appear only on sites that have been vetted and given the thumbs-up by a human editor.
AdWords Premium would cost more than Adwords RON, with the higher rates being set either by market forces or by a surcharge. The Premium AdWords would make more for Google and for the "premium" or editor-blessed sites.
| 4:35 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It looks like good income to me. My content is home based business targeted...you wouldn't believe what some of those people will pay-per-click.
I did sent a question to Adsense support, but didn't receive a reply. It is in regard to the policy that you may not include:
"Other content-targeted and/or text-based ads on the pages displaying AdWords ads"
What does "a content-targeted ad" mean? If I make a product recommendation in my article (with or without an affiliate link), is that a content targeted ad? Just want to be doubly sure.
An on an unrelated note...if people are as absent-minded as me, adsense.com is going to see a lot more traffic. :)
| 5:33 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We are trying Adsense only on pages which dont have our own modest text ads. I hope we can bet a better defnition of "content targeted" or "text ads". If it does not include text ads that are sold just by our site to appear on our site, 9eg not delievred by a third party like google/doublelcick/tribal then its good news for us. If not the volume from our pages without our own text ads will probably not be worth the loss in the "look" or professionalism of the page. (The default colors and fonts do clash a bit with our "pretty" pages)
| 10:37 am on Jun 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well I do offer content targeted ads. Those are the ones I want to replace with adSense. A calrification in therejection would be usefull. Also, lettign me "trial-run" AdSense would be good to, then I could show them what my site will look like with adSense (and without the other ads).
Asking me to mutilate and butcher my site without ANYthing from them is a bit much. After all my site is the one established for over 4 years, and their adSense system the the new and unproven technology.
I guess it'll ahve to wait till the redesign. It's a pity as we're getting lots of potential traffic.
Regarding regional targeting, over 70% of our traffic is international. We rank high with general "widget" style keywords. So currently we're sending a lot of traffic away disatisfied BECAUSe we'Re ooffering only local content. The AdSense AdWords would be the content for our international visitors, so they find actually what they are looking for.
| 1:37 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I applied for Adsense, then 2 days later got a rejection email.
A little over a week passed, then I got an approval letter.
| 1:02 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was accepted into AdSense a few days ago. I gave them the URL of my main site when I signed up. Once in the members area it seems as if your allowed to put their adcode on any page that you are the webmaster of, as long as it follows all of the policies and TOS.
I'm hoping if there is ever a problem they can just disable displaying ads on that one particular domain instead of purging ads on my entire account.
Also, I had a brand new webpage that I wanted to try this on, so I up the code up. It started displaying non-profit text ads. Within 24 hours the spider hit my site and now I get webmaster promotion ads! The system works! Google never ceases to amaze me.
| 5:36 am on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think they probably don't like database driven sites as well. |
That's really ironic, considering Adsense and all of Google are database driven.
Got rejected without any reason given. Kind of blew off at them for that. Still didn't get any reason. Only guess is it's a new site with only test pages up yet.
Who thinks that's really rude? They're saying my site is not good enough to run their ads? Huh?
| 8:29 am on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Who thinks that's really rude? They're saying my site is not good enough to run their ads? Huh? <<
Nope, not me. It maybe they are saying your site may not be a good "fit" to deliver ads from their clients for a variety of other alternatives, including how stable your pages are, the amount of other advertising, the type of content etc. I wouldnt assume that it is because your site is "not good enough", and even they did, this is only an opinion - others may well find your site "good enough".
| 4:00 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I should be more specific. I understand they have "terms and policies" - just so. What I'm talking about is the Google habit of making decrees without explanation. This seems to be a system-wide constant, from PR zero's to advertising. Obviously they had a reason. Why not share it?
If I had a boss to answer to, he would ask "Why did they reject us?" (xlat: How is this your fault? How can I use this to reduce your next raise?) What answer am I supposed to give? More importantly, why did Google put me in the hot-seat?
This is (or should be) especially important now, when many non-webmaster users are beginning to notice "strange behavior" in the search results. Customer relations can make or break the best of companies.
Just my 3.1415926 cents worth.
| 5:44 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Sorry, I should be more specific. I understand they have "terms and policies" - just so. What I'm talking about is the Google habit of making decrees without explanation. |
Well, there's hardly anything unique in that. Publishers send boilerplate rejections to authors, employers send boilerplate rejections to job applicants, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that model agencies reject applicants with "You don't meet our current needs" instead of "Sorry, but you're too ugly."
Companies use the boilerplate approach to save time and to avoid getting into extended discussions with the people they reject.
As for Google, I was pleasantly surprised by how responsive they were. When they rejected my application, I wrote back with a well-reasoned explanation of why I thought they were making a mistake. Not only did they reverse their decision, but they also apologized for what they called their "error." Try that with an editor who's just rejected your first novel...or with a model agency that thought you were too fat. :-)
| 6:00 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Europe I had a similar situation with a rejection, then subsequent apology on explanation.
I thought it was very good service and prompt too.
Also, I was running some CJ stuff on my site (adsense now replaced it) when I applied (but it was the reason for the intial rejection).
And yes, the income is pretty decent! :)
| 6:09 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Exactly my point! An editor that tells you why is a good editor. One that does not is not. Simple reason: you can't correct the "errors" if you don't know what they are. So, they get fewer acceptable entries, and more rejected ones taking up the editors' time. Rejecting without reason is not just annoying, it's self-destructive.
But enough carping. I will just accept the general deterioration of the global society with a smile and a wink!
| 7:57 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Exactly my point! An editor that tells you why is a good editor. One that does not is not. Simple reason: you can't correct the "errors" if you don't know what they are. |
I've been an editor, and I can tell you that it isn't that simple. Editors will use rejection slips 99% of the time because 99% of the submissions are either hopelessly bad or completely inappropriate for the publisher, and there's no point in getting into extended discussions with the authors.
Something similar may be at work here. The AdSense staff may look at a site and think there's no way it can be brought into line with Google's policies, or that the work required to make it acceptable to AdSense may not be justified by the income the Webmaster is likely to earn. Sure, they could say something like "Your Web pages are all personal pages," or "You've got text ads all over the place," but maybe they figure it's less hassle to say "Sorry" than to get into arguments about whether John Doe's account of his summer vacation to the Poconos is a "travel site" or a "personal site"...or whether the product pitches on an affiliate site are "catalog pages" or "text ads."
Instead of railing against Google's AdSense staff, why not do something constructive? Use your own editorial eye to figure out what the problem may be, or to determine what may have been misinterpreted by the AdSense staff. Then reply to the rejection e-mail with a well-reasoned argument for including your site. That approach worked for me, and it may work for you. Sometimes it pays to be persistent, especially if you can use logic and courtesy to bolster your argument.
| 8:33 pm on Jun 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Trial and error is time consuming. Even more so when each iteration requires redesign of a web site. Why guess what the problem "might" be, when a few words like "Policy #3" might solve the problem decisively?
An editor is a bad analogy. The Google issue involves a definite set of rules, but arbitrary interpretation. It's the interpretation that requires explanation. Without explanation, the information is meaningless.
And yes, I had several exchanges with support regarding the rejection. They still have not stated why the site was rejected.
| 3:52 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What's google's policy on running AdSense from an account on one site on a site that was previously rejected? Especially since the rejection (and subsequent exaplnation) failed to unearth a single issue or reason for the rejection. It was more of a "We're currently selecting sites carefully and blah blah" not a single reason was given.
What do you think their stance on such "sneakery" is? As they do know what pages their ads show on
| 5:36 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|What do you think their stance on such "sneakery" is? As they do know what pages their ads show on |
Nope, I don't think they'll like it very much. And, yes, I think they do know what pages their ads show on.
| 5:54 pm on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just created another adsense account and waited for approval, however this time I was denied without reason. :( The site is a "forum site" that has large amounts of Search Engine Friendly content, no popups or anything else that I can think of that Google wouldn't like.
Any one got any ideas? StickyMail me if you want me to send you the address.
"My boss says it might just be a different editor in a different mood" mind you, my boss says a lot ;)
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |