homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.77.237
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >     
AdSense & "site may not include" guns policy
According to AdSense, all guns are created equal
Swebbie




msg:1468461
 4:47 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's easy to see Google as having the best interests of its users at heart, but it's time to take off those naive blinders. They're a public co. now, answering to shareholders primarily. My little anecdote should shed light on where G's true motivation lies...

<rant>

I have a successful BB gun site that ran AS ads for over a year with ever-increasing success. About 2 months ago I got an email from them alerting me that AS had been disabled on all of those pages because it violated their TOS. When I inquired, I was informed it was an editorial decision based on the fact that the word "guns" was all over the site. Incredulous, I asked how they expected me to avoid that word when the site was about, um, BB guns and airsoft guns. LOL

I went round and round with their rep about it via email. I used rational arguments (parents buy these things for their kids, they aren't handguns, etc.). After several emails, it became clear that the rep I was dealing with was answering with replies the "higher ups" were giving him. I know this with certainty because he divulged it to me (I'm sure to his own job peril). He would not/could not give me direct answers to my specific questions, and was instead giving me overgeneralized answers that always amounted to the same thing: "We don't differentiate. If it has the word 'guns' in it, bye bye."

Here's the kicker that shows the true motivations of Google. They have all kinds of AdWords advertisers who sell BB guns and airsoft guns. Their ads were showing all over my site via AS with high CTR and highly specific targeting on each page. So Google actually doesn't have a problem with those forms of "guns" at all, AS LONG AS YOU'RE PAYING THEM TO SHOW THE ADS. Google only has an issue with these kinds of "guns" if they have to share the revenue with a publisher.

"Follow the money" has never been truer. They used a principled argument to disallow showing ads on my site (we have a problem with anything to do with "guns"), but that principle goes right out the window when it comes to taking advertisers' money in that industry.

I'm a Libertarian, so at the end of the day, I'm fine with Google doing whatever they choose to do as long as it's legal. I miss that income, sure, but it was one of 8 sites I have, so it didn't kill me. What it did do was remove my blinders about them as a company. Principles are nothing if making a buck gets in the way. Well, that's fine, but don't pretend you actually have principles then. Have the fortitude to be up-front about how your business actually decides such issues. Meantime, I've lost any respect I ever had for the company. Such a blatant double standard turns my stomach.

</rant>

 

hunderdown




msg:1468462
 5:04 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, it's a bit tricky to build a theory on one person's experience.

What you seem to be saying is that Google banned your site because it wants to keep those high-paying BB gun ads to themselves, on the search network.

Here's one problem with that theory: if that was their motive, then why don't they have a similar ban in place on sites chasing high-paying legal, medical, and real estate keywords? It would be easy to dress up such a ban in nice language. They could say something to this effect: "keywords on this list of terms may no longer be part of the Content network, due to the prevalence of fraudulent approaches in these areas." Or something like that.

A second problem: there are advertisers who want to advertise on BOTH the search and the content networks. By banning your site, Google may well be losing revenue--those advertisers who had been showing on your site won't necessarily move 100% of their advertising budget into search.

Finally, let me point out that there is a reasonable motive for Google's ban on liquor, drug, and gun-related sites. They want to make the content network as clean and safe-looking as possible for advertisers. Look at what happens in TV advertising--advertisers pull ads off shows that address controversial topics. In your case, Google may well have made the wrong call, but that doesn't invalidate the entire approach....

incrediBILL




msg:1468463
 5:17 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie,

Normally I'd be ranting on your side but not this time as I can see where sensibilities can be easily offended via the content network. The part you're missing is that AdSense isn't the same as the ads on Google and the network of ads is supposed to be "family friendly" and "advertiser friendly" as ads show up just about anywhere and they don't want advetisers, say people with anti-gun stances, to get offended and pull their advertising.

Imagine if someone close to you was shot and killed a few years back and now your ads are ending up on a gun site? Imagine if one of the families of Columbine victims are using AdWords, I can see where some advertisers in cases like this would pull out of the content network.

Surely you can't be blind to these potential issues?

What I'd recommend instead of building a stockpile of sour grapes would be to hook up with someone like AdBrite and a bunch of advertisers and build a channel for this topic and resell it to your competition as well as you have a niche that AdSense can't fill.

Swebbie




msg:1468464
 5:38 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

BILL,

Yeah, I've replaced AS with a competitor. Of course, the money is much less, but every little bit helps. I stand my assertion that Google's principles are out of whack and it's about money. The suggestion that they're looking out for a "family-friendly" network is naive, imho. They have no problem taking the advertisers' money, so why would they have a problem with showing those same ads on sites that are 100% related to the ad content? Nope, I'm not buying that it's anything other than a double standard. If Google was truly concerned about the sensibilities of its users, they wouldn't allow any ads from that industry into AdWords to show anywhere on their own site. Think about it. Are you really arguing that Google would allow ads on their site but worry about the ads showing on properties they don't own? LOL

Swebbie




msg:1468465
 5:52 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

What you seem to be saying is that Google banned your site because it wants to keep those high-paying BB gun ads to themselves, on the search network.

What other explanation can there be that is logical? Re-read my post. It's about the PRINCIPLES Google calls into play when it suits them, then ignores when there's money involved. They apply the "we have a problem with anything dealing with guns, even bb guns" principle on the AdSense side, but ignore that same principle entirely on the AdWords side. Blatantly hypocritical.

Here's one problem with that theory: if that was their motive, then why don't they have a similar ban in place on sites chasing high-paying legal, medical, and real estate keywords? It would be easy to dress up such a ban in nice language. They could say something to this effect: "keywords on this list of terms may no longer be part of the Content network, due to the prevalence of fraudulent approaches in these areas." Or something like that.

You're actually making my point in a roundabout way. It's ARBITRARY. It isn't PRINCIPLED. If they did, in fact, have a principle that applied universally re: sites with content they deemed objectionable in some way, they'd do precisely what you correctly assert. Again, I philosophically have no problem with Google doing whatever it wants to do (legally) on its network. My one issue with them is the lie they tell about their decisions being based on some kind of principle. It isn't. It's clearly based on something else. Ok, fine, but stop lying that it's some noble purpose. Blah blah blah.

A second problem: there are advertisers who want to advertise on BOTH the search and the content networks. By banning your site, Google may well be losing revenue--those advertisers who had been showing on your site won't necessarily move 100% of their advertising budget into search.

I don't know about this point. Google obviously has access to how many clicks my site generated to those advertisers' sites. Believe me, it wasn't a high number. In the big scheme of things, it wasn't even a drop in their ocean. More like a molecule of H2O, at worst. And I'm not sure I buy that they lost a penny. I can't prove it, of course, but then neither can you. My intuition (which is obviously subjective) is that those advertisers just had more ads showing up on Google's search results pages.

Finally, let me point out that there is a reasonable motive for Google's ban on liquor, drug, and gun-related sites. They want to make the content network as clean and safe-looking as possible for advertisers.

This makes no sense, imho. What content network advertiser selling liquor or bb guns wouldn't want their ads showing up on sites DEVOTED to liquor or bb guns? I can't imagine better targeting, which is, of course, the entire basis for AdSense. It's self-evident that if you sell liquor, you want customers who will buy liquor. You wouldn't be concerned about how "clean" or "safe-looking" the sites are that are sending you visitors, as long as they aren't making false claims about your products or showing material that is in some way illegal.

europeforvisitors




msg:1468466
 5:53 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

The suggestion that they're looking out for a "family-friendly" network is naive, imho. They have no problem taking the advertisers' money, so why would they have a problem with showing those same ads on sites that are 100% related to the ad content?

Because their SERPs are dry, library-like results from an index, while a content site about guns may be written by and edited for crackpots or criminals. Having an AdWord for "BB guns" on a SERP about "BB guns" doesn't have the same negative reflection on Google as an "Ads by Google" box next to a revolutionary manifesto on vigilante-militia.org.

You don't have to understand that belief, nor do you have to share it. The important thing is that Google obviously thinks there's a difference between gun ads on a SERP and gun ads on content sites that aren't subject to its editorial control.

incrediBILL




msg:1468467
 6:06 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are you really arguing that Google would allow ads on their site but worry about the ads showing on properties they don't own?

Swebbie, I'm not arguing the point, I'm not making a debate, I'm telling you EXACTLY what I was told on the phone by someone from Google. What I was told is if the site in question could be deemed offensive to ANY advertisers then the ads get pulled from the page and/or site. That's why in many cases PSA's show up on some pages when the mediabot thinks, due to clusters of keyword triggers on the page, that certain pages are offensive based on their rules.

In your instance, it appears it was the whole site.

hunderdown




msg:1468468
 6:14 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

EFV--exactly.

Swebbie, I think you've supported my argument. You said that the extra income Google might have made by pushing ads off your site to the search network probably didn't amount to much. But in your first post you were ranting about their greed in keeping all that lucrative gun-keyword money to themselves.

If there isn't much money involved, why DOES Google ban certain topics? Google doesn't philosophically oppose gun sites or liquor sites or gambling sites out of principle--they certainly don't say so in their FAQs and Help files (If the rep you talked to said otherwise, well, maybe he was explaining their approach poorly). They are just trying to accomodate advertisers who might--and in spite of what you say, a gun-related site won't just get gun ads.

Here's what I think it comes down to--money, but not in the way you have it: Google reckons they can earn more by bringing more advertisers INTO the content network by being able to reassure those advertisers that the content network is family-friendly than they lose by banning certain kinds of sites. Their goal is to expand the pool of advertisers on the content network, not to pull gun ads back to the search network.

The net result is the same, of course. Your site got banned. And that is tough to swallow.

Chrisweg




msg:1468469
 6:25 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very insightful read, guys. I've been lurking for a year, but this discussion got me going one way, then the other. I tend to agree that Google is trying to make it as family friendly as possible, which I think in turn, will maximize their profit with more advertisers. Offend once, and you may lose that advertiser for good. Sure does make me wonder if I would be risking my Adsense account if I set up ads on my hunting site (gun related) or any of my forums (content control issues).

Swebbie




msg:1468470
 6:46 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

What I was told is if the site in question could be deemed offensive to ANY advertisers then the ads get pulled from the page and/or site.

If this is the case, what a truly frightening way to run their business! If you follow that logical trail, pretty quickly you lose your way in the overgrowing thickets. Know what I mean?

How utterly ridiculous to have a blanket rule that any advertiser might arbitrarily alert Google that they find "_________" offensive, so please remove it from my sight. Yikes! What the hell are we coming to? Look, I didn't mean for this to blow up into a long-running discussion. Honestly, my ranting notwithstanding, I'm a big boy and I take my lumps when they come in business. It's unavoidable. I had a client rip me off for over $30,000 once, so this isn't even a foothill in the Himalayas. I just wanted to point out that Google's stated principles are hogwash, whether it's about the money or some other arbitrary construct.

Swebbie




msg:1468471
 7:02 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, I think you've supported my argument. You said that the extra income Google might have made by pushing ads off your site to the search network probably didn't amount to much.

That's what I said, but then it's about $400 more per month they get to keep, isn't it? LOL Now multiply that X all the others who this has undoubtedly happened to (in this any many many other industries) and you can see how it would add up. Numbers game.

But in your first post you were ranting about their greed in keeping all that lucrative gun-keyword money to themselves.

I stand by that. And you know what, that's ok! Again, please try to get what I was actually saying in my first post so we don't have to keep going round and round, ok? It's about the PRINCIPLE they claim to be upholding. They told me point-blank that they had an editorial problem with anything that has the word "guns" (or variations) in the site topic. Again, THAT IS THEIR PREROGATIVE and I have no issue with that decision AT ALL. OK? What bothers me is that they apply that ONLY to publishers, NOT to advertisers. In other words, it's OK for them to show bb gun ads on the Google properties when the entire search results page is about bb guns (just like my site's pages), but it's NOT OK for others with similar content. Seriously, can you not see the inherent hypocrisy?

If there isn't much money involved, why DOES Google ban certain topics? Google doesn't philosophically oppose gun sites or liquor sites or gambling sites out of principle--they certainly don't say so in their FAQs and Help files (If the rep you talked to said otherwise, well, maybe he was explaining their approach poorly). They are just trying to accomodate advertisers who might--and in spite of what you say, a gun-related site won't just get gun ads.

False. Google DOES philosophically oppose gun-related sites, at least when it comes to AS. I was told so by a rep. He also hinted strongly that the decision re: my site and subsequent queries was being handled by higher-ups and his hands were tied. He totally grasped my point about the hypocrisy but was unable to do anything about it, which I completely understood. It was extremely insightful to build some rapport with this Google employee. He divulged a lot that I shouldn't repeat here, but suffice to say, I have no doubt left as to their hypocrisy on this and many other AS vs. AW issues. We can argue about what the ultimate motivation is, but that they apply a double standard is irrefutable (unless their employee was lying - something I can't obviously know for sure about).

Here's what I think it comes down to--money, but not in the way you have it: Google reckons they can earn more by bringing more advertisers INTO the content network by being able to reassure those advertisers that the content network is family-friendly than they lose by banning certain kinds of sites. Their goal is to expand the pool of advertisers on the content network, not to pull gun ads back to the search network.

Fair enough. Neither of us can really KNOW the reasons, after all. We can't KNOW there is no Santa Claus either. LOL Still, you have to admit it's interesting that they take AW money, then disallow their ads to be shown on sites that are precisely targeted to their market. Hmmm.

The net result is the same, of course. Your site got banned. And that is tough to swallow.

You know what, it is tough to swallow. $400/month is $400/month, any way you look at it. But seriously, I'm not eating dog food out of cans to survive because of that lost revenue. This is about their hypocrisy in this one instance, but meanwhile they're making me a nice bundle on the other sites. I'm sorry this blew up into something so long and drawn out. I intended to rant, point out the problem, and be done with it. No such luck!

rytis




msg:1468472
 7:40 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I did some hunting and reported a few using spamreport suggestion [webmasterworld.com].

BTW, about half of sites that invite to click ads are already running other ads than Adsense LOL. Can't say Google is doing nothing about it.

hunderdown




msg:1468473
 7:43 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I did spend a little time on the AdSense site and found nothing said about "principles"--I only found a list of subjects which can't appear on the same pages as AdSense code (See Program Policies). So I think that rep was overstating his case. Nothing lofty or principled about it--just a business decision.

I'm sorry, I don't see any hypocrisy there. Or at least, no hypocrisy beyond the type that is so rife in our society, where we use use s*x to sell everything from beer to razors to cars, and at the same time construct elaborate rules about how much can be shown and who can see it....

incrediBILL




msg:1468474
 7:49 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let's put this in perspective here as we've deviated so far off course already this topic [a good one] should be split into a thread of it's own.

There seems to be confusion between:

1) Google the SEARCH ENGINE which indexes the universe blindly and displays ads on just about anything

and,

2) AdSense, the content network advertising that has rules and limitations on what is appropriate for the network.

I understand why some publishers would like access to ads on various things that appear in Google as it would help my site a bunch in a couple of categories, but it's not happening at the moment and I don't see it happening any time soon. I think to keep AdSense manageable and open up the most advertisers to the most publishers without worrying about social outcry, backlash and boycotts over inappropriate content in inappropriate places they've done about as good as job as Googley possible.

Back to the topic of CLICK FRAUD, have you all seen this?
[webmasterworld.com...]

incrediBILL




msg:1468475
 7:53 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I did spend a little time on the AdSense site and found nothing said about "principles"--I only found a list of subjects which can't appear on the same pages as AdSense code (See Program Policies). So I think that rep was overstating his case. Nothing lofty or principled about it--just a business decision.

I found it in 3 seconds...

Your page may contain sensitive content for which relevant paying ads will not be displayed.
Our system has certain filters in place to protect our advertisers from advertising on pages that could be construed as potentially negative, non-family safe or even offensive. Although the nature of your content may not fit into any of these categories, at times the emphasis of some sensitive subject matters on a page can flag our servers to deliver public service ads to a page.

https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=10035&ctx=en:search&query=family&topic=0&type=f

That phrase almost parrots EXACTLY what the rep told me, but I was offered a little more detail into the subject.

oddsod




msg:1468476
 8:00 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't see anything about prinicples in there, Bill.

incrediBILL




msg:1468477
 8:27 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not showing ads on non-family safe and deemed offensive sites aren't principles?

That's what I was told, that's what I reported, that's what's on the web site.

What I couldn't get out of them was exactly WHICH words tripped the filters except for one.

If I'm missing something we must be on different planets.

Swebbie




msg:1468478
 8:53 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

From Google (via BILL):
Our system has certain filters in place to protect our advertisers from advertising on pages that could be construed as potentially negative, non-family safe or even offensive. Although the nature of your content may not fit into any of these categories, at times the emphasis of some sensitive subject matters on a page can flag our servers to deliver public service ads to a page.

Read that last sentence again carefully. It means "We let the machines and algorithms determine what's ok and what isn't." That's understandable because so many millions of pages run AS it would be impossible to use human beings to make those determinations.

BUT, and this is really the crux of the matter for me on this end of it, even when a human being (or several) are involved, they still apply the rules in a blanket way. When I asked if a site about pneumatic air guns (nothing to do with handguns in any way) would be axed from AS, using the Google principle about not displaying ads involving the word "guns" (and variations), I got a breathtaking answer: "In all likelihood, yes." That's a direct quote from a Google employee.

Do you all see now how ridiculous this is? They take the advertisers' money without regard to topics (in this case), but they won't share the money with publishers who have sites entirely devoted to those very topics because they are afraid of offending the advertisers' sensibilities. Say what? It's GOBBLEDY GOOK. C'mon, the emperor is naked.

europeforvisitors




msg:1468479
 9:00 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, you've been given a rational explanation. You can choose to ignore it if you wish, but ranting about Google's "hypocrisy" isn't going to change the reality of the situation.

Swebbie




msg:1468480
 9:08 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

efv,

Thanks for the condescending post. You're not the sole arbiter of reason, pal. I maintain that my explanation is the rational one. Take a step back from your self-appointed perch and try the patronizing attitude on someone who'll take it. OK? Thanks.

ann




msg:1468481
 10:15 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Question:
Does Google allow sites like Bingo to run their ads? The one where I play Just showed a leaderboard once last night (for the first time) and I was totally floored. Of course the site is owned by Lycos.

If they do I plan to use some bingo affiliate ads.

Ann

europeforvisitors




msg:1468482
 10:31 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, you've got to lose the attitude and look at the situation rationally. Tilting at windmills won't change anything. (And no, I'm not being patronizing--I'm just being realistic.)

Swebbie




msg:1468483
 10:47 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

efv,

This is a forum. Get it? I appreciate the advice to just take things as they are and never get into the "ought" or "should" end of the pool, but you do it your way, I'll do it mine, ok? I think I added something of value to this discussion. And guess what? You don't get to decide if that's the case or not for anyone but yourself. Are we clear?

incrediBILL




msg:1468484
 11:03 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, on that note I'm stopping the planet, I want to step off.

sailorjwd




msg:1468485
 11:06 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Stay up on your perch EFV. It is much cooler down here out of the sun.

buckworks




msg:1468486
 11:13 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is a forum. Get it?

Yes, and that means that people who disagree with you have freedom of speech too. So mind your manners.

Swebbie




msg:1468487
 11:22 pm on Jun 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, and that means that people who disagree with you have freedom of speech too. So mind your manners.

Take a course in Civics. Free speech has nothing to do with this forum. It's about Congress passing laws abridging it. Having said that, no one is squelching anyone's speech here, obviously. EFV didn't add one iota of anything new to this discussion. He merely popped in and condescendingly suggested that instead of discussing how things ought to be, I should accept things as they are and stop posting about it.

I've read EFV many times in lots of these threads, and he often discusses how things should be. I don't believe I've ever told him to stop whining and just accept the way things are. I don't think I've seen anyone do that to him, matter of fact.

The manners to be minded are his, not mine. If you don't see it, it's probably along the lines of you not understanding that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Yes, I'm surly, but only when it's deserved. :-P

europeforvisitors




msg:1468488
 12:55 am on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, it's one thing to propose changes, or to criticize policies that you don't like, but you aren't likely to achieve anything (except possibly to make yourself feel better) by accusing Google of "hypocrisy" and stating that their principles are "hogwash."

I'm obviously not alone in thinking that Google's position makes sense, though I can understand why you aren't happy with it. I just think you'd be better off disagreeing with Google's logic than questioning Google's motives.

Swebbie




msg:1468489
 2:06 am on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

Swebbie, it's one thing to propose changes, or to criticize policies that you don't like, but you aren't likely to achieve anything (except possibly to make yourself feel better) by accusing Google of "hypocrisy" and stating that their principles are "hogwash."

Why do you persist on demanding that I "achieve" something with my posts? For crying out loud, man, it's a forum! It's at least as useful to bounce around "ought" and "should" as it is to discuss what actually "is" because in all cases none of us can do jack squat to change what Google does. This should be obvious to someone as intelligent as you. I've detailed how it is that Google is being hypocritical and it's unassailable. They take advertiser money in industries for which they have told me in exactly so many words that they have a problem showing those very same ads. Nothing could be more hypocritical.

The principle is (as a Google employee claimed to me directly) that they will not show ads on publisher sites that have anything to do with "guns." Even guns that have nothing to do with handguns or other bullet-firing arms. At the same time, they WILL take advertisers' money to show the exact same ads on Google properties. They have a philosophical aversion to gun stuff, but only when it comes to showing ads outside of Google. That is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy. Please tell me you FINALLY GET IT, so I don't have to friggin' repeat myself yet again.

I'm obviously not alone in thinking that Google's position makes sense, though I can understand why you aren't happy with it. I just think you'd be better off disagreeing with Google's logic than questioning Google's motives.

The popularity of a position in no way speaks to that position's correctness. Basic logic. You say Google's position makes sense. OK, prove it. So far, you've made several posts, and NONE of them has added a bit of actual substantive debate on the facts or merits. You've simply been a Google cheerleader and bashed me for overreacting and not going along with the team. "Go Google! Whatever you do, I love you! If anyone questions your motives, BOO on them!" Blech.

If you have something to actually add to this discussion, by all means, let's rumble. I love a good debate. But this niggling habit of attacking the other without addressing the other's actual comments is tiresome. It's what people with the need to be authoritative and superior do. Come down off the pedestal and engage on substance. That's where the brave dwell.

incrediBILL




msg:1468490
 2:23 am on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

. That is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy. Please tell me you FINALLY GET IT, so I don't have to friggin' repeat myself yet again.

Apparently YOU don't get it - Google has TWO products and different rules for those products. AdSense, unlike ads on google search, is deemed "family-safe" and guns aren't deemed family safe according to their rules. AdSense mixes and matches ads on all sorts of sites based on page content which is totally different compared to ad targetting in Google itself.

That isn't hypocrisy, that's just keeping a clean network deisgned not to offend any advertisers.

Please tell me you FINALLY GET IT, so I don't have to friggin' repeat myself yet again.

This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved