homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.184.242
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: 41 ( [1] 2 > >     
Injustice. Gooogle Adsense disabled my accont
desperado117




msg:1332372
 7:44 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Today morning when I saw it in my inbox I thought it's a dream or somebody's joke. But it was reality and it was from Google:

<snip standard 'invalid clicks' termination email>

I have the proxy site.

I know the proxy theme is very slippery ground, too much worthless people use proxies (btw like the windows).

But I'd like to say that I play honest games and I'm not so stupid to be dishonest with Google. Many people in the world know my site. And it is the result of my job of 4 years. And Google knows it. Type "proxy" in Google and you will see me site on the first place.

Will any man of sense risk of reputation of popular site?

Any popular internet resource has its enemies. I guessed that they or at least one of them will try to kill my google account by clicker programs/scripts. But I thought all it are "children trick" and the Google is not so ignorant to take seriously such provocations...

So what have I do now to obtain justice?

Of course there are other PPC programs in the world. But I'd like to clear up the mess with Google Ansense and defending the right and my good name.

Help me, please!

ASA, help!

[edited by: Jenstar at 9:09 am (utc) on July 8, 2005]
[edit reason] No email quotes or personal information, as per TOS [/edit]

 

kartiksh




msg:1332373
 7:56 am on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

First of all remove entire email conversation from here and just mention core of it, anyway this is a standard account disabled notice so many around here knows this.

Second, contact Google and explain all politely and see their response.

There are few threads here which might help you.

hunderdown




msg:1332374
 2:16 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

For someone with so much experience, it's surprising that this is your first post here. You might have been able to head this off if you'd been involved here earlier.

ownerrim




msg:1332375
 2:26 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

patterns

Freedom




msg:1332376
 2:37 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

English as a second language...

wanderingmind




msg:1332377
 2:40 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Patterns, yes, Ownerrim...

But at least from his mail, I can't figure out what the problem is.. unlike the ones who come and say "so what if I clicked, how dare Google ban me" and stuff.

robsynnott




msg:1332378
 3:39 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maintaining lists of open proxies is legally dubious, especially under the new computer-related laws that have comr in in the US in the last decade about "unauthorised access to a system"

vincevincevince




msg:1332379
 3:52 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

If a large number of his clicks came from (annonymous?) proxy users it could be quickly labelled click fraud.

And for a site providing proxy information, it may have a proper explaination.

I'd not be surprised if many of those proxies have been used by automatic clicker scripts, and probably on other sites. But the IP will be the same... and it all gets linked to our friend.

Whether this is true or not is just hypothesis, but it does seem at least a possible explaination.

mvander




msg:1332380
 4:04 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

To follow up vincevincevince, I would agree.

To give desperado117 the benefit of the doubt. In this case it might be safe to assume many repeat visitors would come to a proxy site using known "anonymous proxies", and perhaps clicking on an ad. This would be viewed by the Adsense Team as a classic case of click fraud, even if it may have not been intentional by the visitors to the site.

ann




msg:1332381
 4:49 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

not that the thread starter is guilty but...we will probably be seeing a lot of these threads since webmasters are more alert to abuses and are reporting them left and right.

To get reinstated with Google, IF you are white hat all the way AND have not clicked nor know someone that clicked for you, email Google, state your case and then hope for the best. Google has reinstated others after that email and doing further checking.

Ann

ownerrim




msg:1332382
 5:09 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Google has reinstated others after that email and doing further checking."

Yes, if you're not guilty of tos violations, then press your case with them. This may require you doing all the legwork, but one person here was recently successful with this approach.

elsewhen




msg:1332383
 7:20 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

i agree with the previous posters... desperado117 might very well be innocent, but his website attracts a self-selecting group of internet surfers.

i can think of at least three reasons why a proxy site in particular would have an abnormally high percentage of clicks deemed to be clickfraud:

1) the top few proxies in the list are probably selected by the vast majority of your visitors... they will all have the same IP and in looking for somewhere to click to test whether their new proxy is working, they might click on an ad. so all day long, there are people with the same IP address clicking on ads. that probably looks suspicious to google.

2) in addition to tracking by IP, i am sure that google also tracks user-agent, browser etc, in the effort to catch click-fraudsters. imagine a typical visitor. they grap a proxy IP, and click on an ad to see if the IP is working for them, it isn't, or it is VERY slow, so they try another IP and then click on an ad to test that one. by comparing the other data (user-agent etc), google's sees individual users changing IP address trying to click on ads. and not just doing this occassionally, but all day long. i think they could mistakenly think this was click fraud.

3) i suspect that a high percentage of his clicks come from users testing their new proxy... they search around the site for a link to click, and some probably click on ads for this purpose - but not because they are interested in the content, they just want something to click to try out the IP. in other words, i suspect that the conversion rates were extremely low.

so, i think its likely that desperado is innocent, but i just dont think that the site is a good fit for adsense. if google reinstated you, i suspect that your earnings would be in a steady decline as more and more advertisers used the newly released site exclusion feature in adwords. as time passed, you would be blacklisted in more and more campaigns, (not out of any wrongdoing on your part).

desperado117




msg:1332384
 8:27 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

All its true. But...

Let me tell about one situation. One day a few month ago I asked G. can I place Google ads on proxy checking page where visitors 100% use proxies to check ones. And Google team answered that I may do it and if something will be wrongly they will tell me about it with the e-mail. Since this day I earned more than $500 only from single page with proxy checking script...

It's clear for me now that G. knows that I'm innocent. Just as clear that G. have some problems with its G. adsense project:

1. Too much registered publishers.
2. Disinterestedness in publishers problems when their sites attaced by internet pederasts.

hunderdown




msg:1332385
 8:32 pm on Jul 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, I sympathize if your site is subject to attack, but I really don't think that AdSense should be obligated to work with sites that get attacked--especially not with sites that regularly get attacked. Their program has to work for their advertisers, and so although a certain level of invalid clicks can be handled by smart pricing, sites that consistently generate MORE than that are not a good match for such a program.

Dantol




msg:1332386
 1:40 am on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just visited your website.
The problem might be that too many different people used too many "same" proxies while visiting your website and creating impressions and clicks.

Contact Google adsense-support@google.com or adclicks-support@google.com and explain them your problem politely. Be concise, polite, but firm.

lammert




msg:1332387
 1:49 am on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

As mentioned in earlier threads, the "invalid clicks" email can also indicate T&C violations. Looking at the program policies, Google might have considered the site to contain "hacking/cracking content", or "content that promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others".

Anonymous proxies are a major source of click attacks. It would be strange if Google on one hand tries to fight the use of anonymous proxies in the war against click fraud, an on the other hand promotes them by allowing AdSense ad blocks on sites that list anonymous proxies.

desperado117




msg:1332388
 5:59 am on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It would be strange if Google on one hand tries to fight the use of anonymous proxies in the war against click fraud, an on the other hand promotes them by allowing AdSense ad blocks on sites that list anonymous proxies.

1. And nevertheless its true. I worked with G. since the March 2004.

2. Just one thing I can not understand. As I work with proxies very long time I know all possible source where I can take proxies for common updatable proxy list. And I think for G. its more easy than for me. Why not to block all ckicks from proxies? Our Russian Yandex search engine did it and did it successfully and just on basis of their own proxy list.

So why G. do not block proxies? Because their really do not care about authenticity of clicks. Yes, yes. I thought about it many times. And on the other hand, too many publishers... "Invalid clicks" is the best reason: no report, no warnings, no evidence of guilt. "Invalid clicks" and good bye, man.

Well, good bye goooooooooogle. :)

Btw I wrote to both G. "clicks" and "support" e-mails right away after receiving the disabling mail. But no answer, and, and I guess will no... Who we all for G.? Nothing.

Highway61




msg:1332389
 7:57 am on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"For someone with so much experience, it's surprising that this is your first post here. You might have been able to head this off if you'd been involved here earlier."

I'm a 10 year veteran, and I never heard of webmasterworld until earlier this year. Some webmasters are busy with their sites and focus on at most 1 or 2 webmaster related sites, neglecting other worthwhile sites.

desperado117




msg:1332390
 8:29 am on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

You are right, Highway61. I found this site by Google search with query "Google Adsense plays dishonest games". And btw in the search results this site was not on the first place :).

hyperkik




msg:1332391
 12:31 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

One day a few month ago I asked G. can I place Google ads on proxy checking page where visitors 100% use proxies to check ones. And Google team answered that I may do it and if something will be wrongly they will tell me about it with the e-mail. Since this day I earned more than $500 only from single page with proxy checking script...

Visiting your proxy checking page via Internet Archive, I find that you did previously have AdSense ads on your proxy checking page. From your present account, at some point you took them off. Then you later asked Google if it was okay to put them on that page. At that time, Google not only had its general and internal statistics to look at (click rates expected on a page with content of that type; distribution of clicks over the course of a day, week, month; conversion rates; etc.), they knew how that very page had historically performed, and had statistics from that time period to directly compare with the suspect statistics.

Why did you take ads off the page? Why did you feel it necessary to ask for permission to put ads back on the page? How did the page's historic performance compare to its performance once you put the ads back on the page?

desperado117




msg:1332392
 1:34 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)


Why did you take ads off the page? Why did you feel it necessary to ask for permission to put ads back on the page? How did the page's historic performance compare to its performance once you put the ads back on the page?

1. As I remember I placed G. ads after mailing about it to Google. Not before.

2. And I asked for permission to do it because users on proxychecking page 100% use proxies. I already wrote about it, see above. If you do not understand why I can add that I thought that Google Adsense does not like proxy activity on its ads.

3. I do not remember did I take off G. code from checking page during all this time or no. This page never was so important for me.

4. What sense of your questions?

webnoob




msg:1332393
 1:57 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

so you have a website with just 1 page for a proxy? find another niche, its clear google usually never reinstates accounts once they are closed.

...

desperado117




msg:1332394
 2:16 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

elsewhen, you said
...but i just dont think that [proxy] site is a good fit for adsense...

and webnoob, you said
find another niche, its clear google usually never reinstates accounts once they are closed.

I know all it. All time I worked with Google I had a presentiment that all it not for long.

I hate proxy theme. And the audience of my site makes me sick. But I do not see another niche. All good places are taken.

hyperkik




msg:1332395
 2:21 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

So you had a page which was so unimportant to you that you forgot you had AdSense on it, nonetheless contacted Google about the page for permission to add ads, got permission, modified your ads, and saw returns for the page skyrocket (using the same channel code that you had previously used)? And you wonder why Google is suspicious?

desperado117




msg:1332396
 3:52 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

hyperkik, you say wrong things. I see you do not know what are you talking about.

First, when I saw your post I thought I did not remember something. I saw my site on webarchives and did not find anything looks like you saw. And after reading your last post I understood that you do not even know the address of my site and talk about some proxy site but not mine.

So please, I started this topic for help and hope sombody will gave me a piece of good advice. Not for flame.

But if you want to flame, do not hesitate, e-mail, me I'll tell you the address of my site, then we will see is there reason to talk further or we have nothing to say each other.

jomaxx




msg:1332397
 4:25 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The only useful advice at this point is to be persistent. There's a good chance you can find out the specific problem and conceivably get reinstated.

I'm not 100% certain I know which site is yours, but from poking around a bit here's my list of potentially problematic areas:
1. "Hacking/cracking content", obviously, as per the Program Policies. Your request that people not use your site for evil purposes doesn't count for much.
2. Paid ads running in the past that were merged with and appeared identical to AdSense blocks.
3. Multiple AdSense accounts?
4. Maybe a high proportion of people accessing your site via proxies was the cause, as others have said. Either Google found someone who looked like you clicking on your own ads, or they got sick and tired of seeing your site at the top of their red flag report every day.

hyperkik




msg:1332398
 4:46 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

desperado117, I know what you posted here. I know what is in archive.org. And from that, I know why Google was suspicious. That's all I commented on. If you want to distort that into a "flame war", that's entirely your business.

desperado117




msg:1332399
 5:40 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

hyperkik, see my previous topic, have nothing more to say, sorry.

Thank you, jomaxx and what I'd like to say:

1. Proxy is not hacking content. You may register in G.A. with any proxy site. I know what I say.
2. I never had paid ads on my proxy pages.
3. And had no multiple accounts.

4. Maybe a high proportion of people accessing your site via proxies was the cause, as others have said. Either Google found someone who looked like you clicking on your own ads, or they got sick and tired of seeing your site at the top of their red flag report every day.

4. Maybe... And I think any proxy site with hight traffic is a real headache, and not only for Google, but for any PPC project.

So I think PPC is not for me, in any case not for proxy site. All the more so since, working with PPC systems is a lower level of internet business.

Will find other ways. Every cloud has a silver lining.

alika




msg:1332400
 5:54 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

All the more so since, working with PPC systems is a lower level of internet business.

Sourgraping can be funny ...

jomaxx




msg:1332401
 6:00 pm on Jul 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

My mistake about ads appearing similar to AdSense; some of the listings looked like ads but on closer inspection they are all internal links. I guess making your site navigation look like an AdSense block is OK.

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: 41 ( [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