| 12:51 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
A lot of people get audited,not because they are suspected of doing anything wrong, but because they fit in a higher risk category ...ex. (own business with lots of write-offs) or just for quality control reasons. )
| 1:05 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who participated in ARB and didn't know they were."
Ya, right. While at the same time Adwords folks were happily setting up whole campaigns for me with the goal of getting the most visitors to the arb pages at the lowest cost. As well as giving me 2nd accounts so I could add another 200,000 keywords.
And, Adsense folks were reviewing landing pages offering tid bits of encouragement and tips on how to get the most clicks out of the visitors (hotspot, etc). I had my pages reviewed a dozen times to improve performance.
And, adwords sending refrigs and adsense sending all kinds of crap grateful for the large sums of money put into their pockets.
That's the experience I come from.
ps. and at the same time selling more software and consulting services than I could keep up with.
[edited by: sailorjwd at 1:25 am (utc) on May 22, 2007]
| 1:24 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So? Their business model changed, and publishers who depended on that model need to change, too. Any reasonably intelligent arbitrageur who remembers what happened to datafeed affiliate sites must have seen this day coming: To quote Yogi Berra, it's like deja vu all over again.
| 1:25 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just a note to announce that all personal attacks are going to be removed without notification.
Please keep your posts on topic.
| 1:28 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One of the interesting aspects of large corporations is that different divisions can have goals which are very much at odds with each other. When AdSense sought to place its ads on as many publisher sites as possible, Anti-Spam had to figure out how to get MFA's out of the SERPs. AdWords wanted to maximize its revenues, and arbitrage helped with that but it ultimately threatened the long-term viability of AdSense such that AdSense is no longer willing to support that business model.
| 1:30 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"datafeed affiliate sites" Don't know what that is.
My point was - fine to bash the MFA sites but not all arbritrage is the same. There are shades of white to gray. And, as I said before, most of you are doing variations on arbitration whether you admit it or not.
I'm happy for you hobbyists - keep up the cute sites.
ps. Darn, I think I missed a personal attack!
| 1:39 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just like my health insurance carrier has decided not to carry sole proprieters so now I'm without health insurance - I guess my health doesn't fit their business model. Or, maybe I should have diversified.
Sh*t happens. Go with the flow. etc etc.
| 1:55 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think many of us (you) dabble in arbitrage to some degree whether you admit it or not.... |
And, as I said before, most of you are doing variations on arbitration whether you admit it or not.
I can honestly see why you say this. ARB is so easy to do and it is tempting. But I've personally never participated in it and my low earnings are probably a reflection of that. :)
Either way, I don't see sending out a monthly newsletter and receiving 100 clicks from the influx of users -- as ARB.
But maybe it is... (send users to site via advertising/marketing/newsletter --> some users click ads and generate revenue for publisher)
We could probably debate this for decades, but I think we'll get a better feel for the future of Adsense/Adwords once we're a few weeks into June 2007
| 2:17 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
well said. I just hope I have an excuse to read the adsense forum in june :)
| 2:41 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If Google felt they were breaking their TOS they'd be saying goodbye with a boot in the butt. Instead, Google is sending them off with a hug and a kiss. What do you think that means? |
I would like to comment on this... Reminds me of a great American who once said, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Something like that.
|I'm happy for you hobbyists - keep up the cute sites. |
I'm planning to keep up with my "cute" sites. And, do just fine money-wise for many years to come. Thank you for the encouragement.
| 2:53 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)
What do they teach you guys at school? :)
| 2:57 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I didn't complete school, so I don't know what they teach. I quit school at age 15, that was 20 years ago, now I only know how to do "cute" little hobbyist type things.
| 3:14 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|What do they teach you guys at school? |
They taught me the skills for my current profession. This in turn has enpowered me to set up useful authorititave websites that drive organic traffic to my online products as well as high converting traffic to my adsense ads.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 3:20 am (utc) on May 22, 2007]
| 4:26 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Sailor -I hope you've reason still to be here in June. Your comments have always been worth reading.
Did everyone miss Ken_b's observation? That's what we should be talking about.
| 4:35 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What do they teach you guys at school? :) :):)
Can't wait to see how this all shakes out!
Damon, I thought you were in the UK? France now?
| 5:24 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think there are people who have what could be considered MFA (not scraper) sites who weren't really aware that that's what they were doing.
| 5:31 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think this is really about providing positive feedback in writing to Google. I guess the good people over at The Plex check for reactions. They feel for the pulse of their patient. They made a life-prolonging operation, a treatment that never happenend before, and now they are looking after their patient. They are monitoring every single bit of it. They will read here. And elsewhere. They will gather the feedback and compile an executive summary.
So, I think -along with many others- that this move was:
1- long overdue. Should have done months before.
2- a strategically good move to protect future growth of the Adsense/Adwords product.
3- a good move to regain confidence in the product, both from advertisers and publishers.
4- a good preparation for improvements that may come from competitors (YPN, MS, others).
The Google management deserves applause and standing ovations for this. Well done!
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:03 am (utc) on May 22, 2007]
[edit reason] TOS# 24 [/edit]
| 6:27 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|So, I think -along with many others- that this move was: |
This move was: VERY LATE MOVE
I guess they would do better if they would give publishers the right tools to filter/approve advertisers. For whatever (wrong) reason they are just giving tools to advertisers but no tools for publishers.
If we had these tools available all these spammers would already be out of business because most publishers would filter them.
How can one filter per account with 200 domains limit can work for larger publishers? (or any publisher) I have 7 larger websites and this filter does not even hold all the MFA for one site.
Just give advertisers the tools to pick and choose and give the same tools to publishers and you will have natural and healthy network.
Advertisers will pick high quality websites and publishers would approve high quality ads. Very Simple.
| 6:33 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
well, I went out for a 3 day holiday into the hills without internet and come back to this thread. It gave me a panic attack.
I have adSense on all my sites. I drive traffic (partly) thru. adWords.
Adsense partly defers my advertising costs for my e-commerce site which is in infancy.
I use adWords to drive traffic to my other content rich websites. I am slowly getting free incoming links ( slow process). Apx 40% add my sites to favorites. And around 20/30% are repeat visitors.
There is an element of arbitraging involved. Has to be if I am using both adwords and adsense. There is no escape. I am not making a 'profit' everyday. Sometimes it is positive, sometimes negative. I am happy to get the visitors and the links and the repeat visitors.
CTR ranges from 3% to 30% on various channels. I hope I am not banned. I hope G considers the fact that I have so many repeat visitors, which says something about my sites.. maybe.. I really hope the algo is complex enough to understand this fact.
Without adwords, my sites in infancy, would get little traffic.
I have my fingers crossed.
| 6:43 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|There is an element of arbitraging involved. Has to be if I am using both adwords and adsense. |
I wouldn't worry one bit. The whole deal is about MFA sites that are doing arbitrage. MFA sites are, by definition, sites that do not provide any real content (I do not count scraping as content) where the main goal is to direct users to click on ads above anything else.
| 7:18 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My issue in this thread is not the crackdown – it is needed and I trust AdSense to do what's needed. That's why I like and trust AdSense.
My issue is in the handling of the crackdown. These are two different things.
I say that if you did not breach the TOS, then you should not be kicked out for good without even a single warning. I say the good thing to do is to tell me to fix it - and I will.
The reason why this thread is very good and transparent I believe is a direct consequence of the non specific yet overly hard email from AdSense.
What’s a webmaster to do when you get that message from the King other than bring it up with the guild?
| 9:05 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I was speaking with a friend last night who got banned. I just thought I would pass on the following.
Her site was a classic MFA site - little if any content. (Been telling her for ages to do something about it - but hey....). She was not driving traffic via adwords at all - but was using Overture. So this isn't just about adwords driven traffic - it is either a different issue - ie lame site - or it is about driving traffic from any PPC network
Secondly - I have another good friend - also banned. His site is full of unique content. He participates in a couple of affiliate schemes - not many, the pages have a reasonable amount of contnet on them, and as stated before - it is all written by himself. Also banned. Common denominator is that he too was using PPC traffic.
| 10:05 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|if you did not breach the TOS, then you should not be kicked out for good without even a single warning |
If you know by 'feeling' and 'spirit' that you were swimming against the tide, and that what you were doing is short term and against the TOS, while at the same time you are willing to run the TOS letter for letter against what you were doing and give arguments why your site is not in breach, then you know exactly where Google's soft ban is coming from, and why they did it this way.
What I am saying is that Google is not the best when it comes to publicly disclosing reasons and details behind their decisions, which is exactly what they would be forced to do if they a) Dealt with the problem and opened dialogue on individual case by case basis. b) Provided a recourse where all soft banned webmasters can come back and ask after modifying their sites if they are ok now.
Google did it in the way they saw was most prudent for Google and its network.
That does not prevent you from moving on, or changing your business model and coming back to them with proof that you are now in compliance and need a second chance.
My advice to you newsecular and anyone else that was soft banned is to think positive, put all your energy into what you are going to be doing next.
| 10:25 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If we had these tools available all these spammers would already be out of business because most publishers would filter them. |
Amen. Here, after months of frustration and maxed out competitive filters, we all were begging Google for filters to ban accounts instead of domains, for the reason you noted, and Google says, "Hey, we can do one better. We'll save you the work--we'll ban the accounts."
P.S. Most arbiters have long known how it's virtually impossible to get unbanned or get a second account. They were playing with fire with no long-term vision.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
| 10:52 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
" Common denominator is that he too was using PPC traffic"
If this is a fact, then maybe they want only sites with organic traffic to display adSense and should clearly say so in the TOS.
However, my gut feel is that they are banning sites with poor user experience because the adWords Quality Score mechanism has failed to weed such sites out. They are now going at it from the adSense side.
| 10:53 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
sorry it should read.. TRANNACK
| 11:16 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My intuition is that they are trying to stamp out a business that offers very high CTRs but a corresponding poor user experience. Logically, the adWords Quality Score mechanism would not necessarily solve the problem -- their high CTRs would make it very difficult to weed out using a pure auction type mechanism -- without imposing excessive collateral damage.
There are two basic reasons for high CTRs. One is that the site provides users with little or nothing else to read or do besides click on one of the ads. The other is that the site offers alignment of content and advertising. After the users has read all about widgets they get excited and want to buy one, so they click on an ad).
Perhaps the statistical fingerprints of these two different business s were too difficult to distinguish using purely automated algorithms, so Google decided to stamp out the one that offers the poor user experience.
| 11:59 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is more than just using AdWords to adsense. I see most of those pesky psychics have quit showing up and filling my filter.
They were completely worthless and looked like the scams I thought they were. I could be wrong about that but not the fact that they are one page wonders and do not have adsense on the landing pages so more may be going up the pipe than we know about.
Edit to add: these are the ones that one needs to fill out forms or just call "I'm standing by to tell you everything". :)
Thank you Google, I am happy to see it but sorry for the genuinely 'haven't a clue' crowd.
[edited by: ann at 12:04 pm (utc) on May 22, 2007]
| 12:01 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It would be really useful to see some examples of sites that have been banned.
People talk about useful and unique content being hit, but unless we can see the site, it's hard to tell just how useful or unique it is.
So anyone want to sticky me an example ....
| 12:36 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
once again the google cloud of grey area comes over us, like with paid links. Where does one cross the line and get classified as offering no relevancy? How does google measure intent?
| 12:54 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I see most of those pesky psychics have quit showing up and filling my filter. |
Did they foresee and predict their demise? You're right, they are scams. Lots of scams and schemes headed for the toilet swirl. The dreams of frustrated publishers are finally coming true.