homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.108.167
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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

Google AdSense Forum

This 513 message thread spans 18 pages: < < 513 ( 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 > >     
AdSense Disabling Arbitrage Accounts by June 1st
Freddy81




msg:3342642
 3:37 am on May 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

They told me my account will be disabled at 1st June, and also added that I'll receive payment for all outstanding earnings in accordance with the standard AdSense payment schedule.

For this day (17 May), does it mean that they will pay for April 1-30 earnings, or for May (1-18) also?

 

heaven33




msg:3348709
 2:23 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors. Yes, I do agree with you. we all have to be closer to the St-TOS bible to diserve the Google's Heaven...Amen.

farmboy




msg:3348737
 2:57 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Earlier someone warned that one of the question could be seen as looking for a new angle. Duh. Are the thought-police on patrol?

I made the earlier remark. The term "though police" refers to someone or some organization trying to restrict or control the thoughts of others. No one has done that or is trying to do that.

Of course I want to know what the angles are and where the edges are. This isn't my weekend hobby. That doesn't mean I will move right up to that edge. But if I am very much farther away from it than the rest of you, I'm toast.

It's been written about a zillion times on this board but I guess some people still don't understand.

Misleading ads, ads that lead to pages full of ads, etc. had a negative impact on other people - publishers and advertisers.

Google is apparently finally taking action and they are reportedly being nice about it this time. The next time, whatever constitutes life on the edge might not be dealt with in a nice manner.

There are a lot of people who don't do business near the edge, don't do things that negatively impact others, don't simply do this as a "weekend hobby" and they aren't toast. Plus they sleep well at night knowing they aren't going to get one of the dreaded Google email messages.

FarmBoy

farmboy




msg:3348741
 3:02 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't know that the arbit crowd realized the damage they could do to Google Adsense or Google in general when they started doing their thing.

I don't think they care about Google AdSense, Google in general or the other publishers and advertisers involved. As long as that monthly AdSense deposit was made into their bank account, everything else was of minor importance.

FarmBoy

sailorjwd




msg:3348794
 3:47 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why does Google keep asking me to put more and more ad blocks on pages? Does google talk to itself? Is there any coordination between departments there? Is that what we need on sites, more and more ad blocks?

Seems like a bunch of teenagers running scattered-brained high on coca cola.

One group is saying lets kill this site - too many ads for the amount of content and the other group saying the opposite.

Ok EFV, I'm ready, smack me.

Hobbs




msg:3348804
 3:56 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

:-)
True, I am always amazed at their suggestions.
Specifically the last 2 "Optimization Report(s)" we all received telling anyone that they could be losing out if they only have one ad block per page..

But let's not confuse issues, MFA is not only about no content and many adblock, it is the advertising those pages on AdWords and on our pages bit that fried their proverbial goose.

europeforvisitors




msg:3348808
 4:01 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why does Google keep asking me to put more and more ad blocks on pages? Does google talk to itself?

You could just as easily ask why AdSense was launched in a way that made life more difficult for the Google Search team, or why departments of companies with in-house ad agencies hire outside agencies. In large companies, different groups have different goals, and employees of are judged by different criteria--at least until top-down Stalinesque discipline comes back into fashion.

Anyway, as Hobbs suggests, this thread is about MFAs and arbitrage, not how many ad units are on a page. No one has reported being bounced from AdSense for using too many ad units, which isn't to say that there isn't value in exercising self-restraint.

Visi




msg:3348813
 4:08 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Way back in this discussion I suggested that Google was removing these sites because they viewed them as competition for their own network. By removing these sites Google expects more users to click via their site (at 100% return) for information. This is why the "kiss and goodbye" strategy. They have no TOS reason for removal, no moral "do no evil" make the web a better place scenario....simply money driven. Also think that the timing does tie into allowing more information to the advertisers as someone suggested a few oages back.

farmboy




msg:3348832
 4:23 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

They have no TOS reason for removal, no moral "do no evil" make the web a better place scenario....simply money driven.

The following is from the AdSense Program Policies:

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

A site that has nothing but AdSense ads and links to more pages of AdSense ads clearly was "published specifically for the purpose of showing ads" and thus provides a Program Policies reason for removal.

FarmBoy

europeforvisitors




msg:3348847
 4:29 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Way back in this discussion I suggested that Google was removing these sites because they viewed them as competition for their own network. By removing these sites Google expects more users to click via their site (at 100% return) for information.

But users were already clicking on AdWords. (How do you think those users were getting to the click-arbitrage sites?)

What's more, in some cases, eliminating MFAs from the mix will mean fewer AdWords (or even no AdWords) on Google SERPs, which will make it even more likely that users will click on organic search results, not AdWords.

In any case, what's the point in speculating about Google's motives in disabling arbitrageurs' accounts? Those motives aren't important, except to those who enjoy the taste of sour grapes. What is important is the effect on publishers and advertisers.

Play_Bach




msg:3348866
 4:54 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

> What is important is the effect on publishers and advertisers.

That's what I'm waiting to see too. Will the purge of the arbi crowd eventually translate into more legit advertisers on my sites? Hope so.

Rolozo




msg:3348873
 5:02 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)


No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.


A site that has nothing but AdSense ads and links to more pages of AdSense ads clearly was "published specifically for the purpose of showing ads" and thus provides a Program Policies reason for removal.

That TOS term was there for years not new.

Google was sleeping before 20th May?

europeforvisitors




msg:3348875
 5:03 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

So let me get this straight, are they saying that MFAs where violating program policies all along but they still allowed them to continue? *smacks Google on hand*

No, they didn't say that. Read the quote. :-)

As for why they waited until now, it was probably a combination of:

1) Taking action when it was clear that the problem had reached a critical mass; and/or...

2) Waiting until they had automated tools to detect offenders, since a manual whack-a-mole approach would have been cosmetic at best.

What's meaningful is that they have taken action. (And if anyone here doesn't think that's meaningful, the publishers whose accounts were disabled aren't likely to agree!)

netmeg




msg:3348878
 5:11 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

it is the advertising those pages on AdWords and on our pages bit that fried their proverbial goose.

I thought I read somewhere in the 2 dozen pages before this one that someone (trannack maybe?) knew some people who got the notice who were not AdWords advertisers.

Hobbs




msg:3348881
 5:13 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes netmeg, and true it was trannack, but who said that other kinds of banning have stopped? They could have been booted for any number of old reasons too, right?

Green_Grass




msg:3348906
 5:32 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well..Just received an email from G . Heart Stopped beating for a sec. But then found it was an invitation to win an Ipod by giving suggestions on how to improve adSense! O God.. These guys have a sense of humor..

farmboy




msg:3348948
 6:19 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Will the purge of the arbi crowd eventually translate into more legit advertisers on my sites? Hope so.

That would be nice. But I'll be happy if it just translates into fewer non-legit advertisers on my sites.

FarmBoy

farmboy




msg:3348959
 6:27 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

That TOS term was there for years not new.

You previously wrote:
They have no TOS reason for removal, no moral "do no evil" make the web a better place scenario....simply money driven

I simply pointed out there is a direct statement in the Program Policies that provides a reason for removal.

I didn't realize you meant to say they have no NEW reason for removal.

Google was sleeping before 20th May?

Who knows? At this point, I don't see the relevance.

FarmBoy

Jane_Doe




msg:3348961
 6:28 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

why would they get rid of a profitable partner that converted for their advertisers?

I don't know their reasons, but my best guess is that the low quality sites condition the more Internet savvy shoppers not to click on ads anymore, if all they get the majority of the time are spammy landing pages.

Its like with dogs or horses and electric fences. After awhile you can take down the fence and the animals still won't go near it because because they have bad memories of what happened the last time they went there.

[edited by: Jane_Doe at 7:07 pm (utc) on May 24, 2007]

callivert




msg:3348993
 7:08 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google was sleeping before 20th May?

I think the members of the "what took you so long" crowd are underestimating the scope of this operation and how difficult it would be to do. It's all very well for us to sit around and talk about how 'simple' it would be to identify MFA's. It's another thing to scale your ideas up.
This problem could have crippled a less capable company. Previous search engines were destroyed by spam. Remember Alta Vista.

justageek




msg:3349013
 7:26 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's all very well for us to sit around and talk about how 'simple' it would be to identify MFA's.

If little old me has had one running for years now then surely a company with a few more resources than I have could have done it as well. Business is business and it made them money. Simple as that.

JAG

europeforvisitors




msg:3349016
 7:29 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

If little old me has had one running for years now then surely a company with a few more resources than I have could have done it as well.

1) We don't know how well your MFA detector works.

2) Unlike you, Google has to think about collateral damage.

Still, if you've got an easy and foolproof solution, maybe you should market it to Google. Google is buying lots of startup companies these days. :-)

justageek




msg:3349031
 7:51 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's not about how well one works or not it's about actually just building it and when.

I can't sell anything to Google...they already took it all :-)

JAG

need2bdiscreet




msg:3349032
 7:51 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is an interesting thread to read – I totally agree with europeforvisitors post earlier.

For everyone who has a real issue with Arbitrage - where do you think your revenue on your website came from? People came to our sites from yours and the only way they came to our sites is by us paying you money. Now that we are gone let’s all hope that the other “Real Advertisers” have good ad copy, relevant keywords, or dare I say are in your genre. If you were talking about Ringtones on your blog and guess what all your revenues were coming from Arbitrageurs then when you get PSA’s or Blank Ads or your CTR drops think twice about how you feel about us.

Google does not have to worry because they make their money hand over fist from the Ads running on their properties. Do you think Google Smart Prices their own sites? Do you think Google is going to show PSA’s on their own sites? Google get’s the inventory first and what is left over is for the premier publishers, (https://adwords.google.com/select/afc/partners.html) and then after that it is for the independents. So the question you need to ask yourself is where are you on the Ad supply food chain? Are you About.com or the New York Times? if not then maybe just maybe you will not have as much inventory to show on your site.

For every gimmy there is a gotcha and the fact that we are not pumping effectively millions of dollars into the Adwords system is not such a good thing for everyone. Adwords Arbitrage ends June 1st check your revenues for June and see if everything is still on track. I predict you are going to see a dip in your revenues – only time will tell.

Careful with the hating – I don’t know of a single Arbitrager that hates the independent publishers – and we all paid you money to have people click on our ads.

That’s my two cents.

farmboy




msg:3349037
 7:54 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe Google will offer the MFA sites the opportunity to stay with the program but show only PPA ads, not PPC ads.

The advertisers wouldn't have a reason to complain and all that high quality traffic generated by MFA's is certain to convert well and earn the MFA publisher lots of money.

FarmBoy

DamonHD




msg:3349040
 7:57 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

We've had several arbs on this thread clearly regarding the non-arbs as suckers with 'cute' little sites.

A little less smugness/bitterness all round might be useful.

Rgds

Damon

callivert




msg:3349043
 7:59 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Business is business and it made them money. Simple as that.

That's about as plausible as saying that they turn a blind eye to click fraud because it "makes them money." Which is to say, it's not plausible at all, unless they have a corporate culture modeled on Enron.
It's a well known psychological principle that you see in others the values that you yourself hold.

farmboy




msg:3349044
 8:01 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Careful with the hating – I don’t know of a single Arbitrager that hates the independent publishers – and we all paid you money to have people click on our ads.

Hate? That's a strong word. Who said anythng about hating?

Disrespect. Now there's an appropriate word. When someone writes a misleading ad and puts it out there for display on the sites of publishers, that's disrespect.

And the fact that a publisher earns a little money from the click while at the same time frustrating a valued visitor doesn't make it OK.

Excuse me if I'm not gracious for what I earned from the click to your site, considering what it cost me.

FarmBoy

RonS




msg:3349045
 8:02 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

I hate MFAs, but I have to pose a question...

What's the big difference between an MFA site ...

and

AdLinks results pages?

They both show nothing but AdSense ads on the landing page, have no navigation out other than through the ads or the back button, both buy AdWords traffic from content sites by using little text ads clearly marked as ads, frequently with misleading text...

The differences?
1) The publisher of the site isn't complaining, because s/he is getting cut in on the MFA take
2) Google hates the competition for it's MFAs? LOL

Now I'm thinking I should remove AdLinks.

farmboy




msg:3349048
 8:07 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

...when you get PSA’s or Blank Ads or your CTR drops think twice about how you feel about us.

I think people have been showing how they "feel" when they sacrificed a few pennies and put you in their blocked filter.

If a moderator had not already posted a warning about personal attack posts in this thread, I think a number of publishers would be very clear in explaing EXACTLY how they feel.

FarmBoy

callivert




msg:3349049
 8:08 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

What's the big difference between an MFA site and AdLinks results pages?

In all seriousness, I have wondered about the user experience with adlinks myself. This is why I don't have them on my site. But the value of adlinks to advertisers and/or the end user is probably a topic for a separate thread :-)

[edited by: callivert at 8:09 pm (utc) on May 24, 2007]

justageek




msg:3349050
 8:08 pm on May 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

That's about as plausible as saying that they turn a blind eye to click fraud because it "makes them money

OK. I'll say it. They do that as well. Every month it is a battle with them to get credits for click fraud. But that's for another thread.

I'm glad they are doing what they are doing now but on the other hand I don't really care that they made a profit for so long before this. It's just business. Sure it's a pain fighting with them for refunds on the click fraud but then again...it's just part of doing business with them.

JAG

This 513 message thread spans 18 pages: < < 513 ( 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 > >
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