homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.100.8
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 260 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 260 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >     
AdSense Disabling Arbitrage Accounts by June 1st - Part 2
econman




msg:3350066
 7:23 pm on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thread continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]


There seem to be several very solid, important topics that need exploring. Perhaps one of the moderators would like to establish a new thread for the purpose, but it can also be explored as a continuation this one.

Either way, it's starting to look like this isn't a mirage -- something real and important has happened, and thus it would be worthwhile to understand what's going on.

Here are some thoughts on the potential focus of a new thread, or future discussions in this thread.

Topic 1. What is the true scope of this change?

At the narrow end of the spectrum, perhaps Google is targeting a very narrowly defined business plan or a very specific type of arbitrage site -- with little or no real content, using Adwords to obtain traffic and using Adsense to generate revenue.

At wide end of the specturm, this might be an early sign that Google is going to stamp out any business plan that adversely affects public perceptions of its Adwords and Adsense brands.

To enhance and protect its Adsense brand, Google could stop running Adsense on scraper sites, little-to-no-content sites, sites with mostly nonsense text, etc.

To enhance and protect its Adwords brand, Google block these types of sites from running Adwords campaigns, even if they generate their revenues using affiliate programs, display ads, YPN, etc.

Topic 2: What will be the indirect effect of this change on other publishers and advertisers -- those who are not being kicked out of Adsense?

Topic 3: How should webmasters adjust their strategies and business plans, in response to the change and in anticipation of the indirect effects of the change?

There's been some discussion and speculation about all 3 of these topics already, but a more in-depth, thoughtful analysis could be developed if we pool our collective knowledge and insights.

Of course, these 3 topics are related, since future effects and future strategies will depend on what's really going on -- the true scope of this change.

 

blend27




msg:3350373
 3:00 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

-- Aircut -- Its time to start reporting those MFA's ads

Thats not the point, Google has to do it themselves, they are the ones who got themselves in this mess, it's their product that needs to be defended-redefined as to be compeling to more adverisers and publishers in the way.

Scurramunga




msg:3350382
 3:21 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thats not the point, Google has to do it themselves, they are the ones who got themselves in this mess, it's their product that needs to be defended-redefined as to be compeling to more adverisers and publishers in the way

Besides June 1st there has been another positive development on the MFA issue this week; that development was ASA's posting telling us that Google is showing a genuine interest this thread. After June 1st if a number of MFA's slip through an automated net, or they happen to re emerge, I for one would be happy to report them to Google regardless of who has "got themselves into this mess" It has probably been a difficult task for Google to come this far and if some additional support is needed to complete the MFA cull or maintain it's effects, what's wrong with publishers contributing if needed?

[edited by: Scurramunga at 3:45 am (utc) on May 26, 2007]

jomaxx




msg:3350388
 3:46 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Conversion rate is irrelevant to this issue; a red herring. Smart Pricing already exists to more or less manage that issue. Sites aren't being banned for low conversion, they're being banned for relying on "arbitrage".

need2bdiscreet




msg:3350390
 3:49 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is what get’s me - we are and have been the canary in the coalmine for the AdSense team. I have been in business for over 20 years and have partnered with many different companies, (Oracle, Microsoft, Sun, HP to name a few), and I have never ever dealt with such an aloof partner as Google. Their Magic Eight-Ball approach to disseminate information is pretty funny – Ask a question – get a vague response or no response – ask for a rationale – get a wafting greater good mother hood statement. Aside from being banned based on no specified or clearly documented policy, (they sent me gifts for crying out loud – EFT’ing money into my bank account and charging my Visa like clockwork for months) - I am getting out of this game because until they mature and provide clear guidance then it is just too risky. How many of you spent countless hours developing your site – your content – your layout – only to please and conform to Google based on some sort of vague guidelines and at the same time live in fear that you have offended them in some way. For those that like that game – go for it – for myself, I have children that want to go for bike rides with me and would like me to step away from this online shell game and that is more important to me.

I think if Google is serious with all of you they will step up to the plate and lay down some rules that apply to all – provide you with answers to your questions and treat you like a real partner should. Drop the “We will tell you when the time is right attitude” making you feel like you should keep that cap in your hand and they will throw you a schilling or two for your troubles.

Good luck to all in your future endeavors - I am out.

Cheers
P.S. Sorry for the rant

blend27




msg:3350391
 3:51 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Scurramunga, I am not as sparky as I used to be anymore, and perhaps a bit harsh, well I don't believe an miracles if you will.

we realy talked about it back then
[webmasterworld.com...]

2 years? more.

I just showed to a fellow member how sweet looking an MFA could look. We need ALGO that works against this issue, the one that does not diminish a hardworking webmasters/publishers, simply the one that works without 'Oh, the patch is coming to a browser near you'. and without 'Soon babby, soon'

farmboy




msg:3350395
 4:09 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bygones now, just make sure to analyze why it took so long and the next critical decision don't take another 3 years pretty please.

Amen to that. I was so tired of waiting for Anna AdSense to put on her shoes and lipstick, I was starting to look for a new date. Let's go Anna, the dance don't last all night!

I'm sure all wemasters would be happier if we knew the specific reasons for accounts being disabled rather than just the speculation we've been indulging in.

Us publishers always want information, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I suppose Google has to consider the other side - for every piece of useful information provided, there's some old goat out there just looking for a way to exploit it.

Message to Hobbs: Did you notice I combined two comments in one post? I'm down to 9.34% now.

FarmBoy

Hobbs




msg:3350445
 7:14 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Totally agree with Jomaxx, conversion data is not related to this thread. Additionally, ppa networks like cj provide conversion data, most of us are on ppc, so you can't compare. True, Google is a black box for publishers, but that has nothing to do with the whacking of MFA, greed is.

---
Yes Farmboy, I'll stop dividing your total posts by 2.4 from now on :-)

jeffgroovy




msg:3350451
 7:49 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Us publishers always want information, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I suppose Google has to consider the other side - for every piece of useful information provided, there's some old goat out there just looking for a way to exploit it.

Exactly farmboy, and that's why if a simple TOS and webmaster guidelines aren't enough, then you're probably pushing limits that G shouldn't have to define. If you write or otherwise publish quality articles and your sites are populated with them, even without selling a product it's logically arguable that you publish to push your agenda and that you believe in it enough to market it. That's why IMHO only thin, junk, or replicated content sites are currently getting the axe. Even if the content was written with adsense in mind, if it's quality, it's quality (knowing full well there are shades of quality.) As jomaxx mentioned smartpricing can take care of "MFA 2.0" just like it has already been doing for quite some time. (MFA 2.0 smarpricing example: an ad unit on a site that pays you .24 cents a click on average smart priced will now pay you .04 a click on average) Which as far as I'm concerned accomplishes at least two goals:

1. Gives an opportunity for the same advertisers that were paying .24+ cents plus a click to now pay .04+ cents a click and possibly recoup losses from when they were paying .24+ cents a click.

2. There are PLENTY of large advertisers willing to pay .04 cents a click for branding purposes alone with no conversions in mind, but please no more "buy new and used *insert keyword here* on eBay" Please! If you want to get ebay off everyones blocked sites list.

This thread isn't about smartpricing so in my conclusion to solve this entire nightmare, G's introduction of their own brand of cj.com could do the trick. Giving advertisers the option to go with a performance only model or continue with the old PPC/CPM model. If you don't have and aren't gearing up for performance based affiliate income yet, then stop reading this thread already and get to work! (albeit, this is the longest thread I've ever read spread out over a few days it's a must read)

arikgub




msg:3350497
 10:42 am on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

How many of you spent countless hours developing your site – your content – your layout – only to please and conform to Google based on some sort of vague guidelines and at the same time live in fear that you have offended them in some way.

All who has done that have to blame themselves now. Just don't do that, don't develop a website with Adsense in mind. And don't use solely Adsense for monetization. As always, diversity is an answer to everything: diversity in traffic sources, diversity in income sources ...

Scurramunga




msg:3350530
 12:24 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

blend27
I hear you. In fact I did state earlier in this thread that I won't be holding my breath, but this is probably as good as it's ever been for publishers and it might just be a start.

Hobbs




msg:3350536
 12:38 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

for every piece of useful information provided, there's some old goat out there just looking for a way to exploit it

And let's not forget misinformation.

Since Google is "correcting its path", 3 things have to be acknowledged for this not to happen again:

1- It took too long to correct your path (as I said before)

2- The corporate black box played a role in tempting the corruptible

3- There was misinformation, e.g. on one hand they are encouraging relevant original content, and on another they are pushing for more ads per page and blending link units.

Another clear wrong message can be seen when Google features a success story in their blog calling it "AdWords and AdSense: a perfect pair"
(Google it with quotes for the link)

And what do we find as examples of this perfect pair, sites whose front page maxed out on the number of allowed ads per page, not an MFA, agree, but what does their choice inspire?

This is not an invitation for MFA owners to claim innocence, far from it, this is a call for Google to:
a) learn from their mistakes
b) be more open and clear internally and externally
c) empower those on their side and help them help Google (e.g. unanswered cries for blocking by account and unlimited filter..)

and spare themselves and us future agony, they are probably the most self correcting company I have ever dealt with, so I am optimistic.

dontbeevil




msg:3350609
 2:44 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi all,
Very interesting conversation.
I just wanted to say that while I can't provide any new information right now about the decision to close certain AdSense accounts, I am following this thread closely, along with many other people from all parts of the AdSense team. This decision was a long time in the making, and your thoughts and feedback are quite valuable to us.
-ASA

Hi AdSenseAdvisor,
Yes, very interesting indeed. We appreciate that you are finally coming on board on this issue. It is obvious by now that this June 1. AdSense thing is going to kick out serious long time members here on Webmasterworld and it’s scaring many more.

Listen… people are scared.

The decent honourable and god thing for you to do is not to just “follow” this conversation but to enter into it and clear things up.

ann




msg:3350620
 3:15 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I feel this thing could have been stopped in the beginning simply
by denying AdWords service to accounts that had ONLY adsense as a stock in trade (I am speaking of MFAs here), and allowing those who buy and sell products. If for branding only then NO adsense ads.

Just thinking out loud. Me? I don't even advertise, organic traffic only. :)

Ann

farmboy




msg:3350631
 3:30 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Listen… people are scared.

As EFV or Hobbs or someone mentioned previously, "Some people are scared.

Anyone old enough to have a site and an AdSense account is old enough to know that:

1. If you get too close to the fire, sometimes you'll get burned

2. Don't put all your eggs in one basket

I take no pleasure in another's pain, but the hard lessons are the best learned.

Sometimes you have to swat the mule to get his attention. If someone is scared, consider it a swat and decide what you're going to do from this point forward.

FarmBoy

lammert




msg:3350682
 4:56 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I feel this thing could have been stopped in the beginning simply by denying AdWords service to accounts that had ONLY adsense as a stock in trade (I am speaking of MFAs here), and allowing those who buy and sell products. If for branding only then NO adsense ads.

Unfortunately the internet is not so easy dividable in "product" and "content" sites. There is much inbetween. I am for example currently running an AdWords campaign to promote a forum section of a site to quickly get at a critical mass of members. The site contains AdSense ads and currently no other type of advertising.

On another (small) site I promote one of my brick and mortar businesses. Traffic is > 90% AdWords and the site has an AdLinks block for those not satisfied with my offerings and wanting to try something else.

Technically speaking these are examples of arbitrage as some people may come via my AdWords campaign and leave via an AdSense ad. Yet I am not affraid to be hit as collateral damage in Google's current cleanup.

Denying AdSense/AdWords for a specific site requires much more parameters than only the theme, or product/non-product type definition.

blend27




msg:3350724
 5:59 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

lammert, nothing against the idea but,

if I want to I could hook up thin site to Paypal and try to sell the widgets for 50% more of the highest market value available for these widgets, and run Adsence along the line? I've seen these too..

netmeg




msg:3350725
 6:06 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

One of the fallouts I can see happening from the way this was handled is that it could scare some people off of AdWords who might well benefit (themselves, the advertisers and Google) from using it.

There are certainly legitimate reasons to run both AdWords and AdSense for a site - in my case, I'm trying to establish a brand in most if not all cities in my state, and my organic SERPS don't rank in the top ten for every single city, so I use AdWords to bring in traffic for the areas where I'm not indexed or ranking yet. I also use Google Analytics quite extensively, and there is a pageview limit that doesn't take effect if you have an AdWords account- IMO it's worth running a small account just for that.

AdWords accounts for only about 4% of all my traffic at the moment. My site pre-dates Google, and it would stay up even if I didn't have AdWords or AdSense, because a lot of people depend on it and I enjoy publishing it. But yea, I'm certainly trying to monetize it, because I put a lot of work (and some amount of money) into it. And I don't want to feel like I have to be looking over my shoulder all the time wondering at what point (unforeseen by me) I cross some line in the sand that Google has drawn.

I absolutely understand that out of concern for abuse of the system AND for competitive reasons, Google can't release too much information about the thought that has gone into this.

But I do think it's necessary for Google (not ASA, but Google) to come out and make some statement about all this, and maybe clear up some of the FUD that is going around now about using AdSense and AdWords together, because I think ultimately the silence is causing damage to THEIR brand. And that affects me not only as a publisher, but also on the advertising side, because I'm a GAP and a good portion of my business is convincing clients to use the AdWords product.

europeforvisitors




msg:3350751
 6:46 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I feel this thing could have been stopped in the beginning simply by denying AdWords service to accounts that had ONLY adsense as a stock in trade (I am speaking of MFAs here), and allowing those who buy and sell products. If for branding only then NO adsense ads.

1) Many small publishers of quality content sites don't have any other "stock in trade." AdSense was designed for publishers like them.

2) I'd rather see AdSense ads on a mom-and-pop content site than on "buying and selling products" site (where AdSense ads suggest that the merchant doesn't have a viable business).

3) What's wrong with branding?

econman




msg:3350765
 7:11 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

There's a comment near the top of the 2005 thread referenced above, which nicely summarizes something I've long wondered about: Whether Google partnered with sites having little or no content, scraped content, and nonsense text, not only because of the short term income boost, but also because these sites acted like sand in it's competitors' search engines.

If Google plays the game right, they tune their search engine algorithm in such a way that most scraper sites do not appear in their own SERPs, but they promote scraper sites enough--by allowing AdSense on them--that other search engines like Yahoo and MSN are polluted with them. In that way they earn the money generated by traffic to these scraper sites from Yahoo and MSN and they also stay to be the most popular search engine because they have the cleanest SERPs.

This is a dangerous business IMHO, but if they really think they are the smartest in searching technology, it might be another valid reason for them to not punish scraper directory sites with AdSense on them.

Perhaps the folks at Google have had some misgivings about the longer term effects of this partnership -- because the MFAs have proliferated to an extent far beyond what they originally anticipated.

Or, perhaps Google is gaining enough confidence in its market position and technology, relative to the competition, that the beneficial impact of MFA's on MSN and Yahoo's SERPs (making them look bad compared to Google) no longer seems as important as it once did.

Or, perhaps as the MFAs have proliferated to an ever greater extent, Google began to worry that it was damaging its Adsense brand by partnering with so many sites which are of such poor quality or engaged in deceptive trade practices.

Food for thought...

europeforvisitors




msg:3350782
 7:55 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why they chose to crack down is of academic interest at ths point. If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the higher-ups said "Never mind your quarterly revenue goals--just get rid of this #*$!, which is threatening the future viability of the network." (Or words to that effect.) Whatever the reasons behind the timing, anyone who looks at the situation objectively is likely to agree that Google made the right decision.

newsecular




msg:3350785
 8:05 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Quoted from ASA:
"This decision was a long time in the making, and your thoughts and feedback are quite valuable to us."

Dear Google AdSense Team / ASA - As this decision was "a long time in the making."

- Why then did you wait to notify me of your concerns?
- Why did you not send me a warning earlier in the process?

jpservicez1




msg:3350796
 8:26 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Did any of you received the "questionaire" from google this week..if you think carefully you will get an idea what Google has install by 1st of June.

[webmasterworld.com...]

Or ask yourself this question why send this questionaire out now...hmmnn

Just an Observation

nomis5




msg:3350798
 8:31 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

One discussion maybe missing from this thread is exactly how many accounts have been banned. Looking thru the entire thread, it seems that maybe seven or eight individuals are admitting to being banned from Adsense. It's surely not possible that the whole thread is based on those individuals alone is it? What % or numbers do you think have been affected? Just in case we are discussing clouds in the air!

jomaxx




msg:3350802
 8:40 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Based on the number of people who know multiple account holders affected, it seems like a lot. OTOH, I didn't notice any longtime WW members saying that they had been asked to leave the program. I guess we'll know better next week.

Scurramunga




msg:3350813
 8:52 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

...add to that the fact that ASA has acknowledged this thread.

sailorjwd




msg:3350845
 9:38 pm on May 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'd like to know from readers who have been knocked out of adsense and have adwords accounts the following:

Did any of you have interaction with Adwords during the past year (since July 11, 2006) concerning your landing page's Quality Score and have had adwords suggest that your business model did not conform to googles high QS algorithm?

I received a suggestion from them like the above back in early late summer/early autumn. After I Repeatedly requested that they be more explicit as to why, via phone calls and emails. [/b]

I haven't received the dreaded email yet, so do you want to know what else I changed on my website and adwords advertising?

I can tell you what their limitd suggestions for change were.

avg joe

ann




msg:3350897
 12:04 am on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Unlike other bans this one may not be permenant. If you can judge from two people who have gotten emails on the subject.

Sorry cannot reveal who, what, or how...Mainly because I don't know all the facts so I feel there may be a little leaking of intent here?

Ann

cmendla




msg:3350920
 1:32 am on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Unlike other bans this one may not be permenant.

I sincerely hope Google is really going to clean up the MFA and that they are not 'leaving the door open' in case they want to reverse course..

ie. Let's see if the post June 1 revenues coincide with the 'take out the MFAs' model, if not, invite them back in.. This could possibly explain the hug/kiss parting rather than the usual iron boot.

I really hope that I"m completely wrong.... I guess it will take a couple of months to see what is really going to happen.

cg

europeforvisitors




msg:3350923
 1:54 am on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

ie. Let's see if the post June 1 revenues coincide with the 'take out the MFAs' model, if not, invite them back in.. This could possibly explain the hug/kiss parting rather than the usual iron boot.

The fact that the arbitrageurs are paying AdWords customers could explain the polite approach.

blend27




msg:3350928
 2:56 am on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Now just imagine this:

Clean marble kitchen table top. look, squicky clean.

Take Pure water, 200 mg, add 15 drops of Milk and 2 tea spoons of grain solt. Mix it wel, shake it if you like to.

Take 2 spoons of fresh honey, 200 mg of warmed up well milk, add a shot of cognac.

Galp both.

SQL:

USE CoolAde_DB

select * from tbl_Koolaid
where dateAdded > ..........

Invalid Parametr: CoolAde_DB
ck=heck spelllling

Did you mean "spelling"?

Click.

DonMateo




msg:3350932
 2:58 am on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

The fact that the arbitrageurs are paying AdWords customers could explain the polite approach.

And the fact that they aren't explicitly breaking any terms and conditions. They can't just be booted.

This 260 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 260 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >
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