| 3:02 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think a point worth raising is that of absolute personal opinion. |
IMHO extremely unlikely, G's AdSense staff administer to the program guidelines that we all use therefore if anyone is doing anything questionable it is up to the publisher to re-read the program policies to comprehend where they have broken thier rules.
After all, how many AdSense publishers are there that never have any correspondence with Google except for their monthly cheque?
Many, many thousands more than the odd complainant around here.
You've done something incorrect, it's up to you to find out precisely what since we cannot see your site.
Earlier in the thread you stated:
|Ann related to another site not the one in question |
Is there a problem with that site? Does it use the same AdSense publisher's code?
| 3:56 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
No the other site does not use the same code.
| 4:40 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|There are some other things they could do, too, such as raising the minimum payment or charging an administrative/overhead fee for accounts below a certain level of revenue. But they probably won't do either of those things (or establish a traffic minimum) since the Google approach has been like Amazon's: Go for an overwhelming market share. |
But how do you know they don't really do that since the Adsense publishers do not know what "percentage share" they get from the advertisers' bid?
They may go like this:
a) If you are a small publisher -> take an additional 20% of the bid amount.
b) Big publisher -> take "only" 10% for administrative/overhead fee.
| 4:56 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Who knows what Google does behind closed doors.
It has different offices that may sing from different hymn sheets....and different officers that may sing from different hymn sheets.
There must be a cost effectiveness to keeping a program live on a site that doesn't attract sufficient visitors.
There's probably millions of pages that have never earned a penny and the publisher lets them float around in cyber space.
I would think that sooner or later Google would pull the plug.
| 5:02 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Menial, Google clearly states the minimum payment, and if an administrative fee were assessed for sites below a certain revenue level as a way to discourage small publishers, it would be in Google's own interests to publicize that fact.
In any case, the fact that a few publishers get suspended or banned for violating the TOS doesn't mean that Google is trying to discourage small publishers or abandon the winner-take-all strategy that has worked well for AdSense since the network was launched in 2003.
| 5:09 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|and if an administrative fee were assessed for sites below a certain revenue level as a way to discourage small publishers, it would be in Google's own interests to publicize that fact. |
It could also be a way to simply make Google more money so it wouldn't make a business sense to publicize that.. After all, it seems small publishers bring Google most money from Adsense overall. And I assume 80-90% of all Adsense publishers are small.
| 5:20 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Menial, if you want to speculate on Google's overhead assessments or compensation structure, why not start a thread on that topic? This thread is (or was) about Peewhy's suspension from AdSense.
| 5:47 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
EVF, if you re-read your own posts above, they are 100% speculative. I haven't read in the WW TOS I must make 10,000 messages to be allowed to do the same.
| 5:53 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It has different offices that may sing from different hymn sheets....and different officers that may sing from different hymn sheets. |
You seem to be taking this as a personal attack from a Google employee when they are all highly trained officers of the company.
I feel sure that if one employee had any doubt about your site's non-compliance I am sure they check it with another to ensure your correct implementation.
|It is three years old and has gone on without issue. |
Have you changed anything recently such as adding images too close to ads?
Clearly you seem to have done something against their TOS however it is impossible for any of us to speculate precisely what without actually viewing the "offending" site and the longer this thread continues the less productive it will be since it is all pure guesswork.
| 5:58 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The bulk of these posts are speculative because Google moves in mysterious ways.
We speculate why Google suspends sites, we speculate how some sites don't get suspended.
I was miffed by the way I was treated by Google but in the fullness of time I feel they have done me a favour because new doors have opened and I hope they prove prosperous.
Adsense isn't the only program as Hoover is no longer the only vacuum cleaner.
| 6:33 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|EVF, if you re-read your own posts above, they are 100% speculative. |
Again, you're missing the point. (See the subject line of this thread, and maybe you'll understand what we're trying to discuss.)
Returning to the original topic:
In an earlier post, Ann said that she'd examined the original poster's site and sent the OP a list of things that were wrong with it. The OP replied that the rule violations were on a different site, not on the site that prompted the e-mail from Google. Whether that's true or not, it's likely to be irrelevant, because the time bomb is ticking for the OP if he or she has violations on any site with that publisher code.
| 7:17 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
A member kindly sent me an opinion of things that might be wrong.
Unfortunately the points related to a site that linked to the site in question as opposed to directly relating to the site that Google suspended.
It was a very thoughtful gesture and done with the very best intentions and I appreciate the help.
| 8:01 pm on Sep 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
peewhy, is the site that linked to the site in question a site of your's or one that could be considered closely related? I'm not talking related topic, I'm talking about any way that you appear to have any control over it. Is the AdSense account on that site related to you in any way?
I just want to be clear on this, no accusation intended.
| 6:11 am on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is one of mine and has adsense on it.
Google referred to a specific page on the site in question leading me to understand that the 'violation' was on that page alone.
I can't see the logic in suspending a site because another site with adsense linked to it may be violating TOS.
The email from Google said "upon reviewing www.?.com/?.htm we note it is in violation of our TOS or policies."
It could be either TOS or Policy.
I asked for more specific information and they said they couldn't tell me exactly what or where the violation is but if it continues I will be excluded. They suggested I read all the TOS and policies.
I explained that I am more than willing to co-operate and make amendments but would like clarity in where I have gone wrong.
From then on Google chose to ignore my requests.
The site is constantly and consistently updated and changed and I dare say that TOS and Policy has been updated and changed from the time I read it many moons ago.
Because Google doesn't want to assist in giving me a clue, I have removed adsense from the site and added Miva.
It doesn't take a modicum of courtesy to develop a partnership and I genuinely believe the actions are that of one trigger happy individual.
However, upwards and onwards. As I said before Adsense isn't the only publishers' program as much as Hoover isn't the only vacuum cleaner.
| 6:46 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The email from Google said "upon reviewing www.?.com/?.htm we note it is in violation of our TOS or policies." |
Heck, I've never known them to be that specific!
If it's just one page then surely the problem is evident? How does that page differ from all your others?
May it be the actual page content rather than your implementation?
What is the page subject? Does that contravene the TOS?
| 8:26 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Don't use adbrite and for the love of God do not use miva..
If it comes down to it, just make another site.. In the long run you'll be far better off financially..
Don't try to fight Google, you will lose.. Also, they truly couldn't care less about losing your business so give it a rest with the threats.. just watch their profits grow every quarter and then ask yoruself if their leadership really cares about a foreigner who has violated their TOS..
| 9:56 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for your advise.
I'm going through a selection process and will no doubt find a suitable alternative. If Miva turns out to be a good partner, fine!
As for fighting Google, I feel you haven't read the posts. The same can be said about 'threats' ... Although I'm not sure where you perceived them.
You assume I am a 'foreigner'?
| 10:42 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You said "Google is in the UK too and we haven't got a public holiday "
Ann also said that your site was not USA based..
from the perspective of Google, you are a foreigner.. Not that the UK is a prime source of click fraud, but a lot of American companies are automatically suspicious of webmasters outside of the United States.. Even if the webmaster is from a first-world, English-speaking ally..
I will go ahead and say once again.. do not waste your time with miva.. you'd be better off posting a banner for lloyds TSB insurance or some other high paying UK merchant..
| 11:01 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
How does all that make me a foreigner...or fraudster?
| 11:45 pm on Sep 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Not sure I understand the purpose of the post at this point? Others have offered to assist in looking at the site or pages to assist in cleaning up the site in question. All of those offers have been refused, or so it seems. The point that the original poster doesn't like the terms of google's adsense contract has been made. So what are we discussing at this point? That alternatives are available...we already are aware of these. They have been discussed in great detail here along with Yahoo services.
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1 2  ) |