| 10:44 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In the first instance, I think taking down all AdSense ads to show you are serious about trying to sort things out might be the thing to do.
Have you also tried the 'allowed sites' feature to see if your ads are being placed somewhere that they should not?
| 11:09 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Can someone elaborate on the 'allowed sites' feature, where is it, what is it and how does it work?
| 11:09 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google have 'switched off' the ads.
I'll take on your suggestion and see if I can get some clues.
| 11:26 am on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Can someone elaborate on the 'allowed sites' feature, where is it, what is it and how does it work? |
| 1:11 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Peewhy, check your sticky mail...found quite a bit wrong.
| 2:25 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, if you had that many errors on those pages it is probably a given that the same mistakes are repeated on all pages...I saw no ads on your other pages so I had to click around to find something to evaluate.
Plus a lot of search engine penalty bait.
| 2:30 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
A site of mine which gets 5 million page impressions a month was suspended a few months ago. Again no email explaining why.
Luckily I managed to prove it was a misunderstanding, though even though they agreed with me, they still took half a months earnings away. grr
| 2:41 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What did you do to get it reinstated.?
Google simply ingores my emails.
Despite the fact that I have outlined, underlined and highlghted my willingness to co-operate and conform, they won't even answer a polite email!
| 3:05 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If Ann is correct in her evaluation, wouldn't it make sense to fix the obvious problems that she pointed out via StickyMail and then e-mail Google?
| 3:17 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ann related to another site not the one in question
| 3:30 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I sense that Google is attempting to "weed out" smaller sites from Adsense. They deal enough with click fraud to cover the costs.
This could be an answer to why they are avoiding responding to you.
Just my 2 cents.
| 3:34 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|it was a misunderstanding, though even though they agreed with me, they still took half a months earnings away. grr |
And of course refunded all the advertisers.....I am sure they did. To not do so would be dishonest, and I can not imagine that any large company like Google (or Walmart, Mobil, BP, Glaxo &c.) would do anything dishonest in the pursuit of profit.
| 3:38 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, we won't put Google in the category of WalMart (just yet :) (hey, at least their employees seem to be happy :-D
| 3:45 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It may be that Gogle wants to shut small sites down.
I'm sure there ways to do so other than being rude.
Some Adsense publishers also spend a lot of money in Adwords.
At present the site averages 7,500 Adsense clicks per month. It has room to grow and with the right attention and polite correspondence from Google.
But as you say, if they are shutting sites down - what's the point in breaking my back putting it right especially if they won't communicate!
| 4:02 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Some Adsense publishers also spend a lot of money in Adwords. |
June 1st anyone?
| 4:28 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
IF it is another site it came from the URL you gave me and one of you navagation links.
I throughly understand why they shut you down. If you would have done your due diligence in reading TOS and T&C it would have been obvious...if the part I saw was a 'different site' then they are all in trouble. Please forgive me for even looking at it, won't happen again.
| 4:35 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You were giving me information relating to a USA based site, not the one in question.
I'm not sure where the confusion came in.
| 4:35 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
| 4:52 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I sense that Google is attempting to "weed out" smaller sites from Adsense. |
I have a number of smaller sites (and have had for several years) and I do not see this to be the case.
| 4:54 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just what I would have thought until I received the dreaded email ....fingers crossed for you!
| 4:55 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
<it is smarter to help a wounded animal than a human being...the human bites harder.>
Putting your head in the sand won't make your problem go away.
| 5:08 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I have a number of smaller sites (and have had for several years) and I do not see this to be the case. |
A number of sites (even small) could give an account a reasonable number of impressions overall. I am not saying that Google is "deliberatly" going after smaller sites to ban accounts, but I am sure they are not bending over backwards for them either. (This is where smaller companies like Adbrite and Bidvertiser need to step in). Also, there is something I believe in the TOS that says you must receive a certain number of impressions (or clicks) per month or they have the right to ban the account, or something along those lines? I wouldn't worry too much about it though. Google is a good program, but there are others out there.
| 5:14 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
what I don't understand is, why doesn't Google contact advertisers through Adsense? There should be a messaging center inside each Adsense account so that users can be informed directly of anything going on. This is good for customer relations and would probably cause things to run smoother IMHO.
| 5:19 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It isn't necessarily Google as a corporation it is likely to be the operators.
It is a great way to make people beg and squirm.
If I have 'violated', please tell me where and how ... rather than sending a long list of possibilities and ambiguous messages.
The replies I am getting
"I cannot tell you the precise violations but if you continue your account will be terminated" isn't a fair response when I am trying to resolve the issue.
| 5:27 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
They probably don't want to help people game the system. If, for example, you're doing half a dozen things that they regard as being shady, why should they tell which one they've picked up on their radar? From their point of view, it would be better if you removed all half-dozen shady items than just the one that triggered their attention.
Plus, they probably just don't want to instigate a lengthy dialogue with a publisher who no longer meets their requirements. (I can't help thinking of when I worked as an assistant fiction editor and my boss warned me, "Never give specifics about why you rejected a manuscript--you'll just get into an endless debate with the author.")
| 5:35 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yep, there's a lot of truth there.
I have asked them to take a new look and let me know if it is still in violation but they are ignoring that too.
Even though I am co-operating its 'damned if you do and dammed if you don't'!
| 5:46 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You're accusing them of "ignoring" you, but you aren't exactly giving them any time to reply. If you sent them a message since you started this thread, you shouldn't expect a reply till tomorrow at the soonest. It was just a 3-day holiday weekend here in the states, and the AdSense crew got to take it off. There might have been some people working on Monday in your country, but I wouldn't bet on anyone being able to deal with a banning anywhere for the last 3 days.
| 6:13 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I had this happen back in May.
Basically they don't want to answer what exactly the problem is. They want you to fix EVERYTHING you think the problem is. That should make you site squeaky clean and that is what they are really after. I has 4 things it could have been, things that were a slight touch of grey. Out of panic, I change all 4 because I was losing almost a grand a day and I couldn't take the chance.
Even after I was done they still wouldn't tell me exactly what it was.
It is a general scare tactic and guess what?
[edited by: Khensu at 6:16 pm (utc) on Sep. 4, 2007]
| 6:40 pm on Sep 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google is in the UK too and we haven't got a public holiday
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: 80 (  2 3 ) > > |