| 2:36 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I'm also concerned that Google adsense possibly doesn't want adsense ads on content only sites regardless of where the traffic comes from. |
I don't understand this sentence, care to elaborate?
Like many others I have unique and authoratative content only sites and never had a problem and my traffic sources are global.
| 3:18 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm only speculating here...from Google's standpoint (not mine) what purpose do content only sites with adsense ads serve? What's to keep Google from saying a site's only purpose is to show ads if it's content only? The Wall Street Journal recently named my site one of the top three authority sites in it's niche. It's been content only up to this point and yes my income comes from adsense. Is this the kind of site they don't want? I really don't know. Please keep in mind it's not my account that's been banned, it's a family member's.
| 3:24 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Are you suggesting that good informational sites are not what Google wants or am I missing something?
It would certainly be contra to their original aims.
| 3:34 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't know how to say this politely but..
It really bugs me when webmasters with 8- 10 year old established sites asuume that they have sole right to partake of Google adSense revenues and everyone else with a newer site which does not rank in the top 10 is a cheat/thief/scraper.
It is NOT the sole preserve of guys who have well ranked sites to make money online. Anyone with high quality unique content has an equal right.
I have seen posts on this forum where many webmaters have clawed their way to the top with paid links, unethical link exchanges and what not, and they now somehow have the right to criticize others who pay for tarffic. Why is a paid link not bought traffic?
This is not to say that all those who have anti paid traffic posts are unethical but there are enough of them around here and also on the web.
These days it takes time to establish a website. Paid traffic is one way to grab eyeballs.
I sure hope google understands the difference.
If google was to allow adSense only on the Top 10 or 20 ranking websites.. They are sure to take a big hit not only in revenues but also in quality of traffic.
| 3:44 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
That's exactly what I'm beginning to question. They've changed their thinking on many things since the beginning. They told us to blend ads then they said don't blend ads for example. In any case, Google is driving me crazy.
| 3:45 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I don't know how to say this politely but.. |
Heck, I hope that wasn't aimed at me? I haven't partaken in any of those things except having been around since the Net started:-)
Do you feel a lot of this is actually Google's own fault with allowing so many dubious quality blogging sites and now they're trying to rein them back in?
That wasn't aimed at anyone specifically, simply a general observation plus comments made in these forums the last couple of years.
| 3:59 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sometimes the paid link is the only way to get a link you want! :) A real quality site does not got out and say, "Gee, I think I'll place an external link to this very useful site, just because I like them". It's more apt to say, "They would be great, but if they want to be on our site, they are going to have to pay for it one way or another." endorsement, AdWords or advertise.
Back on topic, maybe the cancel letter meant exactly what it said, "the site just didn't fit anymore". Why does it always have to be a conspiracy thing ;)
[edited by: TammyJo at 4:00 pm (utc) on May 7, 2008]
| 4:02 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There's a lot of noise and not much signal in this item.
|My personal gut feeling is Google does not want adwords landing pages to have any adsense ads on them at all. I'm also concerned that Google adsense possibly doesn't want adsense ads on content only sites regardless of where the traffic comes from. |
That would be contrary to pretty much all my experiences with AdWords and AdSense, since the start of the programs. And contrary to just about all the statements (and behavior) that I've seen from Google over that period as well.
| 4:13 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I so hope you're right netmeg!
| 4:13 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I forgot to say sometimes it's very good to be wrong.
| 5:56 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Google really has horrible business ethics. What's wrong with first *warning* people that their business model is unwanted and only taking definitive action after a certain amount of time? How hard is it to give people at least a chance to adapt to a new policy?
| 6:50 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
On Adwords chat support I asked and got this response:
I'm glad we were able to clear that up. There are no policies related to having AdSense on a landing page. You can view all of our policies here: [adwords.google.com...]
| 7:24 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Google really has horrible business ethics. What's wrong with first *warning* people that their business model is unwanted and only taking definitive action after a certain amount of time? How hard is it to give people at least a chance to adapt to a new policy? |
If there weren't thousands upon tens of thousands upon (maybe) hundreds of thousands looking for every possible opportunity to scam the system, Google might be more willing to give honest or semi-honest mistakes the benefit of the doubt. But there are, and so they don't.
| 10:28 pm on May 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You just need a couple of lines of code to put a check like if the adsense publisher has more than X amount of time in the system, then give it a second chance, or issue a warning instead.
Really, is not that hard.
| 6:54 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
of course a warning would be preferred to a banning, but dont forget that google knows your traffic (from adsense snippets, toolbar data, search referrals etc).
if they discover that the majority of a site's traffic is coming from adwords, they may simply not want to do business with that publisher.
this might be the reason why they are not giving warning messages, but rather going straight to the 'incompatible business model" email.
| 7:48 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I need help in understanding a few things.
Question_1: Isn't the reason why most publishers put most of the sites on their filter not because of sites that are competing, but because of the business model of the sites they're choosing to filter out so that they won't show up on their sites?
Question_2: Isn't MFA/arbitrage a recognizable business model?
Quesion_3: If people are running MFA/arbitrage sites, don't they know what they're doing, without needing Google to tell them what they're doing?
Maybe I'm missing something, and just haven't seen sites that aren't that kind of model.
Does anyone really think or believe that Google makes absolutely no use of the site URLs/domains that Adsense publishers put on the filter? Isn't there the possibility that in some way sites that are filtered out beyond some given threshold are tagged for some kind of additional review?
Is there anyone who thinks that Google's search technology isn't applied, or isn't capable, of that kind of flagging and filtering/banning/exluding?
Does anyone really think that Google only develops advertising-related algorithms and technologies, and then applies for patents for them, because it gives them whiter teeth and sweeter breath?
[edited by: Marcia at 8:01 am (utc) on May 8, 2008]
| 7:58 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone really think or believe that Google makes absolutely no use of the site URLs/domains that Adsense publishers put on the filter? |
I guess they are using the data, but just in a PowerPoint presentation style, i.e. some manager gives a presentation to senior management and has to show evidence for the filter activity, or maybe the top-10 blocked domains. Remember, blocking costs Google money!
If they were actively using the data from the filter, I guess all those ads for parked domains were long gone.
| 8:05 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|If they were actively using the data from the filter, I guess all those ads for parked domains were long gone. |
Numerical data on exclusion vs. revenue accrued could make a decent argument/parameter in running a publisher/advertiser exclusion filter.
| 8:41 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The top blocked domains are youtube and myspace anyways, I figure
| 9:08 am on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I did not get any clue how Google or Adsense behaves. Many rich online gurus tell that it is very easy if we follow their strategy.
When my incomes grown slowly I wrote to Adsense to know more, then they put my account under G/SandBox. Adwords are useless, I raised the bid, daily spending as I did research & study from others. Should I shut down it as no traffic due to adwords?
Many sites we see who entice for good traffic if they are paid. It is against natural traffic. Adwords do not add any traffic either.
What is the solution as many sites of mine were ranked well then dropped from the SERPS?
| 3:36 pm on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
may I come back to that mail -- did you check that mail to be genuine?
Can you confirm that it really originated from the plex?
It seems that there are 2 types of these 'dreaded' mail floating around: real ones and faked ones.
I vaguely remember that I got a similar mail a few days ago.
It 'looked' serious from its wording (apparently a copy and paste of an original text), but it contained an obscure http-link that was not associated with a genuine google domain, and it was sent to an arbitrary mail address of mine that sees a lot of spam, but was not the specific mail address I once registered with my adsense account.
I did not follow the link, so I can't tell which drive-by-download-trojan may have been waiting at the other end, and subsequentially ignored the mail.
| 5:29 pm on May 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can not confirm that it originated from Google. The address shows firstname.lastname@example.org and there are not any links on the email. I guess I won't know until 7 days have passed by and the account is no longer able to be logged into.
| 2:11 pm on May 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Can you please post the content of the e-mail (please remove the hyperlink and any PII).
| 2:55 pm on May 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
rubik, that's against the WW TOS.
| 11:29 am on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am wondering if ASA can shed some light on this... I use a little bit of AdWords (~$5 per day) to supplement my organic traffic to my (technology) sites with some extra traffic in the hope the visitors will find them useful and bookmark them. The sites have both AdSense and Affiliate links on them.
Am I at risk?
I am hesitant to directly ask Google Support, because I recently had an experience where I asked Google Support a seemingly innocent question, they reviewed one of my AdWords campaigns and disabled the ads :-(
[edited by: Southman at 11:35 am (utc) on May 22, 2008]
| 12:42 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|What's wrong with first *warning* people that their business model is unwanted and only taking definitive action after a certain amount of time? |
Nothing wrong with a warning. However, if just this forum here at WW is any indication as to all the attempted abuses of AdSense, they may be so overwhelmed and frustrated at this point that a "zero tolerance" type policy is being followed. That's probably what I would do if I were in that position.
Although, this is a monster of their own creation of allowing almost any site to display AdSense with seemingly little quality control.
|How hard is it to give people at least a chance to adapt to a new policy? |
Is there a new policy? In writing somewhere?
| 12:57 pm on May 22, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|...if just this forum here at WW is any indication as to all the attempted abuses of AdSense, they may be so overwhelmed ... |
I would expect them to have an automated system in place if they wanted to issue any warnings; that wouldn't "whelm" them too much ;)
| This 87 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 87 ( 1 2  ) |