homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.23.22.200
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
Why would you NOT want to use the "Allowed Sites" feature?
ixion




msg:3688124
 12:51 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I understand what the Allowed Sites feature is, and why you would want to enable it.

I'm just trying to understand why someone would NOT enable it. What is a scenario where you wouldn't want to do this? Is there some bug or inconsistent behavior with it? Are there webmasters for whom keeping a list of their domains would be inconvenient?

And I only ask because Google isn't strongly suggesting or recommending that I use it, they are just offering up a feature that, to my inexperienced mind, seems like it should be the default.

 

purplecape




msg:3688137
 1:20 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think the only reason that it isn't the default is that they haven't offered it all along, and so for some webmasters with many sites it might have been a pain in the neck to enter all the URLs.

Personally, I can't think of any reason not to use it. I haven't heard of any bugs.

BigDave




msg:3688140
 1:32 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I don't see any point in enabling it, as concern about someone else using my publisher ID is not one of the things I am paranoid about. On the other hand, if I forget to enter one of my new websites into the allowed sites list, I won't get paid for any clicks.

farmboy




msg:3688154
 2:05 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Personally, I can't think of any reason not to use it. I haven't heard of any bugs.

I seem to recall there being bugs - that's why I didn't sign up when it first was available - and I forgot about the feature until this thread reminded me of it.

FarmBoy

netmeg




msg:3688165
 2:59 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Weren't there issues about cache and different DCs and whatnot?

I haven't used it because I have a lot of sites, and it hasn't been an issue heretofore.

OnlyToday




msg:3688182
 4:46 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Weren't there issues about cache and different DCs...

Yes, when your page is served from a search engine cache or a translation engine it will appear with that IP number and if the ad is clicked the advertiser pays, Google gets paid, but you don't.

For some reason many of my visitors used cached pages so I allow all sites and haven't found that any objectionable pages are showing my ads and can't figure out why they would anyway.

Swanny007




msg:3688206
 6:32 am on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I don't use it simply because I haven't had the feature for years and I haven't noticed any impact or need for it. I am well aware some of my visitors use Google cache so I want to be sure I'm getting paid if they click ;-)

Jane_Doe




msg:3688551
 3:15 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have had spammy sites copy some of my pages, Adsense code and all, and the sites probably violate the Adsense TOS in a 101 different ways. So I do use the allowed sites and see no downside to doing so. I'm glad they added that feature.

OnlyToday




msg:3688571
 3:52 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I have had spammy sites copy some of my pages, Adsense code and all...
I certainly have had content stolen but what you describe has never happened to me, knock wood maybe I'm just lucky.
LifeinAsia




msg:3688574
 3:54 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Personally, I can't think of any reason not to use it.

I'm not sure if there is a limit to the number of sites you can add, but considering all the other options have limits, I'm sure there is probably one. So it's worthless if you have more sites than the limit.
Also, you have to make sure you add every site that may have your sites cached (Google, Yahoo, and others that you may not even know about). Sure, those few sites may not generate many clicks, but why kill revenue?

I'd rather see an additional option where you could generate a report of which sites were generating impressions/clicks, then create a blacklist from that.

purplecape




msg:3688605
 4:28 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'd rather see an additional option where you could generate a report of which sites were generating impressions/clicks

You get this once you set up the whitelist--they report other sites on which the ads are appearing.

I HAVE noticed search engines caches and translation sites in that list, and I appreciate the argument that that represents lost income, but I can't help wondering if clicks there might not have an impact on smart pricing. My average EPC is currently about double what it was two years ago, and one possible reason why is the allowed sites.

wyweb




msg:3688627
 4:43 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

There is ZERO reason for me not to use it. About once a year some idiot copies an entire website of mine and leaves my adsense code intact. I'm not about to get booted out just because some creep doesn't know what he's doing.

Play_Bach




msg:3688636
 4:59 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Thanks wyweb, you convinced me!
I just added my sites. :-)

OnlyToday




msg:3688649
 5:11 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I HAVE noticed search engines caches and translation sites... but I can't help wondering if clicks there might not have an impact on smart pricing.

Now that would be a compelling argument and reason for me to change my position, but how would cached pages affect smart pricing. I don't see the connection.

Perhaps when someone copies my AdSense code and uses it with TOS violations I'll consider that as a reason but I just don't see it happening. Granted though, there are a fair share of irrational idiots out there, it is possible.

netmeg




msg:3688657
 5:27 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

My average EPC is currently about double what it was two years ago, and one possible reason why is the allowed sites.

I dunno; mine's actually more than double from two years ago, and I've never touched that feature. I guess YMMV.

Play_Bach




msg:3688658
 5:27 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is actually something I wanted way back in 2005!
[webmasterworld.com...]

For some reason by the time AdSense got around to offering it, I'd moved on to worrying about plummeting revenue instead. Thanks again wyweb for reminding me of the rationale for wanting to protect my account.

wyweb




msg:3688672
 5:47 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I didn't see any correlation between EPC and the allowed sites feature on my own sites when I enabled it and believe me, I watched it like a hawk at first.

Nothing changed. Not even slightly. EPC was the same. eCPM was the same. Bottom line the same. The only thing that was not the same was that I was now protected, at least in terms of adsense, from site stealers who didn't have enough sense to take my code out before they put my pages online.

Jane_Doe




msg:3688673
 5:48 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

but I just don't see it happening

When you activate allowed sites, you then get a list of sites using your code not on your allowed list. For me it is usually just search engine caches and translator sites, but every once in awhile when I check there is an actual site or two that has copied one or more of my pages with the Adsense code intact. Some are obvious spammers. Others just seem like people who probably mean no intentional harm but just like the articles and probably don't understand what copyright means. But in either case I doubt either type of site conforms to the Adsense TOS, so for me I'm glad I can use the allowed site option. For most people with a limited amount of sites it probably only takes a few minutes to set up, so I don't see any downside to using the option.

Play_Bach




msg:3688683
 6:00 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as the saying goes.

wyweb




msg:3688686
 6:06 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as the saying goes.

Absolutely. And that's exactly how I look at it.

purplecape




msg:3688691
 6:18 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Nothing changed. Not even slightly. EPC was the same. eCPM was the same. Bottom line the same.

I think that takes away the only rationale for not using allowed sites. I concede that the smart pricing connection is speculative, but if you don't lose money, and if you protect yourself from a possible problem due to page or site copying, why not use them?

AND if you monitor the unauthorized sites displaying your ads you can find people copying you....

ixion




msg:3688706
 6:46 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Thanks for all the input!

I'm just getting started in this business, so it sounds like I should use the feature:

-I only have a few sites, so it's not a problem managing the list.

-I have zero traffic, so I can monitor the activity as it grows and stay on top of the caching sites.

-I'm slightly anal-retentive about tracking things, and paranoid about people copying my stuff wholesale, so it sounds like now is a good time to enable it.

If I had established sites with real revenue, I can see where I'd not want to "fix it if it ain't broke".

netmeg




msg:3688821
 8:35 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

AND if you monitor the unauthorized sites displaying your ads you can find people copying you....

True, but there's other ways to do that as well (Google Alerts can be your friend)

LifeinAsia




msg:3688906
 9:38 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

You get this once you set up the whitelist--they report other sites on which the ads are appearing.

How long before this appears? And where does it appear?

farmboy




msg:3688947
 10:24 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

If there is no downside, why doesn't Google just make this a requirement for all publishers?

FarmBoy

Jane_Doe




msg:3688977
 11:26 pm on Jul 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

How long before this appears? And where does it appear?

I don't remember exactly, but I don't think it was very long. The report says it is weekly, so I assume no longer than one week.

Right after the your allowed sites a list of unauthorized sites is shown.

wyweb




msg:3689006
 12:36 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

If there is no downside, why doesn't Google just make this a requirement for all publishers?

Excellent question.

Why did they wait for 3 years to roll it out too?

purplecape




msg:3689044
 1:45 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

wyweb, we are always complaining when Google makes us do something. So what's wrong now, when they give us a choice?

And why did they "wait" three years to roll it out? Well, why does any company "wait" to roll out a feature that hadn't been there in day one of ANY program? Perhaps because they hadn't developed all of the features of the program right from the get go? Perhaps because they hadn't realized it was necessary before then? Perhaps because enough publishers asked for it?

OnlyToday




msg:3689052
 2:03 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

It wouldn't be a worrisome matter if wayward publishers weren't summarily executed without appeal by the robotic falling blade. Maybe it was easier than assigning human staff to review account suspensions.

Leva




msg:3689342
 1:06 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

The reason I use it can be summed up in one word: maliciousness.

Longer explanation: Bad guy gets pissed at me for whatever reason, possibly entirely not my fault. Or they're jealous. Or whatever inspires bad guys to be bad guys ... and then they take my pub ID and stick it on a site that violates adsense's TOS in a hundred ways and kills puppies. And then they tell Google, "Look what Leva's doing with her Adsense Account!"

By not having Bad Guy's site enabled as an Allowed Site, I have a heck of a lot more plausible deniability.

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
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