homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.110.222
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 > >     
AdSense Ads Must Be Vetted By Publishers
Impossible With Current AdSense Controls
incrediBILL




msg:3755130
 11:17 pm on Sep 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

I caught this UK AdSense issuse where the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) told OUT-LAW.COM that:

[out-law.com...]

a publisher bears responsibility for an ad's suitability regardless of how the ad was chosen for a particular slot.

And Google replied...

A Google spokesman said that publishers do have control over the adverts that appear beside a story and can stop particular adverts appearing. He also said that Google itself carries out some work to avoid insensitive matches.

Which is absolute nonsense because publishers have ZERO CONTROL since you don't know which ads are running before they show up on your site and if you do manage to see an aberrant ad, out of the thousands of pages you're running, it still takes 4 hours (or more) before that ad discontinues to run.

ADSENSE PUBLISHERS HAVE CONTROL? LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!

Not only that, the publisher has no way to block specific types of ads, and the competitive filter is limited to 200, and there is no keyword filter (not found on my account anyway) and it appears to be impossible to control the ads.

AdSense publishers have been screaming about this for years and Google (IMO) flat ass lies to the UK.

I'm thinking I need to find a new partner for my site because I really don't like to be associated with flat out liars.

 

Hobbs




msg:3755138
 11:31 pm on Sep 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

LIES! LIES! ALL LIES

I would call it misrepresentation of the truth, as you said we can block but with both hands tied behind our back.

You know what? I've asked for better blocking features in almost all those threads, but deep down inside I'd rather Google did it for me with less effort and fuss..

I've given up on blocking all together as it seems to be neither a viable feature that Google can give us, nor a battle I can win, I've given up on the whole issue.

Visit Thailand




msg:3755176
 12:59 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

I feel the tools we have right now are fine.

I think G has to be the primary policemen making sure that nothing out of order is allowed into the network.

With geo-targetting and all the other tools that Advertisers have, are you seriously telling me that you want to study the advertising laws of every country where your site is visible, then go through every single ad for every single time frame of every single day for each of those countries?

Wow, if you have that much time on your hands good luck.

As I say G should be the primary policeman, and we just monitor our site and catch the occasional bad apple that sneaks through.

incrediBILL




msg:3755180
 1:07 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

I feel the tools we have right now are fine.

The tools we have now are so limited I feel like a Flintstone when trying to administer AdSense on my site.

It's a joke.

Visit Thailand




msg:3755182
 1:14 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

It is not a joke. I am much happier with what we have now than what we did 4 or 5 years ago.

There is the adreview centre, the blocking area etc.

Sure some of these could be expanded although personally my blocking area is empty.

Keywords would be nice, but even then there will only be so much you can do.

So we do have control, at least a certain amount of control.

But like I said ultimately G has to make sure that ads are monitored at the base and personally I think since the beginning of AS they have done a pretty good job at that.

drall




msg:3755202
 1:22 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

I gave up on blocking ads shortly after joining adsense in 2003, it is just a waste of time with the tools at hand.

incrediBILL




msg:3755213
 2:07 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

It is not a joke. I am much happier with what we have now than what we did 4 or 5 years ago.

Let's just leave it at we agree to disagree because I feel like I'm totally out of control with AdSense.

zett




msg:3755311
 6:03 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

I am 120% with incrediBILL on this one, and I hope that the UK government puts an end to the situation. The tools that Google provides to control the ads are ZERO. How is a publisher with thousands of pages supposed to control the ads, when all he has is a crappy preview tool that and a list of 200 entries for blocking? I feel like an ancester to Flintstone with these tools.

(And yes, I understand that Google will try everything to defend their current practice, because opening up their system would probably bring in an undesired transparency. All of a sudden you could see who advertises what, not something Google would like to discuss with anyone.)

Visit Thailand




msg:3755400
 10:08 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

And what is it you are suggesting Google do zett?

Considering a site has thousands of pages, ads have geotargetting as well as time-related targetting, different laws in every country regarding advertising - what is it you want G to give you exactly to enable you to address this very issue?

Only thing I can think of is blocking by keywords, and we all seem to agree that they would be nice.

swa66




msg:3755420
 10:41 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Fully agree we *need* more control.
What do we have:
  • A preview tool that only works in a browser that's not available for the OS I'm running (it's not even available for chrome (not that that is available for anything but windows)
  • a blacklist of 200 URLs, if you can figure out if you need to block the display or the actual URL, 100 useful ones otherwise.
  • An ad review center that keeps showing ads that don't run anymore, and only shows them for a handful of advertisers and where 99.99999% of ads never show up ?

How it could work is easy enough:

  • Negative keywords in the ad copy: e.g.: if the ad contains "free", I don't want it.
  • Negative keywords in the URLs: if an URL contains "ebay", I'm done with it, regardless of it being www.ebay.at, www.ebay.be, www.ebay.ca, www.ebay.de, ... (I only get dead religious leaders type of ads there anyway)
  • negative pattern matching: if the ad matches a regexp I don't want it (e.g. clean out those containing "800" phone numbers)
  • Ban ads where the display URL differs from the actual URL
    (e.g. if it says www.ebay.com, then it better point at www.ebay.com, and not at some bozo doing a redirect. I don't even get why they allow them at all. I understand the need for shorter (it's a small space to put it in), but not for misleading what they now allow.
  • ban by advertiser: e.g.: If an advertiser sends me kiddy-porn ads, I never ever want to have to do anything with him ever again. (Had once one in a far away geo-target) While Google promised they would deal with it and apologized for letting it on, I want to be sure myself.
  • Better reporting: I want to be able to review all ads seen on my site in all geo targets for all pages in a nice and clean overview so I can detect mismatching URLs, unwanted text, see advertiser "id"s I can ban etc. It would be nice if they started this by having the team that made analytics have a go at creating such reporting. (not just copy analytics, but add what we need to it). Add to it that my banning filter's performance should be shown: which of those rules are still stopping stuff, and which aren't used anymore (hopefully cause Google took over the rule in their process)
  • minimum value on click: most crap ads pay little to nothing. I'd much rather have alternate ads than crap ads.

What we have now isn't even a joke.

There are plenty of publishers eager to manually filter the crap adwords ads, and Google only has to take what they all dislike and review those to build very good filters for all publishers, but Google isn't letting us help them.
I guess it's not for fear of transparency as such, but much more fear of publishers cheating the system if they get more control.

zett




msg:3755442
 11:31 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Visit_Thailand:

The feature requirements for an improved filter have been collected countless times over the past three years, right here at WW. So far, Google has implemented next to none of these.

But apart of that, swa66 has pretty much nailed it down. That's a good summary of the current situation and the most important features needed to make it a useful feature.

Visit Thailand




msg:3755451
 11:47 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Better reporting: I want to be able to review all ads seen on my site in all geo targets for all pages in a nice and clean overview

Good summary, but do you have any idea how almost impossible it would be to do this idea. For anyone with a large international site you would be looking at thousands perhaps tens even maybe hundreds of thousands of advertisers with new ones being added constantly. There is absolutely no way a publisher could manage that unless they had a smallish site that did not change much.

Plus it does not address the issue of legality in each country where the ad may appear. What you may find acceptable may not be acceptable to the advertising authorities of the country where the ad appears on your site - which is how this thread started.

I have been with GAS since it started and am constantly amazed at its efficencies. Sure it could improve and has done so a lot since it started, and I am positive it will continue to do so.

[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 11:50 am (utc) on Sep. 30, 2008]

rajivatre




msg:3755458
 11:58 am on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

i think there are obvious two sides to this topic.
1) publishers has got very less control for monitoring and showing the ads. (Before or after showing ads).
2) Google is trying their best to match the ads otherwise IMO most of the publishers would have gone with other ad networks which are doing not so good work of matching the ads.
"We began working with Google at the end of July and at the outset we blocked obviously inappropriate advertising," said the spokeswoman. "Since then we estimate that out of half a billion contextual ads served each month we have had about 20 inappropriate matches. These can arise when an advertiser mislabels their ads and we are taking steps to deal with this."

This is quote from the same article and it clearly show how matching by google works for near perfection. 20 out of half a billion ads are really very small figure for inappropriate matches.
I am with the publishers who leave it to google to show appropriate ads on the site. Because as many pointed out it is very huge task to check each and every ad being shown on your site and approve or disapprove it.
But on the same line I will say that if some publishers are ready to do that task then google should provide more tools for them.

Rajiv

Quadrille




msg:3755462
 12:01 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Since then we estimate that out of half a billion contextual ads served each month we have had about 20 inappropriate matches

How can they possibly have any idea?

They'd need 100,000 people to check them all; even checking a representative sample would be a logistical nightmare.

It's a guestimate, not an estimate.

rajivatre




msg:3755464
 12:02 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

remember premium publishers can get much more assistance from google. I feel that this one may be one of the assistance they got from google.

Rajiv

Rosalind




msg:3755495
 12:38 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

The only thing I would add to swa66's list of feature requests is on on-page negative keyword filter. I concur with all of the other suggestions, though.

himalayaswater




msg:3755498
 12:44 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Keep discussing but they will never every implement what users demands. Google consider it as trade secrete and they want to keep tight control over it.

Quadrille




msg:3755552
 1:43 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google get the money from advertisers, as sure as if they were sticking posters on billboards ... when's the last time a poster company listened to the billboard?

As publishers, we have to be realistic; we are never going to have 'control', unless we sell our own ads.

Our only real control is the ability to select the service that pays the most, while being least 'unsatisfactory'. That's the best we'll ever get.

Edge




msg:3755708
 4:12 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

To start, I'm not a happy camper with AdSense at the moment, but let's be reasonable.

The tools that Google provides to control the ads are ZERO.

This statement is more of a misrepresentation than:

A Google spokesman said that publishers do have control over the adverts that appear beside a story and can stop particular adverts appearing. He also said that Google itself carries out some work to avoid insensitive matches.

Iím sure that anybody with a high traffic site will find it impossible to vet all ads, and this challenge is shared by Google and the ads on their site. We (us and Google) trust the AdSense scripts to deliver relevant and non offensive ads.

When these inappropriate ads show up and are identified, the parties involved should use their filters, remove the ad code, change the text on the web page, or whatever to ensure that they do not continue to show.

I agree that vetting all ads on most low and high traffic site is impractical; however publishers do have control of whether the ads show on their web sites.

zett




msg:3755729
 4:38 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

however publishers do have control of whether the ads show on their web sites

Sure. I can remove the Adsense blocks from my sites as I see fit. In this case I can easily predict which ads show: none.

Iím sure that anybody with a high traffic site will find it impossible to vet all ads

Back in the old days when click trackers captured the target URLs, I could get a very good understanding where the majority of clicks was going to. That alone was a useful feature and helped me to identify the most blatant MFAs and scams. (I needed a 2rd party software, but it was a good investment.)

I imagine that it should be equally simple for Google to create a list of ads and their target URLs, along with the number of impressions. Then let the user sort it by impressions, and you have a very good understanding which ads are the most important ads for your sites, i.e. those ads who are most likely to be seen. You can focus on the sites generating, say, 80% of the views and you'd have a chance to disable unsuitable ads.

Add to that the ability of extented filter features - as summarized by swa66 - and you have a very tight control over the ads.

A Google spokesman said that publishers do have control over the adverts that appear beside a story and can stop particular adverts appearing. He also said that Google itself carries out some work to avoid insensitive matches.

Nonsense. Typical Google PR. Publishers DO NOT HAVE control over the ads. Maybe if you run a one-page site. But even then it's hard to see how you have real control then. You have not. You may have a slightly better chance to catch offenders. But to find an offender who targets a tiny eastern country is next to impossible, because you would have to check ALL the geolocations. Who does that?

And for any site that has hundreds or thousands of pages, it is impossible. No chance.

I repeat it: Publishers do not have control over the ads. We're fully dependent on Google to do that job.

Should publishers now be held responsible for ads that Google places on our sites, then we will rather pull Adsense and stop this madness.

(I don't care whether my ads are illegal in Elbonia as long as the courts of Elbonia can not get control over me. But if the ads that Google places on my sites are illegal in the U.K., it's very likely that they can get me into court. Not nice.)

Quadrille




msg:3755754
 4:55 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

But if the ads that Google places on my sites are illegal in the U.K., it's very likely that they can get me into court.

But as Google probably knows the law much better than all of us put together, that's a fairly unlikely scenario.

The real choice is Adsense vs Another Service (including Do-It-Youself).

So the useful questions are:

1. Is there another service that offers more control than Adsense?
2. Does this service promise the same income as Adsense?
3. Will I get paid?

So far as I'm aware, there is no service that offers as much - let alone more - control; YMMV. If you know of one, then Adsense is not an issue.

There are so many publishers, with so many million pages, that Adsense really has little incentive to offer more - and other publishers (such as me), will be more than happy for many, many dissatisfied publishers to move on, thus increasing our income.

This is business; and currently, publishers have virtually zero negotiating power. It's much less frustrating think of it as selling the space to Adsense, and letting them do the worrying about advertisers - that's their job, and their expertise. My site says 'ads by Google', and I've little fear of reputation damage if the occasional bad ad comes along; Google will be almost inevitably be blamed (as they are in this thread).

I just spend the money.

incrediBILL




msg:3755846
 6:50 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Looking through thousands of ads looking for bad stuff already running on your site will never fly.

However, it would be easy enough to approve all the ads displayed on your system like Google already allows with their "Ad Review Center" but it would have to be expanded beyond just "placement targeted to your site" to include all ads.

The only real issue then would be the ads shown in foreign languages because translations aren't always accurate, hard to tell the intent sometimes.

In the short term, that 200 site limit for the Competitive Ad Filter is complete nonsense as many of ours are already full meaning we're all vetted out already.

swa66




msg:3756026
 10:04 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Better reporting: I want to be able to review all ads seen on my site in all geo targets for all pages in a nice and clean overview

Good summary, but do you have any idea how almost impossible it would be to do this idea.

That's why I suggested letting the folks behind analytics have a go:

They do track visitors across our sites, even for large sites, even with an international audience, even with many visitors.

Plus it does not address the issue of legality in each country where the ad may appear. What you may find acceptable may not be acceptable to the advertising authorities of the country where the ad appears on your site - which is how this thread started.

The countries I care most about are the ones where I live (we don't extradite subjects) and those where my servers are. If I don't break laws in either I think I'm pretty good. For the rest I think my moral high ground will be more strict than local laws in most cases.

Most importantly: I think Google should make sure in dealing with its advertisers to be sure their ads are legal everywhere. I deplore Google does try to shift the burden of making it legal to us - who have no control beyond a drop on a hot plate.

Play_Bach




msg:3756146
 11:15 pm on Sep 30, 2008 (gmt 0)

Fourth year in the program and this month I'm earning more than ever with AdSense (thanks Google!). FWIW, I don't block anything in the competitive filter (gave up on that pretty early on) and am content to let Google deal with the quality control issues (I don't have the time or know how to do otherwise).

Visit Thailand




msg:3756250
 2:46 am on Oct 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I don't care whether my ads are illegal in Elbonia as long as the courts of Elbonia can not get control over me. But if the ads that Google places on my sites are illegal in the U.K., it's very likely that they can get me into court. Not nice

There are a lot of countries with very strict advertising laws. Just think of Australia, Singapore, HK and that is only in the region I am in.

I also do not understand why people are blocking over 200 sites. I emptied my block list when I realised it was impossible to properly monitor it properly.

Sure GAS can be enhanced, keywords are a prime example, but asking for more control as in vetting every single ad is an impossibility, plus even if it were feasible then you really would be responsible for the ads which appear on your site.

I am surprised so many people here are so negative to GAS. The alternatives are so poor in comparison, and DIY ad sales can never ever compare.

GAS has revolutionised online ad sales and made it possible for many to substantially increase their website's revenue.

I think many here forget just how good GAS really is.

incrediBILL




msg:3756255
 2:54 am on Oct 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I also do not understand why people are blocking over 200 sites

Because the ads don't reflect what I want on my site.

It's MY site, not Googles and certainly not the Advertisers and much of the junk is unwanted.

Furthermore, it often causes massive downturns in income when this junk is on my site which is the perfect reason to get rid of it.

I am surprised so many people here are so negative to GAS

I'm very positive about AdSense, I'm positive they've had people asking for bigger and better ad filters for at least 4 years now and I'm positive they've ignored us completely.

If the publishers finally revolt the advertisers will follow because the content network provides a lot of advertising space that could vaporize if a new ad network willing to listen and do a better job comes out of the woodwork.

koan




msg:3756271
 3:26 am on Oct 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think the whole point that irritates incrediBILL (and me, a little bit) is that Google decided to offer a service where publishers have very little control over what appears on their site, even after publishers have been requesting more features for a very long time (how hard is it really to increase the competitive filter), which is their decision and their rights in the end to make Adsense what they want it to be; but they cannot then turn around and give publishers the legal responsibility over those ads when they want to cover their own asses, when we don't even have adequate tools to do so (it's called "competitive filter" remember? Not "undesirable advertisers", and we've heard that from them rather often). That's rather hypocritical.

[edited by: koan at 3:33 am (utc) on Oct. 1, 2008]

vincevincevince




msg:3756276
 3:32 am on Oct 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I hope the UK government actually require Google to give publishers real control. And by control what I mean is:
  • All new potential ads for the site are shown and potentially the publisher is notified when the list changes
  • Publishers have 48 hours to decline new ads before they are auto-approved - during that period the ads do not show
  • All currently approved ads and advertisers can be listed and blocked with a simple tickbox
  • Visit Thailand




    msg:3756282
     3:41 am on Oct 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

    All new potential ads for the site are shown and potentially the publisher is notified when the list changes

    Publishers have 48 hours to decline new ads before they are auto-approved - during that period the ads do not show

    If they did that it would put me right off GAS.

    I like the current system because it is instant. I already have over a thousand(s) of ads in the AdReview Centre.

    If they did what you suggest I would be overwhelmed. I have not got the time to check every ad, that wants to appear in every language, in every geo-location and for different times of the day(s). If you have such time, I am impressed.

    Let's not get carried away here. How many out of order ads are we talking about? It is a drop in the ocean when you consider the total amount of ads served.

    swa66




    msg:3757813
     11:44 pm on Oct 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

    How many out of order ads are we talking about?

    Just now I looked at my home page - which typically isn't the worst of them at all.

    I had an ad on it on the very first visit promoting third reich (read:nazi) movies. If I'd live a tad bit more the east, I'd be in Germany where such things are illegal.
    Aside of the legalities this is *very* bad taste for any location that's not dealing with that specific subject intentionally.

    The site doesn't mention Germany, the third reich or anything like it by a long shot (it's about travel in the USA). I guess it latches on the the term "historic", which is very relevant to the site.

    If you ask me: trouble ads are _very_ common unless you're lucky enough to get targeted by "placement" ads that you can review for yourself in the ad review center (which you are as a far as I can tell).
    During the times campaigns run there I'm a happy camper, but the regular text ads: there's a truckload of junk and illegalities in it. And I do not appreciate being used by Google as the one responsible for getting it out without being given the tools to do so properly, and without them banning trouble content more globally and proactively.

    I've had kiddie porn in the past, outright scams, now I can add nazi stuff, what's next ?

    This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [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