homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.141.129
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 356 message thread spans 12 pages: < < 356 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 > >     
New rule? Quality Violations => Adwords ban
Dlocks




msg:3995574
 11:51 am on Sep 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Today I received an email from Adwords.

The email mentions that I have submitted several ads for landing pages that are considered to be of a poor quality and that the landingpage does not comply with the 'landing page and site quality guidelines'. I most remove the ads. Well, no problem.

The email also mentions that it is a final warning. It tells me if they find any ad in the future that is in violation with the site quality guidelines (the product itself is not the problem) they will immediately disqualify me from participating in the AdWords program. Now, that is a problem.

A bit strange? Also because Iím using Adwords more then 4 years and then I receive an automated email in English while I have a Dutch account.

Anyway, how can Adwords ban you for submitting sites that that seems to be in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines while there is not a tool where can check if an URL is ok to submit?

How can you be for 100% sure if a site is in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site? That is impossible right?

As mentioned, Iím using Adwords for myself and for other companies for over four years so I know how it works. The site I submitted yesterday is nothing different from many other sites I promote.

If Google would like to ban clients for this than they should offer a tool where you can check your website for Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site. If Google does not offer a tool like this then they should not ban clients.

[edited by: engine at 1:05 pm (utc) on Sep. 25, 2009]
[edit reason] user requested edit [/edit]

 

vetofunk




msg:4001417
 2:04 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

For the people advising to just go to Adcenter or Yahoo, have you ever advertised in either? I have about 20+ clients that I advertise the same amount of products/services on each and those two combined don't bring in 1/2 the traffic and sales that Google Adwords does. This is the reason being banned from Google Adwords is such a problem. It is very hard to make up the revenue that is generated...I really hope Yahoo and/or MSN gain some more of the Internet traffic, but I don't see that happening for quite some time.

flanker23




msg:4001495
 3:40 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I can only speak for myself as a one man full time affiliate but after nearly 2 weeks without G, I am almost back to where I need to be because the ROI is much better than with G and I'm also able to find new areas to advertise in that were simply not profitable with G, but they work well thru' MSN & Yahoo. Even if they would have me back, I'm not sure I would EVER want to rely on G again.

arieng




msg:4001508
 3:55 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've been following this thread from the beginning and I'm very concerned about what I'm reading. I've been with AdWords since its inception and have never had any problems (other than a steady decline in ROI, but that's another matter).

In the past, I've not had a ton of sympathy for the banned. It seemed that there were obvious and legitimate reasons for Google to remove some people permanently. This time, however, something feels different.

We all know that webmasters have a tendency to have their hands in a variety of honey jars at any given time. An ecommerce site here, and affiliate program there, a few content sites to round out the mix.

If an individual flirts with one too many affiliates programs, or struggles a little too much with landing page quality, they are banned from what is arguably the largest advertising opportunity on the web. For everything. Forever. I just can't see the justice in that.

I understand the need for Google to inflict harsh penalties for rulebreakers, but this just doesn't sit right. How about a year ban? A five year ban? Geez, anything that allows someone to get their act together down the road and try again.

It all seems so draconian.

Manga




msg:4001569
 4:45 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

For the people advising to just go to Adcenter or Yahoo, have you ever advertised in either? I have about 20+ clients that I advertise the same amount of products/services on each and those two combined don't bring in 1/2 the traffic and sales that Google Adwords does. This is the reason being banned from Google Adwords is such a problem. It is very hard to make up the revenue that is generated...I really hope Yahoo and/or MSN gain some more of the Internet traffic, but I don't see that happening for quite some time.

All the more reason for an anti-trust investigation. I think if enough letters reached the right people in government something would happen, especially in the current political climate. Someone also mentioned the media. A few well placed emails in that direction might bear fruit as well.

DiscoStu




msg:4001654
 6:12 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Media coverage from large outlets (NY Times, Wall St Jrnl etc.) that takes G to task and shows the hypocrisy of their system and how it hurts small business and probably also scares shareholders to see million dollar accounts banned.

I actually kind of agree with this. A 60 minutes type piece with interviews showing how people can randomly and suddenly lose their entire business when advertising with Google would seriously hurt them in terms of finding new advertisers (similar to a business having a "rip off report" result in the SERP). A scoop like "Advertsising on Google - worth risking you business for?" would (assuming it gets good coverage) force them to step up customer support availability as a means of damage control.

Seriously, any business owner considering advertising with Google who saw this thread would immediately have second thoughts, or at least be a lot more apprehensive about investing too much in to it

Deltron Zero




msg:4001759
 10:26 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I just received a far more specific email from AdWords regarding a policy change that I'm quite certain is related to the two earlier emails many of us received. It basically says that they are no longer allowing the promotion of sites with negative option or unclear billing, the sale of normally free items or services and false celebrity endorsements.

Since this policy change potentially only affected a couple of my ads (among thousands) it was easy to make the necessary changes.

This email had a much friendlier tone and did not make any threats of a lifelong ban, just that the ads will be disapproved if a change was not made to the sites in question. I wish Google would have sent out an email like this initially instead of causing so many of us to lose sleep, but it's great that they listened to our feedback and took a more positive approach to all of this.

La_Valette




msg:4001763
 10:35 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I just received a far more specific email from AdWords regarding a policy change that I'm quite certain is related to the two earlier emails many of us received. It basically says that they are no longer allowing the promotion of sites with negative option or unclear billing, the sale of normally free items or services and false celebrity endorsements.
Since this policy change potentially only affected a couple of my ads (among thousands) it was easy to make the necessary changes.

This email had a much friendlier tone and did not make any threats of a lifelong ban, just that the ads will be disapproved if a change was not made to the sites in question. I wish Google would have sent out an email like this initially instead of causing so many of us to lose sleep, but it's great that they listened to our feedback and took a more positive approach to all of this.

I got the same email. My problem is that we advertise several sites in our account and I'm not 100% certain which ones they're talking about. I deleted all the ads which looked like they might be for sites that are causing this, but what I'd really like to know is which urls specifically Google is concerned about - that way I could be sure I took all the ads in question down.

It is not clear from the email (at least to me) what the consequences of not catching the ads responsible are - I'm not so certain I fully understand the language in the paragraph about that.

Dlocks




msg:4001770
 10:50 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

but it's great that they listened to our feedback and took a more positive approach to all of this.
Yes indeed very positive approach. But the difference in approach might also be because Google thinks the final warning message was/is not related to a change in Google's advertising policies.

It is not clear from the email (at least to me) what the consequences of not catching the ads responsible are
I received the same email. It tells me that when they make the change in the upcoming weeks any URLs in violation of this new policy may be submitted for Landing Page Quality disabling. Once they have completed this you will have 10 days to make any necessary changes to your website in order to comply before the disabling will take effect. They ask you to make changes to your ads and/or website to comply, so that your campaigns can continue to run.

La_Valette




msg:4001772
 10:53 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I received the same email. It tells me that when they make the change in the upcoming weeks any URLs in violation of this new policy may be submitted for Landing Page Quality disabling. Once they have completed this you will have 10 days to make any necessary changes to your website in order to comply before the disabling will take effect. They ask you to make changes to your ads and/or website to comply, so that your campaigns can continue to run.

That's what I got. So what exactly does this "Landing Page Quality disabling" involve? Is that disabling of the ad pointing to the landing page - or of the entire account?

Leosghost




msg:4001789
 11:21 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

While they are apparently back peddling ( apparently the squeaky wheels can get oiled ) and giving interviews to business week et al to try to head of potentially bad press ..and or distract from the adwords fiasco they unleashed ..

It may be worthwhile asking them for written clarification as to what exactly is meant by "landing page quality disabling" ..and are they going to be specific about what , on which sites and where has to change ..

Whatever ( if any ) the reply ..remember ..once bitten twice shy ..:)

A recommendation to everyone you know to use another SE is a way to fight back against the stranglehold that GOOG has on the net ..and on all of us who use it ..wether we be searchers , advertisers or publishers ..or any combination of those three groups that made GOOG.

No single search engine should monopolise the net ..just as no single browser should ..

Nor any single OS ..and although MS have the majority of the desktops for now ..they dont have the majority of the servers ..

Diversify ..dont get fooled again :)

wheel




msg:4001794
 11:36 pm on Oct 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

What I don't understand is how anyone can build a business (affiliate or otherwise) with an advertising system as unstable and unreliable as google is. Suppose you have a warehouse and employees and google slaps your account. Unless you have a lot of cash to ride it out, you are going under. Google is making itself the most unreliable advertising in the history of man.

Because in the real world, people have been doing this for a century. There's plenty of businesses who built themselves profitable enterprises through yellow page advertising. Or other types of publications. It used to be good marketing practice to name your company AAA so that you were listed first in the ad sections of the phone book. It's not different here - or shouldn't be; you have an ad platform that has consumers using it, you pay to be advertised.

The difference between that and Google adwords isn't the foolishness of people using it to build their business. It's the fact that Google has no controls over what they do and no apparent adherence to what any other advertising venue would consider anywhere sane.

Really....you call your yellow pages company and they won't tell you until after the fact what their guidelines are? or if you break their guidelines, rather than helping you correct the problem they just say 'we will never do business with you again'. That's not insanity on the part of the business, it's completely bizarre on the part of Google. What's a bit disturbing is that Google's allowed to get away with it - thus my point about no controls. I'm not a big one for legislation or gov't interference, but I'm surprised this isn't devolving into a class action suit.

La_Valette




msg:4001842
 1:53 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

It may be worthwhile asking them for written clarification as to what exactly is meant by "landing page quality disabling" ..and are they going to be specific about what , on which sites and where has to change ..

Right. Those are the two questions I listed above on this.

Actually it would be sufficient (for me at least) if they just clarified which specific urls were triggering this alert message since I could then just delete the ads in question and (presumably) that would be it.

Khensu




msg:4001988
 8:41 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I never got the email, they just dropped my quality scores to 1s on my main site campaigns. I can still run my newer baby sites, that takes higher bids which is fine.

Here is the real scary part.

They took out everybody with free product in the entire niche. I am talking 20 or 30 sites that were advertising. All that is left is paid products, Big M and Google docs.

So I don't know if they did it to benefit the paid content advertisers, M with it's new bundle stuff 2010 coming out, or themselves.

Either way it was a bad omen, basically they just said, "you guys can't play here anymore."

crazygolf




msg:4002059
 12:10 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Just wondering if anyone else has been effected by the ban recently? I had my site hit for poor landing page quality about two weeks ago when this all kicked off.

It effected a few of the accounts within my MCC but not all. I've left the others running for now but not really touched them much. Today I uploaded a new placement targeted campaign to one of my accounts and within 20 mins this account had been hit as well.

Anyone else had any experience of this? Or is it a new wave of bans going round today?

jkwilson78




msg:4002095
 1:47 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Never noticed this before. Is this new?

Don't promote low quality sites or business models.

Advertising is not permitted in cases where the business model or practice is deemed unacceptable in accordance with the AdWords Terms and Conditions. Some business models and practices that may violate this policy include, but are not limited to:

1. Illegal products
2. Hidden or otherwise deceptive billing and pricing models
3. False groups created in order to solicit donations
4. False endorsements

source: [adwords.google.com...]

What's really interesting is the VERY subjective and vague "false endorsements"

If this is a new addition to their guidelines (which it might not be) the timing of its release with the new FTC guidelines about bloggers disclosing any paid endorsements yesterday is pretty interesting.

flanker23




msg:4002130
 2:35 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

You would think they would be able to tie up their mailing list with suspended accounts wouldn't you? They've sent me two mailings SINCE I was suspended. The latest received today is about using the content network, I'm gonna get in touch and tell them not to mail me any of their crap anymore!

James_WV




msg:4002163
 3:40 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

flanker - have they stopped you using the content network too?

flanker23




msg:4002179
 3:56 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hi James - I don't know to be honest as I've never used the content network anyway. I guess it might be worth trying just to see.

wheel




msg:4002239
 5:05 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

The content network - run your crappy ads on my crappy content! :).

Leosghost




msg:4002275
 5:42 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

unfortunately.. probably 98% true .

DiscoStu




msg:4002307
 6:13 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I had my site hit for poor landing page quality about two weeks ago when this all kicked off

That's when it happened to one of the accounts I'm working on too. We did have an Adwords rep though, so I contacted her and she told us what we needed to fix (there was a redirect we hadn't even considered that was easily fixed) see the thread here: [webmasterworld.com...]

The important part was that it was completely reversible, so if your account has been hit with the QS 1 slap there *might* be something you can do about it. We never got an email or anything, it wasn't until after leaving a few messages with our rep that we found out what the problem was, and then it turned out to be simple...we we're at the verge of just accepting that the account had been lost

jkwilson78




msg:4002327
 6:26 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

DiscoStu, you mentioned fixing a simple redirect took care of the problem.

Was this an affiliate link or was it some kind of php, java script redirect? Something else entirely?

DiscoStu




msg:4002497
 10:24 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

jkwilson78, we do lead gen (basically) so no affiliate links. The problem was that the once they filled out the form the lead would be processed on a server residing on a different domain, so that violated the rule that the ad has to display the url the visitor will eventually end up on. We just had to make sure the lead processing happened in the background and the visitor never left our domain.

But actually - didn't think about it before really - that may be the problem for some affiliates. If you send the user to JoesProductReviews.com but that site in turn pushes them to go to the affiliate site, it may in certain cases be considered a violation of the display url rule (since your landing page is only acting as a middle man, with the ultimate goal for the user being a site different than the one in the display url). I'd def look into this as a possible reason if this situation applies to your site in any way (though it doesn't explain those who direct link...)

I personally was toying with the idea of using an iframe to keep the visitor on our domain, but figured G would see through that and possible see that as a 2nd infraction - though I never tested it

wheel




msg:4002562
 11:32 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Discostu - wha?

I sell a calculator to a lot of businesses in my niche. Businesses use the calculator to generate leads, after which they contact these leads to sell them their products. And many of those businesses use adwords to advertise their 'free calculator' service. That may sound kind of lightweight, but the calculator is actually something consumers seek - many of the ads are along the lines of 'free calculator here'. However, when the visitor submits the calculator, they go to my domain where the calculations are done.

It's like the analogy I always use - mortgage brokers putting a 'shop mortgage rates' calculator on their website. And because I keep the 'mortgage rates' on my server (not that I do mortgage rates), my clients can have their adwords accounts banned? (another analogy might be if I offered a calculator that figured out how much taxes one might pay - but I keep the calcs and the tax rates on my server).

SRSLY?

DiscoStu




msg:4002569
 11:41 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Wheel, yes this is an almost identical situation to ours (though reversed). We use a lead processing service that is used by hundreds of companies, and they've been doing it this way for years. At first I thought it was just Google giving me a BS reason when they said that - but then we fixed it and emailed them back, and the account was restored :-O

You may want to consider working on a solution that can somehow be hosted on their domain. It took us about a week to get the whole thing figured out, and that can be a lot of business to lose

Khensu




msg:4002759
 7:46 am on Oct 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Three wise monkeys - wikipedia

Shizaru, symbolizes the principle of "do no evil". He may be shown covering his abdomen or crotch.

I think I'd be covering my crotch.

jkwilson78




msg:4003049
 4:08 pm on Oct 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

DiscoStu, thanks for the extra insight. Your post is probably one of the most insightful in this entire thread.

wheel




msg:4003206
 8:35 pm on Oct 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks DiscoStu. That's truly bizarre, but I'll have to chew on it.

I've set it up this way just because it's easier for our clients to install. Cut and paste a form onto their site that submits to us, we handle everything from there.

It's only a babystep to move from there to giving them some code that changes from submitting a form to our site, to submitting a form to a script on their site that basically grabs the html from our site as a non-visible feed, on the fly.

I guess if that's what it takes to make Google happy.

Maybe I need to raise my rates for this. Actually, pretty sure I do.

La_Valette




msg:4003371
 1:23 am on Oct 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

It may be worthwhile asking them for written clarification as to what exactly is meant by "landing page quality disabling" ..and are they going to be specific about what , on which sites and where has to change ..

Got another of these emails today. It would sure be helpful if Google specified which of the sites in the account were causing the concern.

SuperF




msg:4003425
 2:51 am on Oct 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google have updated their landing page quality guidelines.

Was:

Website Types to Avoid

The following website types will be penalized with low landing page quality scores. If we receive complaints about ads for websites of this kind, they will not be allowed to continue running.

Data collection sites that offer free items, etc., in order to collect private information
Arbitrage sites that are designed for the purpose of showing ads
Malware sites that knowingly or unknowingly install software on a visitor's computer

Website Types to Advertise with Caution

The following website types will sometimes merit low landing page quality scores and may be difficult to advertise affordably. If you choose to advertise one of these website types, be particularly careful to adhere to our landing page quality guidelines - especially the rule about offering unique content.

eBook sites
'Get rich quick' sites
Comparison shopping sites
Travel aggregators
Affiliates

Now it says:

Website Types to Avoid

Data collection sites that offer free items, etc., in order to collect private information
Arbitrage sites that are designed for the purpose of showing ads
Affiliate sites that the primary purpose of which is to drive traffic to another site with a different domain
"Get-rich quick" sites
Malware sites that knowingly or unknowingly install software on a visitor's computer
Poor comparison shopping or travel sites whose primary purpose is to send users to other shopping/travel comparison sites, rather than to provide useful content or additional search functionality

While the extra clarity is appreciated, I'm sure many customers have, like ourselves, already deleted every ad campaign we had that could have been judged as poor in the original vague guidelines, to save us from having our account closed.

Interestingly "ebook sites" has disappeared. For any Clickbank affiliates this means they have potentially just deleted their entire account, only to find later, unannounced, that ebooks are OK after all.

I'd probably wait awhile before re-promoting ebooks, just in case Google updates their guidelines again...

Green_Grass




msg:4003508
 5:26 am on Oct 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Well they are still at it.. got a few campaigns hit by 1/10 QS.. Ads that have been running for last 2 years with no change in 'domain' or anything.. They just decided overnight that they are low quality.. No recourse.. I guess.

This 356 message thread spans 12 pages: < < 356 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
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