homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.142.143
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 139 message thread spans 5 pages: 139 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 > >     
Google Shuts Down $Million Affiliate Account
No humans involved in the decision
SuperF




msg:4020051
 1:04 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

This is how Google is currently treating some Adwords customers, and has destroyed our business (amongst many, many others) and the livelihood of many people:

1. Has a long-running policy of causing high click costs when customers promote sites with poor landing page quality - otherwise known as a the Google Slap.

2. Adds to this policy by deciding that the promotion of poor landing page quality sites is sufficient to terminate accounts without warning. The landing page quality is determined by "the AdWords system" using secret "specific filtration methods". No humans required.

3. Many accounts are shut down without warning, without any notification anywhere of this new policy. Typically affiliate marketers are those affected.

4. Many more accounts received a final warning, and then subsequently were shut down.

The chief complaint I think everyone has is that the process is automated, and there is no way to seek recourse, no matter how large you account is. Almost as bad is that system is unfairly biased towards super affiliates. A raw number of poor quality violations is used, irrespective of the size of an account. AdwordsAdvisor, correct me if I am wrong...

Our experience went like this:

1. First we ever knew about the policy was receiving a final warning.
2. We promote thousands of merchants - so it took about a week to remove every ad group that even has a remote chance of breaking landing page quidelines.
3. We ceased creating new ads or ad groups, so that we could not possibly lose our account.
4. One month later, after 12 hours of wondering why none of our ads are showing, we get the automated email saying our account is disabled.

Despite our very best efforts to do everything possible to please Google, it was all in vain. If we have caused bad user experiences in the past, it was minor (relative to thousands of merchants we promote), unintentional, and immediately rectified upon finding out about the new policy.

Our background:
Multiple millions spent on Google Adwords
Exclusive deals with many major online merchants
We don't even have landing pages - we direct link to merchants.

Please, no replies bashing Google in general. I just wish to discuss this specific policy, and I'm hoping AWA can pass on that the current process is faulty and needs addressing by Google.

 

mack




msg:4020105
 2:48 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Without going to deep into specifics I can agree with what you are saying. As Google has grown they have lost their human side. Automated account closures are in my opinion very wrong. I am sure that Google's automated processes more often than not catch the bad guys, but there is collateral damage and this has, and is causing businesses to go under. this applies to both sides of the fence Adwords and Adsense.

Automated processes are a good thing, but they should never have the final decision. If anything the automates system should flag accounts and they should be manual reviewed by a member of Google's staff. If Google where to try and say the scale of their operation is to large for human intervention, then perhaps its time they grew up, show some responsibility and hired the extra staff. They aren't just canceling accounts they are messing with peoples livelihoods.

Mack.

Ron_Mexico




msg:4020142
 4:48 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I am in the same boat. Except I only promote about 100 different offers mostly direct linking.

Fact: The 600 pound gorilla can do what they want.

I will get back into adwords if I want - there is no way they can stop me. New dedicated server IP, address, cc - not too tough really. I will have to make unique ads and maybe even create quality sites and content ::gasp:: instead of splash pages but so will others if they want to compete on world's largest advert medium.

Also gives me an opportunity to give media buys a shot and diversify my ad spend. Maybe a good thing.

Adapt or Die as they say, I'm sure you will adapt as you seem to be a very bright informed marketer.

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:4020180
 6:04 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

[...] I'm hoping AWA can pass on that the current process is faulty and needs addressing by Google.

Already passed along.

I sent your post and a link to this thread to the right folks a short time ago, SuperF.

I know the comments in the previous thread have been taken seriously and that your comments here will be taken seriously as well - and we are exploring what changes can be made to the way this is handled.

AWA

Dlocks




msg:4020276
 10:56 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

A raw number of poor quality violations is used, irrespective of the size of an account.
And they don't look at how long you are using Adwords. If you are using Adwords for about 4 or 5 years you they use the same raw number as for someone that is using Adwords two months. They should look somehow at a percentage of warnings relative to amount of campaigns/adgroups and how long the account is running. Using raw nummbers is bad.

Our experience went like this:

1. First we ever knew about the policy was receiving a final warning.
2. We promote thousands of merchants - so it took about a week to remove every ad group that even has a remote chance of breaking landing page quidelines.
3. We ceased creating new ads or ad groups, so that we could not possibly lose our account.
4. One month later, after 12 hours of wondering why none of our ads are showing, we get the automated email saying our account is disabled.

Amazing, that is almost exactly the same as how my experience (I also only use direct linking to the vendors website):

1. First I ever knew about this new policy was receiving a final warning.
2. Contacted support and asked how to prevent this in the future. Answer: follow the guidelines.
3. Removed each adgroup that had a remote chance of breaking landing page quidelines.
4. I also stopped creating new ads or adgroups so that I could not lose my account. Also checked on a daily basis all keywords and deleted each keyword with QS lower then 5.
5. One month later (yesterday) I see no activity in my account. Via online chat with support they told me my account was suspended.

And I thought after the e-mail I received and after having contact with support about this issue and after removing the campaigns/adgroups and not adding new ones my account was clean.

When Google sends a final warning they should check the whole account so you can remove all adgroups that Google does not like. Currently you get the first and final warning from Google and the warning does not tell which adgroups are affected (you have to guess). You take action and basicly one week later the algorithm can decide:

"Hey, about the first and final warning last week, great you took action and deleted the adgroups but today we de decided that we don't like one other adgroup that was sort of aproved last week. So for this we will ban you for the rest of your life. And yeah we know, in the past week you did not make changes to you landing page, keywords or ads. Today it is still the same website as one the one we aproved last week but that is not our problem."

So yes, there are indeed some problems with this new proces. Perhaps this will be better in the near future. But I think that is to late for people like SuperF and me.

SuperF




msg:4020293
 11:13 am on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

AdWordsAdvisor - much appreciated
Dlocks - yep, our account was more than 5 years old. Few AdWords customers would have been more experienced, or have promoted more individual sites than ourselves.

Mister Bogdan




msg:4020344
 12:42 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Our account is 6 years old, also spent millions in it. Received email that google adwords account is disabled just yesterday with no warning in last 2 months and no final warning also.

Majority of our sites are not affiliate type websites.

wilking77




msg:4020354
 12:55 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Being new to this forum I didnt realise there was an actual adwords advisor reviewing the posts. I am sorry to repost on another thread but I want to make sure he/she sees our case history as it strongly suggests that adwords staff are either not trained properly or are complicit in getting accounts shut down.

We had our adwords account terminated today. This after spending neraly 100k in advertising since 2005 and spending the last 4 months trying to work with the adwords team in Ireland.
On the 18/7/09 I contacted google adwords about our account. Our ads had stopped serving due to low landing page quality score. I spoke to one of the representatives at length in an effort to try to understand the policy so that we could overhaul our websites so that they complied with google adwords advertising policies.
On the 20/7/09 our websites were manually reviewed and I received the following communication....
<snip>
On 17/9/09 our adwords account stopped serving ads again for the same low landing page quality score issue. I contacted google adwords again and spoke to a representative . He again refered it to the specialist team for manual inspection and I received the following response...
<snip>

On the 25/9 we received an automated email about repeated site quality violations with a threat that our account would be closed down. I again called google adwords and spoke to a representative . He assured me that the email had been sent in error and that as our account had been manually approved there was no chance that it would be closed.
On the 27/9 I received a second automated email about repeated site quality violations. I again contacted google adwords and asked whether this was another system error and whether we needed to take action to revise our websites again. I received the following response...
<snip>

I was advised to make no further changes to the account. I adhered to this request. Since our account has been manually approved I have made no changes to website content or adwords ads.
As you can see from the threads and our communications with the adwords team we have done everything we could to comply with the regulations. In addition to that we have been assured several times by 3 different adwords representatives that our account is fine as it has been manually reviewed. We have also been told that the warnings we have received have been due to system errors.

We did contact the adwords support team again this morning who confirmed that our account had been terminated for repeated LPQ violations. He said that it would be refered to the policy team but there was nothing else he could do.
When I requested making a formal complaint he said that there was nobody to complain to.

The bottom line is that even if you think the problem is sorted with google adwords it may not be. If adwords support tell you that your account is OK and will not be terminated - dont belive them.

[edited by: engine at 5:52 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2009]
[edit reason] No e-mails, thanks, please see WebmasterWorld TOS [/edit]

flanker23




msg:4020395
 2:05 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Welcome to my world and that of thousands of others who have been banned for life (have you read the other very, very long thread)) without recourse to anyone! How much you have spent and how long you have had an account means nothing I'm afraid. I guess the way they are dealing with people (disgracefully) was almost inevitable once a company gets as big as 'G' - impossible to deal with any one person, and being told there's no one to complain to seems incredible in a commercial environment! I guess they feel they can afford to be that arrogant and heartless about it.

Receptional




msg:4020400
 2:09 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

We've also had problems recently. Two accounts in particular - one where the Quality score went from 9s and 10s to zero overnight after several years and some quite serious client money.

The second is just as problematic. We won a large account, but the previous agency had set it up under their control and email address. We advised the client that this approach laid them open to blackmail, so we had to set up a new account (identical initially, using AdwordsEditor) to protect the client. Result? five times the CPC because the account history was lost of course. The only way (we were advized) to bring it back into line was to initially pay over the odds to get the adverts up high enough to even be seen to be clicked. Tens of thousands of pounds in excess CPC fees.

We're getting it back in order now, but that's not rewarding well managed accounts - it's penalizing clients that want to get their business and get it managed elsewhere.

It's a serious issue right now. I'm glad it's being reviewed at the core AdWordsAdvisor - please report back! :)

D.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4020401
 2:15 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

being a mod here, you know perfectly well what "your comments have been passed on" means. It certainly DOESN'T mean any of these cases posted here are being scrutinized on an individual basis due to being posted here.

AWbiz




msg:4020436
 3:48 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

wilking77, your story is simply unbelievable. To be banned after being told several times that your site is fine is scary. And then to have no recourse or chain of command to appeal an obvious mistake is unprofessional.

tchale430




msg:4020480
 5:05 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

"your comments here will be taken seriously as well - and we are exploring what changes can be made to the way this is handled"

@AdWordsAdvisor

Wish I could believe that. But I have seen no evidence from the Goog that they are anything but perfectly happy with the public relations damage done with how these latest rounds have been handled.

If I could summarize my experience with AdWords Advisors, Pros, Support Personnel, and Reps it is that I have been told - we are doing the best we can, we can't say anymore, there is no recourse, life is tough, move on.

I even had one rep ask why I didn't just leave a client that got banned behind, I have plenty of others. Why waste time on fighting for this smaller account? Nice.

This client that was banned for life, sells baby pacifiers. His only crime is apparently his account was at one time, no matter how briefly, linked to some other account deemed poison. In other words he has been banned for life because of an unspecified relationship with an unidentified account.

Even McCarthy couldn't get away with that kind of guilt by association.

Apparently he himself did nothing wrong, his site quality is fine. He is not an Affiliate marketer.

I have come across other similar stories as well.They are lost amongst all the screaming from affiliate advertisers. How many good advertising dollars have to be lost before it is "too many"?

In my case since the relation and poison account are unidentified: me, my client, the web developer, and the SEO consultant are all looking sideways at each other. Who is responsible for the death signal? It isn't obvious at all.

Are you really listening AWA? Irregardless of the intent of these latest purges is this kind of collateral damage really necessary?

Cite me as an example of the "ripple" effect.

I am an AdWords Certified Pro, running a Certified Company, I am on the Advisory Board of SEMpdx (Portland OR, Search Marketing Professionals.) And I am a recent ex-Top Contributor in the official AdWords Help Forums.

The way you folks have "handled" my particular client's situation has turned an engaged Google advocate of five years into a sad cynic.

I was a true believer, and am about as righteous and ethical as they come.

Are you really listening?

Cite my case. Explore this particular situation. Take the individual stories seriously. And implement some real changes to mitigate the damage.

I asked my late father once when I was young what "taken under advisement" meant, he said people said that when what they really meant was "go piss up a rope".

Can you point me to something AWA that would make me think your comment is any more than a version of "taken under advisement"?

Thanks, I hope.

-Tom Hale

La_Valette




msg:4020636
 8:06 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Almost as bad is that system is unfairly biased towards super affiliates. A raw number of poor quality violations is used, irrespective of the size of an account.

In my mind this is the single biggest issue with what is going on. If you're a big company advertising for 1000 sites across multiple accounts, with the current system which seems to be 3 strikes and you're out, you're basically guaranteed to be killed because your chances of getting violations is hundreds of times higher than someone promoting just a couple of sites.

I am sure it is not Google's intent to kill off their largest clients. There is a simple fix to all this: make the suspension criterion the number of violations divided by the total number of different websites being advertised across all accounts, not just the number of violations.

SuperF




msg:4020660
 8:38 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

As part of our review process, weeding out anything that could possibly be judged poor quality (we even have our own tool for checking load times), we found a bunch of quality sites that had been given a poor landing page quality score. We asked Google to manually check them, and lo and behold their quality score went from bad to good.

If that is the case now - wrongly diagnosed as poor quality, which seems likely seeing as I manually checked every ad myself - we are unable to get the scores reversed, there is no means by which we can argue our case any more.

BTW, I used to work for Google's search quality team, so it's not like it's a difference of opinion at the core of the problem.

To find if you have a low quality landing page score, go to Reporting > Reports, select Ad Performance, click on Add or Remove Columns, check Quality Score, and run the report. There's a column for quality score. AFAIK Google doesn't offer this advice.

tchale430




msg:4020707
 9:23 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

@SuperF

What's your guess SuperF?

I know this is complicated, but I keep coming back to these two models.

-One is that the powers that be are perfectly aware of how wide a net they are casting and how poorly they are communicating with their customers. They have penciled it out, and decided they can live with the collateral damage, as represented by lost revenue and bad Public Relations. Because it saves dollars both in support costs and potential litigation that might result from them being more forthcoming.

-The other is that some automation is causing more damage than realized. But because the Google "Teams" (support, review, reps)are so overloaded, and isolated from each other (that isn't my teams responsibility, etc), the damage is not properly being assessed, and mitigating remedies can not be put in place.

I know it is some combination of those and other factors. But I can't help but try to come up with models that explain
what is going on.

I guess I figure if I can understand it better, maybe I will recover some of my crushed optimism. As it is I am afraid this may be another chapter in growing dysfunction within Google.

Sure has me scrambling to diversify when up until now I considered the company focus on AdWords as a plus.

-Tom Hale

Mister Bogdan




msg:4020716
 9:49 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Maybe it is not releveant but:

Why they approved keywords and landing pages at the first place if they are POOR?

Is it just better to disapprove them all if they keep up to quality and in this way they will not lose customers like they are doing just now around the world?

I am receiving information now that they disabled other google accounts which are not in any way connected to affiliate business. So it is not just affiliate business.

To find if you have a low quality landing page score, go to Reporting > Reports, select Ad Performance, click on Add or Remove Columns, check Quality Score, and run the report. There's a column for quality score. AFAIK Google doesn't offer this advice.

I just done this, and I have first 27 with quality score 1 and most of them are with status deleted.. There are several more with 2 and 3 and 90% is continued with 12 pages per 100 rows which have quality score 4-10 (just one page is with quality score 4, and in last 3 pages, all have quality score 10) ...

tchale430




msg:4020744
 10:26 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

@SuperF

About Google bashing.

I agree tone is important.

But don't you also agree that it is hard to get it just right? Too aggressive and you are just another Google bashing hothead.

But they are so tone deaf lately that being strident seems mandatory if you are going to get their attention at all. (Unless you have a million dollar resume of course)

"has destroyed our business (amongst many, many others) and the livelihood of many people"

That makes me sincerely emotional, authentically distraught, doesn't it you? And I am having a hard time being diplomatic in the face of what I see as callousness to the reality you and I are trying to shine some light on.

AWA's comment in this thread is better than nothing, but in the meantime.........real lives are affected and the alarm grows.

-Tom Hale

Thumoney




msg:4020762
 11:04 pm on Nov 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Why they approved keywords and landing pages at the first place if they are POOR?

Is it just better to disapprove them all if they keep up to quality and in this way they will not lose customers like they are doing just now around the world?

This is actually a very good question.

At the moment Google uses the machine-approach. What Google does is use a software that checks if the keywords, ad and landing page are technically ok. Then it gets approved and starts running. Benefit is speed for the user and more importantly: low cost for Google.

What happens is that a shady advertiser can game this system and honest advertisers don't know if they did something "wrong" (in Google's eyes).

What could be done is a manual check right at the beginning of the campaign (picture Facebook), so that problematic landing pages don't get approved in the first place.

Also as suggested: where is the problem with just disapproving the ads or campaigns that don't comply? Why do they do this 1/10 quality score slapping? (and then banning)
The only answer is again the machine-approach Google uses, in that way you don't have to involve humans. And they would simply be overwhelmed when they try to get it right.

For advertisers and users, a manual check on top of the machine-technical check at the BEGINNING of the campaign would be best.

SuperF




msg:4020783
 12:03 am on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are certainly AdWords customers that persistently promote spammy sites, sites that definitely affect the quality of the searcher's experience.

Like black hat SEO, if they allow these accounts to continue, the problem remains. They tried the Google Slap, and that seemingly didn't fix the problem enough. They could just disapprove ads, but then the bad customers just keep trying and trying, quite likely automatedly, adjusting their sites until one gets through. Google's mistake, IMHO, is combatting them with an algorithm - something they should have learned from organic search results will never be completely successful.

Google's decision to not spend man hours, to not employ smart enough staff to weed out spammy customers, is I think a poor one.

I don't know how this will play out - typically just a lot of hot air from people here and the problem will fade away. But you never know, the media might find this particlular situation worth pursuing, for the "do no evil" vs "struggling workers" angle. Could be a court case in it, but I ain't no lawyer.

smallcompany




msg:4020872
 5:12 am on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

To find if you have a low quality landing page score, go to Reporting > Reports, select Ad Performance, click on Add or Remove Columns, check Quality Score, and run the report. There's a column for quality score.

This is very misleading as it looks like ad QS, while this is still just a keyword quality score which can be seen right in ad group level interface, without need to run any report.

I've never really used this report in such way, so I got tempted when I read the post above.

What made me think twice was this:

- I saw same ad IDs showing more than once in the report - with different QSs.
- After sorting the report by QS, the very first ad with lowest QS was actually the one favored by Google in its particular ad group.

I did some digging, and came to this help page, very specific to the QS in Ad Performance report:

https://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136862

IMO, this is waste of time... you're better to pay attention to each single keyword right in your interface, when you're checking on your QS.

If you want to see how your complete account stands, or even multiple accounts in MCC, then run a keyword performance report and sort by QS.
That will tell you the QS that is prevalent in your account.

The believers into account QS could simply add all QS values, and divide it by number of keywords and use that as a baseline - if that means anything to anyone.

wilking77




msg:4020903
 8:31 am on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Just wondering why our post has been edited. All the response from google adwords have been removed and have been replaced by a <snip>. Any thoughts

Green_Grass




msg:4020906
 8:46 am on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

You need to read the webmaster world TOS.. Emails can't be posted verbatim. You can write only the summary of the mail..

luke175




msg:4020990
 3:09 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Funny that G supposedly runs their whole enterprise on the idea of quality score yet it's not turned on by default in the account view or when reports are run...

jbinbpt




msg:4021057
 8:06 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

You all seem to be in agreement that Google can't tell the difference between a $100 account and a $1,000,000 account.

That is an insane business model if that is correct.

La_Valette




msg:4021101
 11:00 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

You all seem to be in agreement that Google can't tell the difference between a $100 account and a $1,000,000 account.

That is an insane business model if that is correct.

Perversely the $1m account might currently be far more vulnerable than the $100 one. If the bigger account is bigger because lots more websites are being advertised, as often happens, then you have a far higher chance of getting policy violations of some kind with that.

If Google wants to really stick to this suspension policy (unnecessary IMHO), they should really modify their current rule, which seems to be 3 strikes and you're out or some similar fixed number like that, and make it a flexible number depending on account size as has been suggested here.

jbinbpt




msg:4021105
 11:08 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

At a million bucks don't they install a red phone on your desk that is a direct line to Mountain View?

Mister Bogdan




msg:4021108
 11:16 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

If Google wants to really stick to this suspension policy (unnecessary IMHO), they should really modify their current rule, which seems to be 3 strikes and you're out or some similar fixed number like that, and make it a flexible number depending on account size as has been suggested here.

We had just one warning. No final. Just one before two months and you are out after that period with no warnings between.

smallcompany




msg:4021111
 11:36 pm on Nov 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

You all seem to be in agreement that Google can't tell the difference between a $100 account and a $1,000,000 account.

That is an insane business model if that is correct.

So those that spend $10 at a grocery store get kicked, while those that spend $100 get "Thank you, come again" on the exit?

amount of money

I believe that Google is in a very specific situation, opposed to any other XYZ business that cannot afford to lose customers that spend a lot onto its services.

If XYZ denies 1,000 or 10,000 customers that spend 10M or even 100M a year in total, that would probably be the same amount accounted for being "short" in their earnings which would cause huge trouble from many perspectives.

If Google denies same number of customers, it does not lose anything (or much) as the competition continues, and gaps are filled with other active advertisers. Showing 14 or 15 ads at the time does not make much of the difference in regards of the price for top positions, nor how many clicks happen per one search.
If the given search result goes from 15 down to 14 ads showing, any single ad will have a chance of getting more clicks since the 15th is gone.

Google AdWords has its own CTR which is the ratio between total number of searches for a single term and clicks onto paid (all ads) vs. organic results.

Google AdWords' system is better then any other money making machine known today. It is backed by patents which are publicly announced, always described as something that benefits to an end user.
Therefore, no ground can be found to accuse Google for any wrong-doing for the sole purpose of making profit.

Dlocks




msg:4021120
 12:20 am on Nov 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

So those that spend $10 at a grocery store get kicked, while those that spend $100 get "Thank you, come again" on the exit?
I think he meanth more like this:

$10 client
Day one:
Client takes two bottles of wine from the shelf and drops one of them by accident on the floor.

Day two:
Client comes in the store again to buy two bottles of wine. Again he drops by accident one bottle of wine on the floor. Client is not welcome anymore and get kicked out of the store.

$100 client
Day one:
Client takes 10 bottles of wine and drops none of them on the floor.

Day two:
Client takes 10 bottles of wine and drops none of them on the floor.

This goes on each day till day 50.

Day 50:
Client takes 10 bottles of wine and drops one of them by accident on the floor. The store manager: "No problem, these things happen. Let me clean this up for you. Please come back again. Good day sir."

Day 51:
Client takes 10 bottles of wine and drops none of them on the floor.

This goes on each day till day 1482.

Day 1482:
Client takes 10 bottles of wine and drops one of them by accident on the floor. The store manager: "No problem, these things happen. Let me clean this up for you. Please come back again. Good day sir."

That is how a normal company would respond. Google response would be different at day 1482 when you dropped the second bottle:
"What the ****! Are you crazy? You dropped 2 bottles within 1482 days. Get out of here and don't come back for the rest of your life. We don't care you bought 14820 bottles of wine. Within five years you have broken two of our precious bottles of wine. Get out!"

This 139 message thread spans 5 pages: 139 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 > >
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