If you are selling, then probably include the negative keyword:
-free
to keep away the low-grade pervs looking for free erotica! B^>
Rgds
Damon
And it is part of a very long secret list of sensitive terms that require human review before showing at all. Even terms like 'war' are in that group.
Israel
And it is part of a very long secret list of sensitive terms
Why does Google feel they have to keep so much of Adwords a guessing game?
And it is part of a very long secret list of sensitive terms that require human review before showing at all
It is not that the list is secret, but that it is constantly evolving with world events, what's top of the page in the news, and so forth.
For example, when hurricane Katrina hit the American south, Katrina related keywords went on the 'review first' list to make sure that only appropriate ads were shown.
When you have tens of thousand of people in desperate straights, it would not be such a good thing to show ads which sought to take advantage of their situation in some way. On the other hand, it would be good to show ads that sought to help them.
How to tell the difference? Review.
Why does Google feel they have to keep so much of Adwords a guessing game?
I'll add an item to the Advertiser Feedback Report saying that advertisers would like to have a core list available. But, as described above, the list is not set in stone - and can change in the instant - for very good reasons.
AWA
I'll add an item to the Advertiser Feedback Report saying that advertisers would like to have a core list available. But, as described above, the list is not set in stone - and can change in the instant - for very good reasons.
A word list is not what is needed. Just give us specifics when an ad requires review. Tell us WHICH word is objectionable. (As you already do for trademarked terms.)
And tell us the review status of each ad. "Requires review". "Scheduled for Review". "Reviewed". (Every new ad would be "scheduled for review". Ads that require review prior to running even on Google Search would be "requires review".
Yet another example of Google's disconnect with reality. Another case of unnecessarily leaving the advertiser in a fog.
Haven't they done any usability testing? Much of this doesn't actually need usability testing, though - just common sense. Does anybody at Google posses common sense? If so, are they allowed to apply it?
Tell us WHICH word is objectionable.
Oops. Google already does that.
I was confusing this issue with some recent discussion about changes in API results, where apparently less information is now being given on rejected ads.
Tell us WHICH word is objectionable. (As you already do for trademarked terms.) ..
Well, THAT has problems also.
A couple of days ago, we got one ad flagged because it has the word "Utility" in it.
Now try and figure that one out?
A couple of days ago, we got one ad flagged because it has the word "Utility" in it
For trademark or other?
I had one reviewed for the word "wow". Trademark...
Google tells me this is automatic process..any change I make means REVIEW.
Google tells me this is automatic process..any change I make means REVIEW.
Any change ANYBODY makes means REVIEW.
However, normally, ads continue to run on Google Search, pending review. (They don't run on Search Network or Content Network until review.)
BTW, changes aren't changes. A "change" to an ad is really just a shortcut to delete the existing ad and replace it with a new one. If you look at your deleted ads, you will see the ad with the old text.
