Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

How does google decide whether to warn someone or ban them right away?

         

serengeti

3:07 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



It seems like some people say they got a warning that says if this kind of thing (click fraud) happens again they will get banned.

My having not been so lucky, I am curious how they make such a decision about whether someone should get banned for the first indiscretion or just warned?

trillianjedi

3:09 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I'm sure it will relate to how long a publisher has been with the program and the value (namely revenue) that they provide to google.

A big earner with a high traffic good quality site is far more likely to be contacted first.

TJ

hunderdown

3:21 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



I think it may also depend on how egregious the offense was.

Someone with a high-quality site with one page on it with inappropriate content on it, for example, is more likely to get a warning than if their entire site is loaded with violations.

europeforvisitors

3:51 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



I think the "sniff test" plays an important role.

- Does the site have content of intrinsic value to users, and would it have a reason to exist without AdSense? If so, the owner may be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

- Is the site an obviously made-for-AdSense site that brings nothing of value to the Web (e.g. a scraper site edited by an illiterate that's stuffed with blended-in ads for debt consolidation, medical class-action lawyers, and other reputedly high-paying topics)? If so, it's probably easy for Google's staff to hit the "disable account" key without feeling guilty.

- Does the site cover a topic or appeal to a target audience that has a history of inspiring invalid or non-converting clicks (e.g., a site aimed at kids who'll click ads like crazy without buying anything, or a site about a controversial topic that's likely to attract "click vandals" again and again)? If so, Google may feel that the publisher isn't worth keeping, especially if the cost of investigating problems exceeds Google's revenue from the site.

ndaru

4:38 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I've seen sites that violate Adsense TOS (click enticing, pages with no real content), and yet they survive and keep displaying the ads.

What could be the things that trigger an attention from Google cops?

hunderdown

4:45 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



Those sites you saw may be getting no traffic or clicks to speak of. Google must prioritize their site-checking. It would make sense for them to look first at higher-volume sites. Since new sites keep coming along, there could be hundreds or thousands of junk sites that never get inspected, and that, when you think about it, really don't need to be.

ndaru

5:14 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I see. So Google will scrutinize someone, when she/he made a significant earning.

Hey, it could be like this one:

earning_big_time + one_day_click_attack = really_really_worry

hunderdown

5:16 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



If your site is prone to click attacks, then as EFV noted, I'd be worried.

RonS

5:26 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"It would make sense for them to look first at higher-volume sites. Since new sites keep coming along, there could be hundreds or thousands of junk sites that never get inspected, and that, when you think about it, really don't need to be. "


I'm not sure I agree. Maybe you should look at the smaller sites with priority, because when you ban one, you might be banning 1,000 just like it.

Maybe there's a balance, or maybe you just look at all the sites as they bubble up for one reason or another and hit the radar screen.

europeforvisitors

7:05 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



I see. So Google will scrutinize someone, when she/he made a significant earning.

Not unless there's a reason to scrutinize someone (suchas invalid clicks).

Hey, it could be like this one:

earning_big_time + one_day_click_attack = really_really_worry

Sure, if you've got reason to be concerned about what Google might see during a human visit. But your account won't be disabled solely because of a click attack, if my experience and the experience of at least several other members is any guide. A click attack will simply trigger a manual review.

Mr_Fern

7:24 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I've received warnings about two things, one was early into my use of the program. I registered in December 04, but I didn't really start using it until March last year. I started a community site and I had included in the forum area an adults only forum section (only users 18+ could access it). However I soon got an e-mail from Google about a week after the site was open stating that I had to remove the ads off the site due to that section. Well, so much for the Adults Only section.

As for my other warning, well I wasn't responsible for that one. Someone created a webpage on some free space, and the page was full of adsense ads with my code with "Click ads to continue" written over all of them. They told me that they stopped serving ads to that page and that my account was still in good standing but to carefully read the guidelines of the program. I informed them that someone else had used copies of my adsense code and that I didn't create the page.

I will say being a member on here and reading the stories of people who were removed from the adsense program I was a bit paranoid at first, however I have since calmed down.

fredw

7:29 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Wow! That's really good to hear, that you were not just out-of-hand penalized for your code being on someone else's site!

whbiz

7:42 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Some people here find it hard to believe that Google can be reasonable when it comes to these things.

ndaru

12:05 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Thanks for sharing with us fern. I think I can be less paranoid now.