Forum Moderators: martinibuster
No explanation from "The adsense team". Since I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything wrong someone else must have "helped" me.
I asked if there is some kind of a "probation period" or something I can do to come back - but just got some standard answer saying nothing.
Any experience here?
Then - I have a customer who wants me to run his complete web site - and he has agreed that I put Adsense on his pages. Since my account is closed, what can I do? Let him sign up for adsense and manage it for him?
You expressed your opinions regarding proxies and possible ways of doing the fraud checking. Other publishers have a different opinion, it is fair to believe that so does Google. From the point of view of a business, why would they incurr anymore expenses in order to refine the fraud detecting?
Fraud detection is just another aspect of the business where return on investment needs to be taken into account.
ncw164x
<From the point of view of a business, why would they incurr anymore expenses in order to refine the fraud detecting?>
As mentioned before, I have no statistics on which to base my question. I am basing it only on the number of posts I've seen by ex-publishers claiming that their account was terminated without them knowing why other than "invalid clicks." Perhaps all of these posts are phony, and these people are simply whining about being kicked out because they were "caught." I don't have any reason to believe that these people are lying, but I also have no way to know for sure one way or the other.
So my question, "Why would Google terminate an AdSense account because of 'invalid clicks'?" is based on a premise that may be false, that they actually *do* terminate accounts for this reason. Perhaps they don't.
But assuming that the premise is true, my answer to your question ("why would they incur...") would be: Because their current method does nothing to solve the problem.
<Fraud detection is just another aspect of the business where return on investment needs to be taken into account.>
Are you stating this from the viewpoint of the advertiser, meaning the AdWords purchaser should learn to live with fraudulent clicks? I wouldn't think so, since Google needs to protect them if they expect to see their revenue on a regular basis.
I am very much against taking responsibility for something that I can't control. I don't mind taking control of fraudulent clicks originating from my site *if* I had some way to control them. If part of the AdSense report showed the IPs that clicked on each ad, or if I could create a "rules" like telling AdSense to not count clicks from the same IP address more than once within a 24-hour period, or some other method to protect myself from being attacked by fraudulent clickers, then I would be fine for taking the responsibility of the fraudulent clicks originating from my site.
I also own a few rental properties, and two of them are in a condo complex. When one of my tenants' guests (not even my tenant) violates the home owner's association rules (like parking in someone else's spot), then *I* get fined by the HOA. I obviously disagree with this policy since I have no way to control how my tenants' guests behave. BTW, I'm in the process of selling these properties :-).
ncw164x,
<I am not saying "you" have done anything wrong its my own personal opinion on not taking anything for granted with the people or the company who you do work for, or they pay you for your services.>
I don't take this for granted.. I understand that Google is completely within their rights to terminate anyone's account at any time, even if it didn't say so in their TOS. Afterall, they are my customer, and they can stop doing business with me whenever they want.
My perspective is more of a long-term one. If they make it difficult to maintain an AdSense account with them (not saying that it is), could they perhaps be pushing their publishers to their competition when it is more prevelent?
I like being part of AdSense, and if everything keeps going the way it is (revenue-wise, etc), then I'd like to continue that relationship. In addition, I'd like to do what I can to help protect that relationship.. for instance, if it means making suggestions to Google on how they can help me help myself in protecting my site from problems and maintaining the integrity of AdWords/AdSense.
I don't disagree.. and I'm not saying that invalid clicks is not a real issue. I am simply trying to understand how terminating a publisher's account is the solution to the problem.The culprit is the one that created the fraudulent clicks, invalid clicks, or whatever they're being called; not the publisher (unless the publisher caused the clicks).
I think most of us would agree with that. The tricky part is figuring out who the culprit is. Sometimes it's obvious, but at other times it probably isn't. That's where human judgment comes into play--and given Google's faith in technology, the human judgment may be helped along with statistical analysis and other tools.
Also, Google is a business, not a court of law, and guilt or innocence may be of less concern than ROI. A publisher may be as pure as St. Catherine of Siena, but if he's bringing in only $100 a month in revenues and Google repeatedly detects invalid clicks on his site, his account may be disabled for economic reasons--regardless of who's responsible for the invalid clicks. (I'm not saying this is good or bad, or even that it happens. But it certainly could happen in a business that has its corporate eye on the bottom line.)
Any decisions taken are primarily for its financial benefit "bottom line". If they happen to also be good for publishers is something that is certainly considered a plus, but not the objective.
Also I don't think anyone is asking anyone to take responsibility for anything.
the bottom line regarding your question:
"Why would Google terminate an AdSense account because of 'invalid clicks'?"Because they have made the determination that this is the best way to proceed. Wether it is based on cost-effectiveness or an internal study... They decided to act like that.
Your ideas of treating "invalid clicks" have merit. However, other people might think that it is too much of a hassle to go through. EFV's point of Google being a business and not a court of law is a good one. Not everything has to be perfect.... not even fair really.... just legal.
If they determine, or if I determine that the situation is not productive we both have the option to terminate. The issue here is what are the rights of the parties on termination. What is the dollar resolution on outstanding monies owed. Again I will challenege those who have said "we got booted" to post this final resolution. If Google has paid out a portion of the monies owed then what is the issue? The account was deemed to be unacceptable, was terminated and resolved.
We seem to be resorting back to the Google is more than a business trend here. Can't agree with that since haven't got any money from them as a gift at this time. When they start to do that then I will call them a charity and put them under a different microscope. Until then they are a business, driven ultimately by the bottom line, and not accountable to anyone but their current owners. The public relations job they have accomplished over the years as being a caring business is backed up by reacting to webmaster feedback and that is great, but limited to within their own business plans.
In the area of kicking sites for what they consider fraudulent clicks they are no different than others. Most publishers contracts are open ended in this area with little or no protection for the advertiser. The revenue stream comes from the publishers and without them the program fails. This is the group that google will satisfy first and foremost.
As I have staed before we have found them to be a good business "partner" and like all business agreements there is some give and take involved. We do not always understand the motivation of our partners or the details of their business dealings, but can still work with them. Why this "google must..." change posting? They are relatively new to the advertising game and so far seem to have made a majoriy of good decisions while changing some of the traditional landscape.
<A publisher may be as pure as St. Catherine of Siena, but if he's bringing in only $100 a month in revenues and Google repeatedly detects invalid clicks on his site, his account may be disabled for economic reasons--regardless of who's responsible for the invalid clicks.>
I could understand this, *if* invalid clicks actually costs Google money. But they don't (or shouldn't unless they don't know what they're doing, which I find hard to believe). If an invalid click can be detected to terminate an account, then it can be considered established that Google can detect invalid clicks. And since this is the case, Google can simply not pay on these clicks, and not charge the advertiser for these clicks.
If Google lost money for each invalid click, then I would agree. But I don't see how they can.
loanuniverse,
<You are looking at this from a different point of view than that of the ad network.>
Perhaps, but not necessarily. My point of view is that of someone who would like to see the program suceed over the long term, which will in turn bring in the maximum amount of revenue the program can generate. If publishers are kicked out of the network, and this happens often enough that it is noticable, then word spreads that the program is not worth the effort (whether it is true or not), and keep potential publishers from signing up.
In marketing a product, service, or whatever.. how it's perceived is much more important than how it actually is (otherwise a particular farm animal branded computer company would not have sold a single PC over the past couple of years). It seems one of the worst things that can happen to AdSense would be to gain a reputation that is inconsistant with the program.
<the bottom line regarding your question:
"Why would Google terminate an AdSense account because of 'invalid clicks'?"
Because they have made the determination that this is the best way to proceed. Wether it is based on cost-effectiveness or an internal study... They decided to act like that.>
The "they do it because they want to" answer wasn't really what I was looking for :-), so let me rephrase my question. Does anyone have any theories on how they have come to the conclusion that terminating accounts of those that have not violated their TOS is going to benefit their bottom line?
<Your ideas of treating "invalid clicks" have merit. However, other people might think that it is too much of a hassle to go through. EFV's point of Google being a business and not a court of law is a good one.>
<Not everything has to be perfect....>
Agreed.. though being somewhat of a perfectionist, I've always had trouble accepting the "we don't have a good answer, so this is the best we could do" solution :-).
<not even fair really.... just legal.>
I agree that they have no legal obligation to determine "guilt" of publishers or anyone else. But in a capitalist environment (for the most part, the US is, don't know about other places), "fair" business practices are the ones that cause long-term success. This is based only on my experiences and observations.
Visi,
<Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't care less about Google making more money, or helping them to do this...unless of course there is some sort of agreement that my share is going to increase.>
I didn't mean to imply that I feel personally burdened with Google's success.. just that a successful AdSense program rolls over into more (relatively easy) revenue for me, and that is my concern.
<Unless it is mutually beneficial to both parties, then let them deal with the fraudulent clicks themselves.>
I was only suggesting dealing with the fraudulent clicks myself if it was beneficial.. and if it helps to ensure my longevity in the program, then that's an obvious benefit to me.
<If they determine, or if I determine that the situation is not productive we both have the option to terminate. The issue here is what are the rights of the parties on termination.>
I don't think that is in dispute. As I've mentioned, Google has every right to dismiss anyone from the program for whatever reason they want.. it's their program, of course they can.
My "issue" is whether or not this is the best course of action for the program overall. I don't think it is, and I am encouraging others to try and explain to me why Google believes it is. That's all. This thread is not going to change the course of time (unless someone here as a Delorian that they're not telling us about).
<What is the dollar resolution on outstanding monies owed. Again I will challenege those who have said "we got booted" to post this final resolution. If Google has paid out a portion of the monies owed then what is the issue? The account was deemed to be unacceptable, was terminated and resolved.>
The issue is "why is it seen as being financially beneficial for Google to act this way?"
<We seem to be resorting back to the Google is more than a business trend here. Can't agree with that since haven't got any money from them as a gift at this time.>
You misunderstand.. I have never been one the "Google has a public responsibility" types. Google has only a responsibility to themselves, and to those that pay them for products or services.
<The revenue stream comes from the publishers and without them the program fails. This is the group that google will satisfy first and foremost.>
I'll assume that you mean "advertisers" instead of "publishers" in the previous sentence.
An advertiser must be aware that fraudulent clicks occur. And we "know" that Google can detect these (the same technology used to allegedly boot publishers from the program). If I were an advertiser, and I was told that Google did not remove publishers from the program for invalid clicks, but that I was simply not charged for those invalid clicks, then I would be satisfied.
I advertised on AdWords for a short period of time, and noticed that I had massive exposure and a very small CTR on publisher sites versus those on Google SERPs. I am very happy with my ad being displayed and not clicked versus not being displayed at all. For those who are experts in long-term marketing, repeated hypnotic-type exposure is invaluable (and usually expensive). As an AdWords advertiser, to have my ad seen over and over again and have my business name or URL burnt into the minds of the viewers, yet never clicked, and therefore not charged (or invalid clicks and also not charged), I would be ecstatic!
<As I have staed before we have found them to be a good business "partner" and like all business agreements there is some give and take involved. We do not always understand the motivation of our partners or the details of their business dealings, but can still work with them.>
Do you typically leave it at that? Knowledge (and understanding) is power.
<Why this "google must..." change posting?>
That is not the spirit of the posting.
<They are relatively new to the advertising game and so far seem to have made a majoriy of good decisions while changing some of the traditional landscape.>
They've done a wonderful job so far, and I hope they continue to do great things.
The "they do it because they want to" answer wasn't really what I was looking for :-),Hmmm, that is not what I said....
so let me rephrase my question. Does anyone have any theories on how they have come to the conclusion that terminating accounts of those that have not violated their TOS is going to benefit their bottom line?In their interpretation the accounts have violated the TOS. I would like to point you to the "golden rule".
I agree that they have no legal obligation to determine "guilt" of publishers or anyone else. But in a capitalist environment (for the most part, the US is, don't know about other places), "fair" business practices are the ones that cause long-term success. This is based only on my experiences and observations.Hehehe, this reminded me of one of my favorite movies so I had to go get a quote:
From the Godfather:
MC: "My father is no different than any other powerful man -- any man who's responsible for other people, like a senator or president." KAY: "You know how naive you sound...senators and presidents don't have men killed." MC: "Oh, who's being naive, Kay?"
<<The "they do it because they want to" answer wasn't really what I was looking for :-),>>
<Hmmm, that is not what I said....>
Pretty much.. I asked why they do it, and you answered that they do it because they think it's the best thing for them to do. Obviously! I didn't expect that they chose that path because it was a move to mediocrity :-).
<<so let me rephrase my question. Does anyone have any theories on how they have come to the conclusion that terminating accounts of those that have not violated their TOS is going to benefit their bottom line?>>
<In their interpretation the accounts have violated the TOS.>
I don't believe this. Unless they think the publisher is the one causing the problem (i.e. clicking on his own ads), then I don't believe they interpret this as a TOS violation.
<I would like to point you to the "golden rule".>
Yes, he who has the gold makes the rules. But this is, again, not my question. I am asking why they take a particular course of action, and by referring to the "golden rule" you are imply that they do so simply because they can. That's not a reason someone does something.
<Hehehe, this reminded me of one of my favorite movies so I had to go get a quote:
From the Godfather:
MC: "My father is no different than any other powerful man -- any man who's responsible for other people, like a senator or president." KAY: "You know how naive you sound...senators and presidents don't have men killed." MC: "Oh, who's being naive, Kay?">
You may believe that fair business practices leading to success a naive concept, and others will disagree. Unfortunately, this is one of those concepts that has far too many variables and takes a lifetime to determine. And when the experiment has been concluded, all of the particpants are dead, and the search begins again.
Pretty much.. I asked why they do it, and you answered that they do it because they think it's the best thing for them to do. Obviously! I didn't expect that they chose that path because it was a move to mediocrity :-).Exactly, what kind of answer do you want?
I don't believe this. Unless they think the publisher is the one causing the problem (i.e. clicking on his own ads), then I don't believe they interpret this as a TOS violation.Even if this were true, and granting you the power of looking at the depths of someone's mind, the reason given would always be that the reason was some kind of TOS violation. It seems to me like you want to win some kind of academic argument, when the reality is something else.
Yes, he who has the gold makes the rules. But this is, again, not my question. I am asking why they take a particular course of action, and by referring to the "golden rule" you are imply that they do so simply because they can. That's not a reason someone does something.That is not what I am implying, and I would answer the question, but you don't like the answer.
You may believe that fair business practices leading to success a naive concept, and others will disagree.I never claim absolutes, you can be succesful by being fair also :)
Edit: I was going to call it a night, but decided to stick around for a while so I came back and wrote this message.
<<Pretty much.. I asked why they do it, and you answered that they do it because they think it's the best thing for them to do. Obviously! I didn't expect that they chose that path because it was a move to mediocrity :-).>>
<Exactly, what kind of answer do you want?>
Not the obvious one.. the one that indicates *why* they believe this to be best for their bottom line (a speculation, of course). Not that they believe that it *is* best for their bottom line, which can be assumed.
<Even if this were true, and granting you the power of looking at the depths of someone's mind, the reason given would always be that the reason was some kind of TOS violation.>
Others have speculated that it is because they don't want to ruin the relationship with the people giving them money, the advertisers. If this were the case, then it would not be a TOS violation, it would simply be Google values their advertisers more than their publishers (which I don't claim should be changed). But this wouldn't constitude a TOS violation.
Of course, someone gifted at twisting the truth (like a lawyer) may be able to make a TOS violation explanation out of it, but that's not really what it would be.
<It seems to me like you want to win some kind of academic argument, when the reality is something else.>
I'm not trying to win anything in this thread. I am genuinely looking for an answer to my question, and perhaps I am misphrasing my question so that others participating in this thread are not understanding.. I don't know.
<I never claim absolutes>
Really? (from above) <...the reason given would always be that the reason was some kind of TOS violation.>
<you can be succesful by being fair also :)>
I didn't state otherwise.
<I was going to call it a night, but decided to stick around for a while so I came back and wrote this message.>
Admit it.. you're just having too much fun to leave :-).
the one that indicates *why* they believe this to be best for their bottom line (a speculation, of course). Not that they believe that it *is* best for their bottom line...You are missing it since it has been aluded to several times in this thread. It is more efficient for them to deal with accounts that display invalid clicks this way. EFV even elaborated in detail about it giving several factors that might come into play.
Really? (from above) <...the reason given would always be that the reason was some kind of TOS violation.>Ok disclaimer coming: "they will stick to the TOS violation reason 99.99999999% of the time" Disclaimer 2: 95% of statistics are made up in the spot.
Others have speculated that it is because they don't want to ruin the relationship with the people giving them money, the advertisers. If this were the case, then it would not be a TOS violation, it would simply be Google values their advertisers more than their publishers (which I don't claim should be changed). But this wouldn't constitude a TOS violation.Four words: "in its sole discretion"Of course, someone gifted at twisting the truth (like a lawyer) may be able to make a TOS violation explanation out of it, but that's not really what it would be.
Most businesses never know or find out why particular customers leave. If you get ANY info at all, consider yourself lucky.
Yep...have to leave it at that to retain my sanity and to be able to move on to other things. I have signed the deal, and have proceeded onto the next venture. I am enough of a realist to understand I do not control the other parties activities unless they breach, and so don't worry about it.
You keep asking if this is the best course of action by Google? They feel it is, and that all that really matters. Unless they are moved from the accepted business plan by market forces then we have to accept that. They seem to have some sort of fraud detection in place and just enough "I got kicked posts" to ensure everyone knows it.
A strategy to keeping advertisers happy? Wouldn't surprise me and has been discussed here before.
Invalid clicks DO COST Google money -- primarily due to the erosion of the Advertiser's confidence in the program. If advertisers in the Adwords program see that they are paying for clicks generated fraudulently, then they will choose to opt out of Adsense. The lesser number of advertisers joining the Adsense program, the lesser money that will be for everyone. Plus, given the nature of Internet, word can easily spread amongst advertisers to get out of the Adsense program as it is rife with fraudulent clicks. That could be very hurtful to Google
Google's strict policies on fraudulent clicks are for the benefit of all. They are not the first in the online advertising industry who implemented this type of strict stance against fraud and publishers trying to manipulate their systems.
<You are missing it since it has been aluded to several times in this thread. It is more efficient for them to deal with accounts that display invalid clicks this way. EFV even elaborated in detail about it giving several factors that might come into play.>
I understand those points.. I simply don't agree that for long-term success they make sense.
qfguy,
<Most businesses never know or find out why particular customers leave. If you get ANY info at all, consider yourself lucky.>
I (almost) always find out.. it's not hard to do, and it helps improve my business(es).
Visi,
<You keep asking if this is the best course of action by Google? They feel it is, and that all that really matters.>
What matters to you may not be the only thing that matters to others :-).
alika,
<Invalid clicks DO COST Google money -- primarily due to the erosion of the Advertiser's confidence in the program. If advertisers in the Adwords program see that they are paying for clicks generated fraudulently, then they will choose to opt out of Adsense.>
Wait.. wait.. wait.. *does* Google charge AdWords advertisers for known fraudulent clicks? I would have assumed that they don't, but I may be wrong. If they do, then I think that problem is much more severe.
<Plus, given the nature of Internet, word can easily spread amongst advertisers to get out of the Adsense program as it is rife with fraudulent clicks. That could be very hurtful to Google>
This is exactly my theory of what could happen with publishers if it is thought by only a handful that their policies are too strict.
zoltan,
<We read many account terminated posts but noone disabled how much they actually earned before they got kicked. Are they in $0 - $50 range / month? Or $50 - $250? Or $250 - $1000? More than $1000?>
One publisher's posts less than a month ago, I believe, indicated that he was owed over $1,000 by Google that it appeared as being withheld. These $1,000 in clicks were real clicks, not part of the fraudulent clicks, according to his account.
Wait.. wait.. wait.. *does* Google charge AdWords advertisers for known fraudulent clicks? I would have assumed that they don't, but I may be wrong. If they do, then I think that problem is much more severe.
We're talking about costs to Google, not costs to advertisers. If the AdWords/AdSense tracking software detects invalid clicks, somebody has to review the situation and take whatever steps may be required: e.g., adjusting advertiser and publisher accounts, corresponding with publishers, and placating advertisers. If administrative costs exceed profits from a publisher's account, it's easy to see why AdSense might choose to disable the account whether or not the publisher is suspected of fraud.
To use an analogy, when I was selling tickets at a high-school football game at age 14, my till came up $10 short at the end of the game. The faculty sponsor may have made a bookkeeping error, or the kid at the next ticket window may have grabbed $10 from the till when I was distracted. Whatever the reason, I wasn't allowed to sell tickets anymore--and it didn't matter whether I was guilty or innocent. I was transferred to other stadium duties because that made the most sense to the faculty advisor (who taught business courses and obviously looked at the situation from a business point of view).
<Plus, given the nature of Internet, word can easily spread amongst advertisers to get out of the Adsense program as it is rife with fraudulent clicks. That could be very hurtful to Google>This is exactly my theory of what could happen with publishers if it is thought by only a handful that their policies are too strict.
I don't think "Have you heard that Google is too strict about fraud?" carries quite the same weight with publishers as "Have you heard that Google is too lax about fraud?" would carry with advertisers. The publishers who are most likely to be upset by Google's "too strict" policies are those who are no longer in the network.
One publisher's posts less than a month ago, I believe, indicated that he was owed over $1,000 by Google that it appeared as being withheld. These $1,000 in clicks were real clicks, not part of the fraudulent clicks, according to his account.
How did the publisher know which clicks were real and which were fraudulent? I wouldn't expect Google to reveal such information, based on my own experience and the reports that we've seen on this forum.
It's possible, of course, that the publisher discovered the fraud on his own. When my own clicks were about $1,400 above normal one day in November, I reported the questionable figure to Google. That seemed a lot smarter than crossing my fingers and hoping that Google wouldn't notice the unexpected jackpot. :-)
$1,400 above? How much are you making / day? $2,000? I know you can't reveal it... I'm just very surprised...
I was very surprised, too. And no, I don't earn anywhere near $2,000 a day--not even in my dreams. :-)
As I recall, the numbers started climbing late one evening and through much of the next day. Then the clickbot attack (or whatever it was) stopped and my numbers returned to normal.
Side note: When Google decides that clicks are invalid, it would be nice if the statistics in the online report would be updated to reflect any post-audit adjustments. My November statistics are still showing that extra $1,400 or so, which means I have to adjust the numbers manually if I want to compare monthly averages, calculate average CPMs, etc.
<We're talking about costs to Google, not costs to advertisers.>
If Google regularly charges advertisers for fraudulent clicks, then I believe that that will be a real cost to Google and the future of the program.
<If the AdWords/AdSense tracking software detects invalid clicks, somebody has to review the situation and take whatever steps may be required: e.g., adjusting advertiser and publisher accounts, corresponding with publishers, and placating advertisers.>
I agree with this.. but when Google sends an email to a publisher telling them that invalid clicks have been detected, what action does the publisher take? I've never received this email, so I don't know what details it contains. But unless it gives some information about the clicks themselves (such as the originating IP addresses), what is the publisher to do?
<If administrative costs exceed profits from a publisher's account, it's easy to see why AdSense might choose to disable the account whether or not the publisher is suspected of fraud.>
This seems to be short-sighted.
For instance, I run a particular subscription-based business (have been for several years). Certain customers will call for support frequently during the initial stages of their service, or sometimes in the middle. Over a short period of time, a month or two, this customer will cost us more in support than they generate in revenue for us. Over several more months, they will become accustomed to the subscription and not need as much hands-on service, and then are maintenance-free for two years. So far, we have not cancelled any accounts because they have required so much service (and cost us more in customer service than their account generated for us), and we have always had great experiences with this policy.
<To use an analogy, when I was selling tickets at a high-school football game at age 14, my till came up $10 short at the end of the game. The faculty sponsor may have made a bookkeeping error, or the kid at the next ticket window may have grabbed $10 from the till when I was distracted. Whatever the reason, I wasn't allowed to sell tickets anymore--and it didn't matter whether I was guilty or innocent.>
I am not saying that this type of behavior is exclusive to Google and that it doesn't happen elsewhere. Just that I don't think it makes long-term sense.
<I don't think "Have you heard that Google is too strict about fraud?" carries quite the same weight with publishers as "Have you heard that Google is too lax about fraud?" would carry with advertisers. The publishers who are most likely to be upset by Google's "too strict" policies are those who are no longer in the network.>
I feel like I am going in circles (as I'm sure others do) :-). Again, why would advertisers care about fraud as long as they didn't pay for it? And if they do pay for those clicks, then that, again, is another (probably larger) problem.
It would make sense that Google (being able to detect fraudulent clicks) would simply not charge the advertiser, and not pay the publisher for those clicks. I would much rather receive an email from Google saying that they've detected 10 potentially invalid clicks generated by my site in a given day and they've decided not to pay me for them, than to receive an email saying that they've detected 10 potentially invalid clicks and they're terminating my account.
<How did the publisher know which clicks were real and which were fraudulent? I wouldn't expect Google to reveal such information, based on my own experience and the reports that we've seen on this forum.>
You will have to ask him, but he seems pretty sure of himself:
[webmasterworld.com...]
<It's possible, of course, that the publisher discovered the fraud on his own. When my own clicks were about $1,400 above normal one day in November, I reported the questionable figure to Google. That seemed a lot smarter than crossing my fingers and hoping that Google wouldn't notice the unexpected jackpot. :-)>
I do check my AdSense statistics regularly (multiple times per day) as it is simply as easy as hitting Reload on my browser. But I'm sure there will come a time when I'm unable to do so for a period of time. If I ever found activity that appeared to be fraudulent, I would report it immediately. However, this technique only has the potential of working if I catch it before they do :-).
Maybe innocent webmasters have already been kicked out of AdSense, (and maybe not), but if so they are victims of the numerous online fraudsters who are looking to rip off the system.
<The idea that Google could "filter out" repeated fraudulent clicks but not take any action against the website comes up evey time someone gets kicked out, but it's ludicrous, not even worth discussing.>
Apparently it is to you, as you're participating :-).
<No reliable technology exists or can ever exist to do so.>
A statement like that may go down in history, along with, "640K ought to be enough for anybody," as do most statements claiming that something is impossible.
<Maybe innocent webmasters have already been kicked out of AdSense, (and maybe not), but if so they are victims of the numerous online fraudsters who are looking to rip off the system.>
And you don't view it as a problem worth solving?
I'm sure the PhD's at Google are several steps ahead of the average jackass who clicks on a bunch of his own ads and waits for the check to arrive, but the version of the Web we are stuck with is just too anonymous and too full of security holes for the AdSense program to ever have really reliable filters.
I honestly can't recall reading about a happy ending, but I certainly hope there have been some.
Nobody who was kicked out by Google AdSense ever was able to return - doesn't matter for what reasons he/she was kicked out. That's the fact. Let's face it.
Nobody who was kicked out by Google AdSense ever was able to return - doesn't matter for what reasons he/she was kicked out. That's the fact. Let's face it.
On the other hand, not everyone who's received an "invalid clicks" e-mail has been bounced from the program. That's another fact that needs to be faced.
as a Adwords Advertiser, maybe I have a different perspective on this but...since Google AdSense is your customer for you to expect ANY kind of explantation whatsoever as to why they do not wish to remain your customer is unreasonable.
Most businesses never know or find out why particular customers leave. If you get ANY info at all, consider yourself lucky.
I thought Adsense was just a broker?
Besides: many customers leave without letting you know (I guess the ration is 1/10), but if someone implies you're a cheat, then you might ask him why and if he can't prove it or doesn't care to, maybe you'd get just a little bit upset.
Call it what you will.....
Who cares who the cheat is? If there is cheating going on, I am glad Google is not wasting my money on false clicks. After all, as a GAW Advertiser I am the ultimate drinker of the "milk".
I would understand if my grocery store stopped buying watered-down milk from a supplier even if they did not know PRECISELY who and how the milk was diluted. Hell, I'd even be thankful for it!
Especially since there are LOTS of other dairy farms.
:-)
