Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I've been with Adsense for over a year now and never clicked on my ads. I guess, I am too careful. But, accidents happen; other people accidentally do click on their ads. Whether these accidental clicks get people kicked or not is debate for itself, but Google should honestly loosen up Adsense rules.
Why?
There are websites on the internet that grossly violate Adsense rules by asking visitors to support them by clicking on their ads; other websites use image pointers to ads and other tricks to keep clicks coming. I've reported many of such websites; you have probably done the same. But, they are still in business, even after 3,4,5,6 months after being reported.
To be fair and balanced, Google should only kick publishers who grossly violate Adsense rules (e.g. ask their visitors to click on ads, etc). Small publishers (up to $10,000/month earners) who accidentally and non-intentionally make small mistakes should be first given a warning, and then suspension (but not immediate ban).
I believe that most people are in fact nice people - not crooks. To make mistakes is to be human. How many of you crossed the street without waiting for a proper traffic light? Even Google makes mistakes (as we could see from this latest exchange rate payment screw up). Let a small guy make a better life for himself and his family; if he/she makes small mistake, warn him/her and I guarantee you they will fix the error within 24 hours (and never repepat it again)!
I have also noticed when my friends search Google, they click out of boredom on their Google-search-results-sponsored ads [non-content network].
I question the entire premise of this thread. Over the past couple of years, in THIS forum anyway, when we got to the bottom of an "I was banned" case, it was almost always because of some fairly serious TOS violation. Very few, if any, were banned because of accidentally clicking their own ads!
I haven't ever heard of a case where a publisher has been banned for one or two small mistakes. In fact, I have heard of cases where Google has emailed TOS violators and politely asked them to rectify a problem.
Whilst I do accept that Google does make mistakes in certain cases, the majority of bannings seem to occur when a large number of invalid clicks have occured. Google can't afford to ease up on this, as the integrity of the program would be at stake. Although it I think it would be a good idea to for them to provide some sort of mechanism that allows formal appeals by those banned webmasters who assert that invalid clicks were not connected to any of their own actions.
If anything Google needs to get tougher. Tougher on dodgy publishers who drive away advertisers and tougher on MFA's like the spam directory/MFA/Affilate Site (with a PR of 6 ) that I recently spotted.
Whilst I do accept that Google does make mistakes in certain cases, the majority of bannings seem to occur when a large number of invalid clicks have occured.
Then, loosen up rules about "invalid clicks". All repeated clicks cannot simply be regarded as "invalid".
I think that it's fairly clear that not all repeated clicks *are* treated as invalid. G has listed cases where they might be valid when advertisers have complained.
I have used the right column of ads in search (when buying network hardware as it happens) as if they were normal organic links, forgetting that (re)checking out a couple of sites a couple of times may cost them more than one click. But still, they ended up selling me a lot of kit... B^>
So, I also disagree with the premise of this thread: G should tighten the rules and enforce them better if it changes anything at all!
Rgds
Damon
Then, loosen up rules about "invalid clicks". All repeated clicks cannot simply be regarded as "invalid".
This is one reason I prefer fixed fees to CPC, CPM, etc. Repeated clicks don't deplete ad spend.
I am glad you don't use content network, because you seem to be one of the guys who would send one complain for every click Google sends you. What makes you think that non-content network is better?
For difficult to detect click fraud, the content network is no worse than the non-content network. However, there seems to be a consensus that click fraud aside, the content network delivers generally less ROI than the non-content network.
However, there seems to be a consensus that click fraud aside, the content network delivers generally less ROI than the non-content network.
I've heard some advertisers say the opposite, which just goes to show that generalizations aren't very useful. Also, as one AdWords forum member once pointed out, clicks from the content network represent incremental leads or sales. And in some niches, there simply aren't enough impressions on the search network to meet advertiser demand.
To follow up EFV:
1) With care I get about the same cost-per-conversion from the Content Network as any other part of AW.
2) Sometimes only the Content Network has any significant volume for me. At the moment I'm maxing out my servers again so that's not an issue, but when I want the traffic then CN may be the only way to do it.
Rgds
Damon
