Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Not sure if anyone here saw the issue the cropped up between Candy.com and Adsense.
Some language there on the site was stated by Google to be in violation of the TOS for Adsense. The text would encourage website visitors to click on the ads...
Apparently Google asked Mr. Schwartz to change it and he did so immediately and emailed them to that affect.
He basically got a bot reply.
He replied again, and again received another email that appeared to not have been read by someone who knew what was up.
Next thing you know...his account is shut down for all his domains!
Now this guy doesn't have chumpy domains. He just sold Men.com for over 1 Million bucks!
I contacted Google this morning since I know a few peeps over there, and we scheduled Mr. Schwartz to be live on our webcast tonight!
We also invited Google...and was told that getting it approved quickly may be an issue(my friend was out on vacation).
So we're waiting patiently to see what Google is going to do for my friend Mr. Schwartz. We'd luv to be able to announce a resolution to this matter by airtime tonite.
So, keep your fingers crossed as Rick has a lot of premium domains that got hit hard by this.
Peace!
He sends traffic to advertisers ..period.. thats the business he is in ..Traffic as we all are ..
Candy.com does not need google, he never ever has to work to get candy.com listed on page 1 of any website because candy.com generates it's own traffic through NATURAL url type-ins.
Because of this..Candy.com could care less how the site looks and whether or not their is any actual contant on candy.com and that is where the problem is.
Google is approving CONTENT websites for adsense..Candy.com thinks it can just flip google the bird..
Google flipped Candy.com back..we dont care who you are or who you thhink you are; add content , abide by the rules and we'll give you access to our advertisers.
Like I said Rick will be the first to tell you and in fact if you search his website he clearly states ..he doesnt build content.
That's fine he can do whatever he likes , he owns Candy.com .. But Google owns GOOGLE.COM
Instead of throwing a tantrum he should have invested a few hundred bucks, a few thosand bucks ( nickles and dimes to him) and hired out someone to build a real content site for Candy.com then resubmitted to Adsense .
Or do what he always does ..sell the natural traffic Candy.com has
We all want the more lucrative revenue..some are will to work for it ..some are not
That's a crock.
Google wants traffic...that's why they are working to get him reinstated. They understand that their automated notification of his breaking the TOS...and then the spiral outta control with the breakdown in communication.
If it was only content they cared about...then you wouold be correct.
However, when Google calls me...and tells me they are sorry for the confusion...and here's the steps to resolve it?!?!?!?!
Really sounds like they are into what Rick has to offer. TRAFFIC
Let's make it simple...at 100,000 uniques a day (to be conservative) in his network of sites. That's alot of valuable type-in traffic that ANYONE would be stupid NOT to want.
CONTENT IS KING...WITHOUT TRAFFIC...IT'S USED HARD DRIVE SPACE!
4eyes, people aren't syncophants or "Google groupies" just because they're rational enough to eschew conspiracy theories or to be skeptical about the idea that 99% of the people who get booted by AdSense are innocent of wrongdoing.
Brett, publishers aren't "working for Google" just because Google is running ads on their sites. (That's like saying THE NEW YORK TIMES is "working for George Bush" if the Bush campaign buys ads on its pages, or that you're an employee of Hotels.com and eSpotting because you run their logos on Webmaster World.)
SEGuru2, I'll be very disappointed if AdSense gives the "Domain King" a second chance with Candy.com and his other domains. Such pseudo-sites don't enhance the reputation of AdSense with advertisers, and AdSense should be trying to raise network quality, not to lower it (which is why Google also should get rid of its DomainPark program or it least separate it from AdSense).
maybe its domainpark stuff misinterpreted as Adsense. not sure though.
I tend to try to stand in a non-judgemental position. I tend to try and reverse engineer everything. Even the intent of certain business models. But they are just that....BUSINESS MODELS.
If its legal, and it works for them...kudos.
All is fair in love and war!
If its legal, and it works for them...kudos.
If you mean Google's DomainPark program, it may be working for them in the short term, but they may come to regret it over the long haul (unless, of course, they pull the plug on it when advertisers get savvy to what's going on).
RS then throws a tantruam.. how dare they treat me lie everyone else tantraum.. anyone can read it.
Fact3. Yes, RS has a ton of natural traffic I think I clearly stated that myself. So what does he need with google? Flip Google the bird again ..
Botomline..Google holds the upper hand, they have what RS wants.. not the other way around ..one man with a few hundred thosand visitors is just a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thosands webmasters and businesses with millions of pages of content sending tens of milions of vistors to adsense advertisers.
The bottom line is RS is sweating he has a ton of names that cant access adsense
Let me know when your in town so I can set up a poker game..
Rick...got mad indeed. Not for his treatment...but for the LACK OF COMMUNICATION. A TOTAL BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION.
As for WHY, he would need Google since he's got 100,000 Uniques a day...MONETIZE THE TRAFFIC. He's not trying to get placed.
He could care less about SE traffic...self admittedly!
And does...Googles customer service care to deal with 1000's of guys with a few hits a day to the Adsense proggie...and deal with a bunch of whiney webmasters...or deal with a smaller number of manageable clients with substantial daily traffic?!?!?!
I assume then you have problems with Real Estate developers? Does that stop you from going to resorts or strip malls? Those damned developers! They churn and burn land...Rick churns traffic.
So...pull from the bottom...and I'll fold eveytime! You'll not take the pot with me at the table, Cookie!
Googles customer service care to deal with 1000's of guys with a few hits a day to the Adsense proggie...and deal with a bunch of whiney webmasters...or deal with a smaller number of manageable clients with substantial daily traffic?!?!?!
Who's the one whining here? ;-)
But it's not just the amount of traffic, it's the quality. Google makes their money by selling those ads to people. If the people buying the ads find that they are running on v. poor sites, and they are not converting the ads in to sales, they'll drop out, and then everyone loses.
It seems to me Google was exactly right in kicking this site out, and (as an AdWords user)I wish they'd drop the Domainpark thing asap too.
And does...Googles customer service care to deal with 1000's of guys with a few hits a day to the Adsense proggie...and deal with a bunch of whiney webmasters...or deal with a smaller number of manageable clients with substantial daily traffic?!?!?!
I will take two cards and raise you twenty.
For all practicle purposes - that's an employee in my book.
Thats a good point, though it seems a shame the employees don't get treated with a little more respect.
I don't mind whether they treat us as employees or treat us as business partners, I just get a little riled when they can't even be bothered to send a personal reply to valid questions.
Its not how I do business with clients, partners or employees.
For the rest of you interested, methinks that this is being made into more than what it really is.
If its as big a deal as everyone here thinks it is...then why is Google working with Rick now to get him reinstated?
Because they too understand that A) there were compliancy issues B) there was a serious breakdown in communication.
So, if Google is outlining steps for Rick to be able to get back in...why is everyone still thinking that his "type" won't be able to get back in?
I'll see your Twenty and take 2 myself!
It's sad to see people forget that Adsense is their client and that Google pays them to do what Google tells them to do. If you don't want to do what Google tells you to do, don't take their money.
So, if Google is outlining steps for Rick to be able to get back in...why is everyone still thinking that his "type" won't be able to get back in?
Because even though he is your friend, he is a domain squatting bum (rich bum) who doesn't contribute anything to the internet as a whole.
[edited by: woop01 at 6:27 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2004]
If Google decides it no longer wants your space, it can cancel.
And if you decide Google is no longer the kind of customer you want to sell space to, you can cancel.
It's a pretty straightforward arrangement, IMHO: You sell, they buy, and either of you can say good-bye without having to give reasons.
You can spin the facts any way you want but the lesson remains the same.
woop01:
For the record...the longest conversation I have ever had with Mr. Schwartz...was the one we had on our Radio Show.
He is someone I have known of, and never had the chance to do business with and make no judgements about his business model...as he has his rights to make an honest living just like everyone else here.
I choose not to criticise either Rick or Google.
I would however like to see a positive resolution to someone who is a prominent domain owner, and a large engine that can use all the good PR they can get.
I'm a relationship guy...always have been. This topic is also beneficial to anyone seeking to work appropriately with Google and sell their available inventory to them.
Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with how he runs his business...he still deserves fair and decent consideration from Google after complaince.
That's why Google is itemizing what he needs to do to be compliant and to be reinstated.
Simple.
What is the purpose of this thread? Quit making garbage sites and putting AdSense on them then you won't have to worry about getting your damn account disabled.
4eyes, people aren't syncophants or "Google groupies" just because they're rational enough to eschew conspiracy theories or to be skeptical about the idea that 99% of the people who get booted by AdSense are innocent of wrongdoing.
You see, thats just typical of the problem.
Bad rhetoric and bad logic used to defend Google in an irrational way.
1/. I have not proposed any conspiracy theory, I said they have problems and are making mistakes, they have agreed. Hard to argue with that, I would have thought.
2/. 'Rational Enough...' - you are clearly not reading the same threads that I am. If I say 'some' that does not equate to 'all' no matter how you twist it. It is not difficult to find irrational knee-jerk responses along the lines of 'your site is crap, thats why it got booted'.
3/. '..idea that 99% of the people who get booted by AdSense are innocent'. Oh dear, that old classic. Invent a phrase that you can argue with and try to make out your opponent said it. I didn't say this, you did.
Maybe you misunderstood, so I will try to rephrase:
IMO, some (yes, 'some' not 'all') members here appear to have their objectivity skewed by the financial reward.
Feel free to disagree with me, just don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
FWIW, in defense of the domain, if you notice, the domain is currently being redirected to a "landing page" on another domain.
If you take a look at the google cache (ie cache:www.domain.com) you will see that the content (though pretty thin) was a lot better than it is currently.
[edited by: PatrickDeese at 2:49 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2004]
I mean come on guys.
Who are any of us to judge the quality of his content or deployment thereof?
You really have a problem with him masking his refering url to relevant links?
So what you're saying is...if you're going to advertise to me...BE YOUR FACE.
You mean you don't prefer the soft and easy sell.
Never ceases to amaze me that webmasters will complain about any side of the fence...just so long as they have something to complain about.
We can all do it anyway we want...as long as the engine is happy and the end users are happy and you're getting paid...and all is legal?
Why grab a soap box for anything else?
I think there is more to the candy.com site being suspended than what has been said.I fully agree Google makes mistakes, I have seen it myself. But I have also seen plenty of people complaining they have been suspended "for no reason" when it turns out there were perfectly valid reasons for the suspension.
Well said. I have some issues with some of Google's decisions--some of which don't even seem to be in the best interest of Google. But, some of the gripes about G from both marketers and publishers are so ill-considered that, if a choice has to be made between being pro or anti-AdSense or Adwords, one is forced to be pro, just to keep from looking like a member of that group of thoughtless, lazy or unappreciative jerks.
What the Domain King does might not be illegal, but I question his ethics. At the very least, his candy is tacky.
We see a lot of this kind of thinking with people registering the name of a city, and then doing little more than sitting on it with a directory. Some of these are so lazy they've failed to keep them registered and they have been scooped up by others who actually did something responsible with the name.
Still, while I like how this site keeps its professional and adult focus, all in all, WebmasterWorld could probably stand to loosen up a bit in regards to Google.
Who are any of us to judge the quality of his content or deployment thereof?
Webmasters who make a living knowing what is quality and what is crap.
You really have a problem with him masking his refering url to relevant links?
Yes. If the links are relevant, don't mask them, let the user know where they are about to be redirected to.
Again, it is not a God given right to earn money from Adsense. I have yet to understand how you think Adsense is making mistakes as if you are the customer. Adsense is YOUR customer and I don't know about you but I use the "customer is always right" approach to most issues with my customers.
If they weren't paying him for services he had already provided then it would be a different issue. The way you have stated it, they simply don't want to receive his services any longer.
Don't claim that the Adsense customer support is poor. Adsenses customers are Adwords users, not Adsense publishers.
“I like to build sites with limited content. In other words, I have mostly crappy sites! But even that is for a reason. I don’t want anyone sticking around on my sites. I want them off as quick as they came via a revenue producing link."
well ... that's apparently the strategy! put adsense codes on crappy sites to drive customers away by clicking on any of the Adsense adverts. high clickthrough, high revenue. ugh.
Webmasters who make a living knowing what is quality and what is crap.
Wow - let me get this right, you think that all webmasters share one opnion, and more importantly, the opinion that they share is yours?
You might care to read a little on the whether quality is subjective or objective and if you ever find a definitive proof one way or the other, be sure to let us know.
Adsense is YOUR customer and I don't know about you but I use the "customer is always right" approach to most issues with my customers.
Hey thats great - shame we can't drop URLs here, I'd just love to order from you then refuse to pay. Of course for your example to have any relevance, you would have to be working to my terms and conditions, which would of course remove any rights that you may have to adequate expanations. Again, for your example to have any relevance, I would have to be the only customer that was prepared to spend a significant amount of money with you.
Of course, you could always refuse to deal with me - but for your example to have any relevance, I would be your single largest customer by a mile.
'Fraid, its not as simple as you would like it to be.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.Henri Louis Mencken
