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!
Hey thats great - shame we can't drop URLs here, I'd just love to order from you then refuse to pay.
If you don't like it, don't use it, it's pretty simple. They didn't beg you to take part in the program, you applied to be a part of it.
It's our money you are talking about Schwartz having the right to earn.
to make judgment on the quality of content is webmasters
My point is that even webmasters will disagree on this - quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
More importantly, it is irrelevant what webmasters think - it is only the reaction of the intended customer that matters.
it's pretty simple.
..which is where your whole argument falls down.
It isn't.
If you can't see that, fine, no point in debating it further.
No, it's not in the eye of the beholder. Candy.com, like many of the sites Schwartz runs is nothing but a poor quality holder for somebody squatting on a domain that could be used quite productively by somebody willing to put in minimum effort. I'm not embarrassed or ashamed to call a duck a duck and a goose a goose.
If Candy.com isn’t a poor quality site, then what is? I really don’t know what could be done to make the site less useful other than to add a bunch of pop ups. Oh wait, I had the pop up blocker on my toolbar enabled.
Schwartz is not a martyr that is defending the rights of all webmasters against the evil empire of Google. He’s not a role model for webmasters and he's not somebody we should feel sorry for. He’s the guy who bought the domains <snip>.com, <snip>.com, and <snip>.com and put up search feeds to make money without actually doing anything other than sitting on his <snip>.com.
Why are you so zealous about defending his poor quality sites as anything but what they are?
[edited by: Jenstar at 8:41 am (utc) on Feb. 15, 2004]
[edit reason] No specific URLs or adult content, as per TOS [/edit]
My point is that even webmasters will disagree on this - quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Sorry, but that's a cop-out as far as I'm concerned. I have seen more than a few sites who I feel are creating pages/sites in an unethical way just to maximize adsense revenue, without any notion of providing actual content. Allowing such sites to exist in the adsense program hurts both the advertisers, and actual publishers who are providing content.
Why are you so zealous about defending his poor quality sites as anything but what they are?
I haven't.
Please point out where you think I am doing this in any of my posts.
I took issue with the specific words you used, the broad generalisations and errors of logic.
I don't like his sites any more than you do, but your proposal of censorship based on your perception of quality is flawed.
As Google are currently negotiating to reinstate his sites, and as I suspect they will not be much different, it would seem that Google agree with me.
but your proposal of censorship based on your perception of quality is flawed.
Adsense not allowing certain sites in their program is not censorship. It's their program and they can invite/disinvite whomever they wish.
I certainly hope they do not allow those sites back in. I for one will be disappointed in adsense if they do.
I took issue with the specific words you used, the broad generalisations and errors of logic.
What you're trying to say is you took my words out of context.
who I feel are creating pages/sites in an unethical
That would be YOUR definition of unethical.
It may not agree with mine, or any of the other posters in this thread.
Many members here are what you would no doubt call 'unethical' and produce sites that lack 'quality'.
Google will make their own decision on 'quality', and given that domainpark is OK, its hard to imagine that it will match with yours (or mine for that matter)
What you're trying to say is you took my words out of context
Its hard to take a generalisation out of context - perhaps you didn't mean the words you used.
I mean, look at a search engine.
They aren't pretty to look at. They aren't feats of design, unless you want to talk about the old Excitextream.
The amount of data should also be irrelevant as long as the content is relevant and the end users find what they want.
Then its win/win for everyone involved.
You guys are talking semantics if ya ask me.
Its not about what the webmaster community thinks about Ricks sites...thats for Google to judge. If you don't like the thought that Google may be distributing your Adwords buys to sites like these...bail...quit.
If you want to participate with Adsense...you can voluntarily apply and then get approved or denied.
My first time outta the gate...I was denied with the most gawd awful reasons that were 100% contray to anything representative of my site.
So did Google Adsense reps REALLY look at my site when I applied? Hell no!
Did I write and complain? Yes, not once...not twice...but 3 fricken times and then chewed them a new one!
A week later I got an acceptance letter. Does that make sense? This isn't about customer service? BS.
If you provide goods or services to any consumer base...
YOU PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE.
4eyes is right...it doesn't matter one iota what any of you think...not a bit! It only matters what google thinks...now doesn't it?
It's their program, their TOS, their emails and phone calls to me saying they will work with Rick to get him reinstated.
Seems to me this measuring contest is going nowhere...& methinks Google will decide this outcome.
So...I am going to bed...let the speculation continue!
A week later I got an acceptance letter. Does that make sense? This isn't about customer service? BS.If you provide goods or services to any consumer base...YOU PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE.
That goes back the very base of what's wrong with this post. Since when are we as Adsense publishers (not Adwords advertisers) the customers?
Adsense isn't providing you goods, you are providing them goods and services and they are paying you for it. It sounds like you want YOUR customer (Adsense) to treat you like you are the one paying them. For some reason it just seems completely backwards to me.
Google pays the publishers. We do not pay them. IMHO, that makes Google our customer. A sometimes fickle, some would say inconsistent, and others would say "slow to respond" customer, but customer nonetheless.
I think having crappy sites in the network might make the whole content portion of adsense less appealing to advertisers. This is why we care. However, it is ultimately Google's decision.
it doesn't matter one iota what any of you think...not a bit! It only matters what google thinks...now doesn't it?
I do not think his sites are unethical, they are just crappy ... Didn't someone post here a quote from him saying that <paraphrase> My sites are intentionally crappy </paraphrase>.
It's unethical because they are intentionally crappy. That being said, I don't care about that, I'm concerned about adsense allowing such sites into the program as they bring down the overall quality for everyone else.
BTW as far as crappy sites go, I'm more concerned about the numerous keyword spamming pages out there based on search engine results. These pages not only have no content (just duplicating Google's search listings for popular keyword combos), the links are not even clickable on many sites, thus encouraging the person to click on the adsense ad. Why adsense allows that is beyond me, but if they continue to allow this, I might as well just generate thousands of worthless pages to get a piece of the pie, too. Completely ridicuolous that adsense allows it though.
'course, the site could be changed into a CONTENT website, but that's a lot of work... which many of us do.
if it really is just a few of us who think his sites are poor quality
I didn't say that either.
I took issue with specific statements that you made that were incorrect.
Please read msg #:68 - if you wish to argue with me about what I have actually said please take it up with me by stickymail.
As SEGuru2 says, this thread is going nowhere and has drifted well off the original topic.
There are a lot of Google schmoozers around here...
Candy.com, like many of the sites Schwartz runs is nothing but a poor quality holder for somebody squatting on a domain that could be used quite productively by somebody willing to put in minimum effort.
A strange comment. Candy.com *is* productive (makes money) with a minimum of effort.
On another note - It always makes me a little uneasy to hear people complain about someone else's ethics.... The tactic is to call someone unethical (never bother to define it) thereby giving them a label that attempts to diminish anything that person would say or do.
There are zealots on both sides of the fence. Just look for the fixed stare, strained voice, quivering neck and set jaw.
LEAVE IT TO SOME OF THESE PEEPS...AND WE'D HAVE THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS ALL OVER AGAIN...RIGHT HERE.
THEN IT WOULD STILL BE CRITICISED!
hehehehe
I like you style CHICAGOHH!
If you're going to PubCon, look me up. Like to buy you a beer!
as much as I respect your knowledge and judgement dude.
give it a break mate.
if the boot was on the other foot, you seriously think MR S would be going to so much trouble for you ...
see ya ta pubcon
Shak
A strange comment. Candy.com *is* productive (makes money) with a minimum of effort.I agree... I also agree that if people kicked out get Google to let them back in, good for them. Nevertheless, the sites are crappy and having them in the Adsense network hurts the perception of what a "content site" is in the eyes of an advertiser. This means that the rest of the publishers get hurt.
Like it or not we are dealing with a limited pool of advertisers. Sure the pool is big, but I don't want the pool to shrink because they saw their widget ad in ****.com with nothing but other ads around.
Now spyware and parasitware that is unethical. What he is doing is just traveling the low-road. This does not mean that the rest of us should be happy about it.
The tactic is to call someone unethical (never bother to define it) thereby giving them a label that attempts to diminish anything that person would say or do.
But I did define what is being unethical. One way is by making crappy sites INTENTIONALLY in order to increase ad revenue. That's an unethical business practice as far as I'm concerned.
The other way I described is by auto-generating thousands of pages of keyword combo pages using a search engine API with absolutely no real value to anyone other than the creator.
If anything, this whole debacle shows a cler line and difference of thinking in the webmaster community on how this should be handled.
Just because my view is unpopular, doesn't mean I'll quelch it.
And what was my view here?
I didn't like the bot response, and I helped someone out.
I've always tried to help someone in a bind if I see cause.
If Google comes back and tells Rick he can't come back...fine. I've done my fair share to stand and show both sides where they could have handled this better.
I've always postured myself carefully on these issues, and my last comment does sound extreme doesn't it? It was meant to.
Salem Witch trials indeed.
I hate to see a guy get beat up for what seems to be a founded and thought out point of view such as 4eyes.
Agree to disagree...but again...Google owes us nothing. If they choose to do business with us...great if not...great. Their choice and your choice to determine if you wish to get in bed with them.
Regardless, no ones making anyone do anything they don't want to...INCLUDING GOOGLE.
Can ya feel a pint coming on Shak? lol
You are coming next week huh?
I hate to see a guy get beat up for what seems to be a founded and thought out point of view such as 4eyes
Happy to be a martyr.
For some time now, WebmasterWorld has been in danger of being taken over by newbies and whitehats who see themselves as defenders of quality (and apparently now ethics) on the internet.
What they fail to realise is that many of this forums founders, mods and admins are, by their definitions, unethical spammers.
Its one of the reasons that 'finger pointing' at sites in order to get them banned is forbidden by the TOS here. This whitehat campaign against candy.com is itself unethical as, amongst other reasons, it infringes the TOS of WebmasterWorld. If they don't like the TOS, why don't they just leave the forum (to paraphrase one of their more frequent war cries)
Too many of the newer members have bought the 'company line' spun out by Google.
It is right and proper to make a stand against this righteous fervour.
I still find it quite amusing that you are so offended by webmasters calling poor-quality sites, poor-quality sites.
Its one of the reasons that 'finger pointing' at sites in order to get them banned is forbidden by the TOS here. This whitehat campaign against candy.com is itself unethical as, amongst other reasons, it infringes the TOS of WebmasterWorld.
Candy.com is already banned, and that banning has been discussed only because SEGuru2 identified Candy.com and its owner on this forum. So it's a late to complain about "finger pointing" or violations of the TOS.
In any case, wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the issue at hand than to attack the motives of other forum members? This thread is supposed to be about "The Domain King Versus Google AdSense," not "The Domain King's Defenders Versus Other Forum Members."
It has been clear for some time that some of the people involved in the forum approach the internet from a different angle. In more than one ocassion I have been surprised at some comments. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is legal. However, their actions have an impact on others and when they do on something we newbies are involved, I kind of think we have all the right to speak our mind.
