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!
so offended by webmasters calling poor-quality sites, poor-quality sites
You must live in a dream world - once again, I never defended the quality of his sites. If you wish to continue the debate please read my posts and make sure you understand the words I am using, otherwise you are just wasting everyones time.
So it's a late to complain about "finger pointing" or violations of the TOS.
In any case, its certainly not too late to point out hypocrisy when it comes to ethics.
because some in the community did not decide to rally around him, all of a sudden those dissenting opinions are being labeled "newbies".
Where did you read that. If your argument depends on that kind of bad rhetoric, then you don't have an argument.
All my posts have been concerned with the errors of logic, gross generalisations and calls for censorship based on individuals views of ethics and quality.
I thinks his sites are pretty crap, heck he admitted it himself. That was never the point.
The debate was originally about Google's customer service, but was redirected by some who seem keen to have their views of quality and ethics used as the criteria for Google accepting sites into the Adsense program.
I trust that all of you that think his sites are not worthy of being in Adsense will be writing to Google protesting about domainpark as well.
Open your eyes guys - there is no black and white, only shades of grey.
calls for censorship based on individuals views of ethics and quality.
I thinks his sites are pretty crap, heck he admitted it himself. That was never the point.
No, that's exactly the point. Generating ad revenue by puposefully putting out crappy sites is unethical.
No, that's exactly the point. Generating ad revenue by puposefully putting out crappy sites is unethical.
In and of itself, no. But in that bad web sites drive out or bury good ones, it is something that we should not support. And, it's not in Google's best interest. The better they're able to serve the ad buyer and the user, the more useful they are to both.
Interestingly, without much effort Domain King could probably come in with a outstanding selection of candy web sites, some links to history on candy and some scientific or nutritional info, and be better than Google on this single term. But, that's not what's happening.
I wish I had more money to make my web sites better. They are improving. And, in the areas we serve, we do a much better job than anyone else. Alas, Google has rated over us several Domain King-type sites. It is frustrating.
all $$ on Reinstated
Well said.
Having read this thread throughout, I can't see what the fuss is about! Site gets booted, owner gets canned response, owner kicks up fuss, 4eyes makes comment about Google AdSense follow ups being not that hot, Google to reconsider situation - end of story.
They'll put it in if it makes them money, in all probability.
How this got into a discussion of ethics, I don't know! As for defending Google, I'm sure they are big enough to do that themselves and while it is understandable that people may prefer crappy sites not to be included, that wasn't the point being discussed - was it? What on earth is this guy doing that could be called remotely unethical? Is it because he has appeared to find a way to make shed-loads of dough for minimal effort legally?
More power to him! I wish I could.
I trust that all of you that think his sites are not worthy of being in Adsense will be writing to Google protesting about domainpark as well.
Some of us have complained about DomainPark.
writing to Google protesting about domainpark as well
Yep, did that.
only shades of grey
Sure. But that's not an argument there are, or should be, no standards at all.
"DomainPark allows domain name registrars and large domain name holders to unlock the value in their parked page inventory. DomainPark delivers targeted, conceptually related keywords and advertisements to parked domain name pages by using Google's semantic technology to "understand" the meaning of each domain name. Powering over 1 million domain names, DomainPark is the industry's leading parked page service."
for clarification he is using another companies domain parking service ..and not googles domainpark..
I am interested in how this redirect warrants a PR3 though!
Some of us have complained about DomainPark.
Sheez, how the hell did I end up on the side of Google arguing against EPV? The worlds gone mad ;)
They'll put it in if it makes them money, in all probability.
If it were a <adult> site would they put it in if it made them money? If it were racist site would they put it in if it made them money? Not all websites that make people money necessarily belong in a high-quality contextual ad service like adsense.
It seems that some members here are more concerned with maximizing ad revenue through any means possible, whether by making crappy sites or through other methods. I call that unethical, but so what? I can't imagine that people who create such sites care very much whether something is ethical or not. After all, why should they if it's makin' them money?
[edited by: Jenstar at 4:24 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2004]
[edit reason] language, as per TOS [/edit]
Good for you! Just for the record, I don't run AdSense on any of my properties nor do I advise my clients to allow their AdWords to run on AdSense enabled sites as I view the whole idea of AdSense as as "unethical" as the zillions of PPC affiliate deals out there that provide unfocussed referrals.
Oh, and I did try it for clients. CTR up - conversion rate down - just as I thought it would be.
But that's just me. I don't brand anyone else who disagrees as unethical.
As for <adult> and racist sites - I think I mentioned the word "legally" in my comments.
All people should care about is what Google thinks is or is not unethical. They are the final arbiters.
[edited by: Jenstar at 1:37 am (utc) on Feb. 18, 2004]
[edit reason] language [/edit]
I don't brand anyone else who disagrees as unethical.
Good for you! I myself call a spade a spade when I encounter unethical behaviour by webmasters trying to maximize their ad revenue through any means available.
The point you seem unable to grasp is that many people may look at YOUR sites and marketing efforts and find THEM unethical.
We each draw our own lines based on our own experience and culture.
The difference is that some presume to judge others, whilst others don't.
..for example, surely I am not the only one that finds the concept of discussing definitive ethics in a marketing forum to be somewhat absurd.
If you are one of those people who are so absolutely sure that your view of ethics is both definitive and excludes any alternative, then, as MMT said 'good for you'. I suspect you are on a hiding to nothing trying to convince a bunch of marketing guys to accept you as their ethical standard.
Some of us believe that, without standards, AdSense will fail or become a revenue source of last resort like the banner-ad networks and Amazon.com.
I personally believe that, to be viable over the long term, AdSense needs to have at least some standards even for the kind of basic, unselective, bid-and-take-your-chances network that exists now. You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean that I or other Webmaster World members (both publishers and advertisers) shouldn't be able to express concern about eroding AdSense standards or whether ads on parked-domain pages can legitimately be called "content ads."
I agree, ethics isn't the issue, its the others that think it is;)
I also agree that Adsense needs to have standards if it is to survive.
I just believe that Google will decide what those standards are based on other criteria than those expressed by some of the posters here, (as they have already done with the domainpark thingie).
Their position on which sites are acceptable is made fairly clear in their TOS and guidelines.
We each draw our own lines based on our own experience and culture.The difference is that some presume to judge others, whilst others don't.
That's a typically politically correct statement intended to stifle discussion about right and wrong. I think some of the techniques webmasters/marketers are using to try to maximize ad revenue with the least amount of effort is shady, goes against standard business practices and is wrong, period.
Apparanently there are others who feel that purposefully making crappy sites in order to increase ad revenue etc is acceptable. I hope that adsense doesn't stoop to this level in order to 'make more money'.
I suppose that EFV's suggestion of dividing adsense into two tiers would be the best solution. One tier would be comprised of higher-quality 'content' sites. Lower quality sites could be part of the other tier. Then the advertisers could determine which tier they'd like to participate in.
That's a typically politically correct statement intended to stifle discussion about right and wrong
No doubt the senior members and mods that know me will be in fits of laughter at the thought of me being called 'politically correct', but for the record...
This is a marketing forum not a place for your personal ethical crusade - discussions on 'right and wrong', if they belong anywhere on WebmasterWorld, belong in FOO.
I suppose that EFV's suggestion of dividing adsense into two tiers would be the best solution. One tier would be comprised of higher-quality 'content' sites. Lower quality sites could be part of the other tier. Then the advertisers could determine which tier they'd like to participate in.
And we all know which tier most advertisers would want to be in.
Quality content sites every time....
For the saavy webmaster who geotargets his traffic and/or buys from the outset deal with set streams that they know how to appropriately monetize to its fullest. He may be able to afford a tier-two buy based upon his traffic management and play ball in that arean all day.
Its a numbers game...question is...how many webmasters know this threshold for pain? As with any buy...these details are vital to the success of the campaign. But one thing is sure...no 2 campaigns will be the same EPC or at the same CPA.
Food for thought.
This is a marketing forum not a place for your personal ethical crusade - discussions on 'right and wrong', if they belong anywhere on WebmasterWorld, belong in FOO.When does your continuing posting on this matter becomes a "crusade" of its own? When do your posts start to belong in foo themselves?
Even if you don't agree with those who consider the actions unethical, I think it is best to just let them have their say. They certainly have a point. I was going to stay away from this thread when you decided to attack the way that I presented an argument instead of the argument itself. But just wanted to say one more thing, give it a rest or get a deal going with the "Domain Monarch" so that at least you get some compensation.
If you have a problem, take it up with me by stickymail - no need to play to the gallery any more, you have made your point.
This is a marketing forum not a place for your personal ethical crusade - discussions on 'right and wrong'
My reaction to this statement depends on where the emphasis is placed. If your are placing the emphasis on "crusade" (as in "this is a marketing forum and not a place for your personal crusade on ethics"), I would agree with you. If you are placing the emphasis on ethics (as in "this is a marketing forum and not a place for a discussion of ethics as it relates to the topic"), then I can't agree. The ethics of ones actions is always a valid topic.
