Duplicate payment approval?

[ignatz]

Checked my payment reports today and it looks like there was 2 approvals, 1 week apart, for the same amount. Anyone else seeing this? No doubt Google has decided to give away free money ;)

[Sense_able]

They would not be the first advertiser to have paid out twice...

It would not hurt them they would just miss out on the months worth of interest they get on next months money that they already have

[ignatz]

I'm sure its just a reporting glitch. Thanks for responding, it's always good to know you're not alone with an anomaly. Agreed that a little more communication goes a long way.

[nosense]

"I'm sure its just a reporting glitch."
I dont think so. I'm guessing that our payment will be abit late. I'm surprised big G as been mute about this all day.

[shopnow117]

I reported my duplicate to google before the IRS will knock down on me.

[rish]

Two months ago I didn't get any payment approval and Google just decided to lump the payment into the next check and blame a 'glitch'. The same happened to others here.

Now this month I have two payment approvals 7 days apart, I have a right to be worried and assume either double payment has been processed and one of the checks will have to be stopped or another lengthy payment delay or both.

It's not satisfactory.

[TheLBC]

Seems like everyone is reporting the June 16/23 combination.

BTW, on another forum, a member reported that this had happened a few months back and two checks were actually sent. Crossing my fingers.

[kalalau beach]

I have the 2 approvals dates (16th and 23rd) but I haven't yet chosen between individual and business as they said that we have until the 30th.
Strange!

[Mentat]

I would really like to send that check :(

Not 2 checks, this is fraud, I only want MY check this month... NO delays! :(

[nosense]

It seems the second date is correct. Contact G if you need confirmation.

[dauction]

confirming nosense ..second date

[rubenski]

So uhhh, how do you know? Did you receive your checks, did you get a response from Google?

[ken_b]

I got a reply about this from Google. They said the 23rd is the correct date. They gave no reason for why there are 2 dates, but they said they are "working to resolve the issue".

[dazzlindonna]

"working to resolve the issue"...

see, this is what irritates me. first of all, there have been too many payment "issues" in the last few months. But more irritating to me, is if there is an "issue", then COMMUNICATE with us, for goodness sake. how hard it is to create a quick email and pop it off to the publishers, saying "gee, we're sorry, we've got an issue and are working to correct it. the 23rd is the correct date". sheesh. Customer Service 101.

[richmondsteve]

dazzlindonna wrote:

how hard it is to create a quick email and pop it off to the publishers, saying "gee, we're sorry, we've got an issue and are working to correct it. the 23rd is the correct date".

Or to just put a message in the AdSense publisher web interface.

[dazzlindonna]

ah yes, richmondsteve! common sense...

maybe, i'll create a web site about common sense. seems to be a quality that is fading.

[richmondsteve]

dazzlindonna, I consider myself a realist and I think that common sense isn't quite as common as the phrase suggests. ;-) If and when you create a common sense site, let us know because it'll be fun to point people to it.

[JohnKelly]

If the 23rd is the correct date, and not the 16th, then Google should have sent an email after the approved payments started showing up on the 16th. It was only after the duplicated date showed up on the 23rd that anyone was even aware there *was* a problem. However Google had known at least a week by then.

[Mr_Diggz]

If the 23rd is the correct date, and not the 16th, then Google should have sent an email after the approved payments started showing up on the 16th. It was only after the duplicated date showed up on the 23rd that anyone was even aware there *was* a problem. However Google had known at least a week by then.

That's what I've been thinking as well.

[jquick]

Hmm,

Ever thought Google put out the first approval just so publishers would keep quiet until the 23rd?

[Roomy]

and there's me thinking it was a publishers ipo bonus.

[alika]

I suggest that we just wait for the check or checks and we will know...

[howiejs]

google replied stating the 23rd (the second one) was the correct approval date and would be mailed . . .

[HellaCooL]

Ahhhh....those bastards...:))

[Rodney]

and would be mailed . . .

would be mailed 2-10 days after the 23rd?

[Dpeper]

just being a theorist but what if there was a massive fraud scheme they uncovered, after they approved the payments (first one) so they needed to go back through for a more intense review that took about 7 days.... Just a thought

[dauction]

Anyone receive their check yet ...from the 23rd?

[Powdork]

I'm not sure why this thread isn't getting more biz. I would hope Google would care enough about their publishers to give us some feedback on this issue. Given the aggregate amount of money invloved, as well as the fact that many rely on this income to feed their children and pay their employees, I would categorize their behavior as fraudulent (assuming the checks will arrive well after the 30 day obligation has passed). Call me stupid, but I sometimes find it necessary to write checks based on expected income. The very least any decent organization would do is to keep us informed so we can take action to offset any potential negative impacts arising from this situation. Or they can stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to watch things unravel.

[2oddSox]

It's probably not getting much attention because G still have until the end of the month to actually mail the cheques according to their terms, and also probably because everyone is getting used to this kind of thing happening.

The main thing, for me at least, is that the money always comes through in the end :)

[Mentat]

First check here!:)

[webmasterworld.com...]

[Rodney]

I would categorize their behavior as fraudulent (assuming the checks will arrive well after the 30 day obligation has passed)

I think their only obligation is to *send* the payments within 30 days. So as long as the payment is *sent* by June 30, then I wouldn't think anything fraudulent is going on.

If the payments weren't sent until well into July, you'd probably see a much larger uproar.