Forum Moderators: martinibuster
How can I ensure if I'm getting ripped off by google? Can you trust this billion dollar company?
Email from google
<snip>
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:00 pm (utc) on July 14, 2004]
[edit reason] please see tos. We do not allow email excerpts on WebmasterWorld [/edit]
They also told me they would credit the adwords clients involved. I use adsense from the start of this program but never received a credit. Did anybody receive ever a credit?I am sure they keep it 99% in all cases
No doubt someone will point out that what you are saying is dreadful and that google could sue you. However, I often wondered about that. I really wished I had taken note of some of the advertisers on my site and dropped them an e-mail saying "look you might not have had any clicks at all, but if you did and they were from my site in the last 7 weeks, then I hope you got a refund, because I didn't get any money" Or something like that
They also told me they would credit the adwords clients involved. I use adsense from the start of this program but never received a credit. Did anybody receive ever a credit?
I'm sure if you talk to advertisers in the adwords forum, they may have experience with getting credits from google.
They also told me they would credit the adwords clients involved. I use adsense from the start of this program but never received a credit. Did anybody receive ever a credit?
I have received small credits from them from time to time. I suspect the amount of the credits does not equal your entire earnings, as they probably just credit those deemed fraudulent and pocket the balance.
MQ
One doesn't hear many of these stories for niche sites.
By contrast the current system gives unscrupulous webmasters every motive to make invalid clicks on their competitors sites - thus making the problem of invalid clicks worse - not better.
If postings here are to be believed, I could probably cost several key competitors thousands of dollars with a few hundred well-directed clicks on their ads from a small range of IPs. With luck, one or two might even go out of business.
So it's just as well that's not the way I choose to compete. And that's not the way THEY choose to compete either (so far anyway). But Google seems to have put a powerful weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous webmaster. Just because people "play nice" in my industry - doesn't mean it's the same all over.
Google aren't stupid. They must know this. I suspect they like the FUD they've created, and intended to create it. I reckon they want adsense impressions on existing pages - but want to discourage people from creating sites / pages specifically for adsense. It says so in the Terms remember? The FUD is an excellent way of discouraging people from going into the "Adsense Publishing" business on a large scale. At least until competition arrives.
If Google simply didn't pay out on any invalid clicks (or charge advertisers for them) - then webmasters would have no incentive to click on their own ads (no payout)
Publishers would have the same incentive as they do now (make money: to make money if they didn't get caught.
However, they'd have no incentive to behave themselves, because there would be no risk of losing current and future income if they did get caught.
Google aren't stupid. They must know this. I suspect they like the FUD they've created, and intended to create it.
It's more likely that they're cultivating a reputation for being hardnosed about fraud because that's what advertisers like to hear. Given a choice between reassuring publishers and reassuring advertisers, Google will opt for the latter. Why? Because advertisers (not publishers) are the paying customers.
I reckon they want adsense impressions on existing pages - but want to discourage people from creating sites / pages specifically for adsense. It says so in the Terms remember? The FUD is an excellent way of discouraging people from going into the "Adsense Publishing" business on a large scale. At least until competition arrives.
If Google wanted to discourage "made for AdSense" sites, it would begin shutting down the owners' accounts in accordance with the TOS. That would be more effective than creating FUD about something else entirely (invalid clicks).
I have a sneaking suspicion that Google is wont to give particular scruitiny to small sites, particularly when they use high-prived keywords. Conversely large sites with lousy keywords are less at-risk.
Why Google should look at small sites with high-priced keywords:
1. Scamming has its own costs (eg., getting kicked and losing development costs), so scamming only makes financial sense if this payoff is great.
2. A large site has more "at risk" from spamming Google. There's more invested in it, so the risk is greater. And anyway, a large-scale site has legitimate avenues to making money.
3. Spammers are both evil and lazy. Evil, lazy people seldom manage to build a large, high-traffic site.
4. Large-scale automated spamming is probably easy to detect. Only small scale clicks stand a chance, and this, again, only works if the keywords are valuable. If you've got mesothelioma, as one previous writer said, it would pay to drive cross-country, clicking at every public library. (No, don't try it. I'm sure they detect spam by types of businesses. If 50% of activity is from libraries, Kinkos and airport kiosks, it's spam.)
So, how much traffic are we talking about?
As I have already been given the boot there are no TOS to break so, in answer to your questions:
1. Scamming has its own costs (eg., getting kicked and losing development costs), so scamming only makes financial sense if this payoff is great.
2. A large site has more "at risk" from spamming Google. There's more invested in it, so the risk is greater. And anyway, a large-scale site has legitimate avenues to making money.
couldn't agree more. Thats why niche quality sites get so uptight when booted from Adsense. I put 300 hours work(conservative estimate) into developing this site to make $50 a month from G then get booted in the third month(no payout from previosu two months as I hadn't made the minimum!). Perhaps that is a lesson for me-Develop a high value keyword site for the future that would take me couple of hours to put together and watch the dosh roll in.
3. Spammers are both evil and lazy. Evil, lazy people seldom manage to build a large, high-traffic site.
Probably is. Although every public library in UK wouldn't take you long to work your way through. After all most US citizens think they can "do" the continent of Europe in 10 days so how long would it take to "do" a tiny island like United Kingdom
4. Large-scale automated spamming is probably easy to detect. Only small scale clicks stand a chance, and this, again, only works if the keywords are valuable. If you've got mesothelioma, as one previous writer said, it would pay to drive cross-country, clicking at every public library. (No, don't try it. I'm sure they detect spam by types of businesses. If 50% of activity is from libraries, Kinkos and airport kiosks, it's spam.)
Anythign else you want to know. Just ask I will be as honest and open as I can(which is pretty honest)
I wonder at the UK angle. I've noticed people who get kicked often previously posted questions about getting checks in Uzbekistan, or otherwise indicate they're not from the US. The UK, of course, has excellent legal structures (and your English is even quite good!), so you wouldn't think there would be any effect.
As I have already been given the boot there are no TOS to break so, in answer to your questions
blairsp, I'm not suggesting that you're violating the AdSense Terms and Conditions, but I am pretty sure that some of the terms of the agreement still apply after a publishers is no longer participating in AdSense. In fact, if I remember right, it actually specifies which sections still apply after termination. You may want to investigate.
Pages served per day?
Percentage with Adsense on them? (ie., getting at impressions)
Other than the US not spelling tomato, colour etc correctly, I would agree :-}
I wonder at the UK angle. I've noticed people who get kicked often previously posted questions about getting checks in Uzbekistan, or otherwise indicate they're not from the US. The UK, of course, has excellent legal structures (and your English is even quite good!), so you wouldn't think there would be any effect.
Can't get money out of an ex publisher if he hasn't got any. Thanks for the concern though
Good point. I just didn't want you to get in trouble. On top of that, I'd hate for another publisher to read what you said, take it as gospel, and violate the AdSense Terms and Conditions and get in trouble. No reply necessary.
It seems that new people get booted easier?
Once you've made it 6 months maybe the boot factor is less?
If that's true, it's probably because most people who violate the terms of service aren't going to wait six months before doing so.
After reading sections 11a & 11e of the Adsense T&C it appears to me it's not.
I've never used Adsense btw. I don't like the idea of entering an agreement where there is no set revenue share and I can't protect myself by monitoring/blocking certain clicks via my own tracking URL.
I'm curious. Is 'invalid clicks' a valid reason for account termination AND withholding back payment?
I would certainly hope it is. As an AdWords advertiser, I really hope that Google is doing their part to reduce fraud. If you were busted for clicking on ads on your site, why should Google pay you? That's my money they're paying you with. I have a bigger problem with Google not refunding the advertiser when they shut someone down than with shutting people down in the first place. But maybe that's a different topic for a different category :)
I have a bigger problem with Google not refunding the advertiser when they shut someone down than with shutting people down in the first place. But maybe that's a different topic for a different category :)
doing their part to reduce fraudAdsense never use that term because if they want to accuse me of fraud then I (and many others)will happily see them and their secretive proof in court.
Adsense never use that term because if they want to accuse me of fraud then I (and many others)will happily see them and their secretive proof in court.
I don't know if Google has used the word "fraud" in its warnings to publishers, but it has used the term "fraudulent clicks."
Still not over the fact they stole a 4 digit number from me, yes stole, since they took it, without proof.
I am an adwords user myself from the start, and do not agree with some of the members posting above me. Google's action and steps in regards to "invalid clicks" or not normal.
They take your whole check, and if possible the month before that if not approved yet. I would so love to fight this in court, just don't have the money for it and from outside the US it makes it not easier.
I am sure that most of the people in this forum are honest users, since I can't believe people would waste their time here, if they knew, they did something against the rules, when they were kicked out.
Really what a nightmare. Who wouldn't get an all over anti-google feeling I this happened to you. I just hope for many of you, this will never happen to you.
Too bad I can't give tips of what not to do to prevent a disabled adsense account, as I didn't do a thing wrong, sorry for the poor advice...I hate depending on a third party. grrrrrrr so upset still. Well writing about it seems to help..lol
Let me know where the thread is because I am sure lots of people would like to comment (mainly of course disgruntled ex-adsensers like myself :-}
I'm not talking about disgruntled ex-adsense users, I'm talking about the AdWords advertisers who are paying Google and not getting a refund when someone fraudulently clicks on their ads.
Thread is here:
[webmasterworld.com...]
The Glossary explains such credits as "Adjustments to your account balance appear itemized within both billing summary and payment details pages under the My Account tab. Billing adjustments may reflect promotional credits, credits for invalid clicks toward your account, and courtesy credits applied by AdWords client services specialists."
