Forum Moderators: martinibuster
If yes, what if I wrote "relevant link" instead?
I don't think you can use any of those words in conjunction with an ad unit as per the TOS, but Google would be able to tell you for sure.
I think they have only approved 2 sets of wording (which you can find on their support site)
"Widget Shop Info" or "Widget Holiday Info"
Is this frowned upon? Is it my duty as an adwords and adsense subscriber to report him?
I know he is really lazy and never updates his site or responds to his email.
Publishers may not label the ads with text other than "sponsored links" or "advertisements." This includes any text directly above our ads that could be confused with, or attempt to be associated with Google ads.
As for reporting publishers, that is up to you - some do and some don't.
(Hmm, what if you put something immediately BELOW the ads instead of above?)
"What if i sent a purple Martian to the web site visitor's house and *the Martian* told them to click on my Adsense."
Just respect the rules and enough already.
Don't #*$! where you eat.
But what about where you have a skyscraper down the right side of a page and a sentence in the middle of the full page of text to the left which says specifically: "If you're interested in buying a widget like this, check the appropriate links to the right."
This is against the TOS. You cannot call any attention to the ads other than what Jenstar has posted above (when she quoted from the TOS).
In no way do I think it mis-directs,
I don't think the issue is how you feel it will affect the visitor, it is Google's view of how it will affect the effectiveness of the ads.
Apparently, they think it is not in the advertisers best interest for you to put any other text concerning the ads other than what they have posted.
Anyway, it does not ask the reader to click an ad "for no reason" or to support the site, on the contrary it says to do so ONLY if "they are interested in buying" and then only the "appropriate" links based on their description. (In fact it doesn't even say to "click" at all.) It certainly couldn't be called a "label", nor is it "above" the ads or doing ANY of the things specifically mentioned in the quoted policy section.
You should definitely read the terms of service, policies and FAQ pages of Google Adsense very carefully.
They mention specifically for you (as the publisher) not to draw any attention to the ads at all.
It doesn't matter if you give the visitor very specific instructions or not, it is against the terms of service you agreed to and your account could be closed for failing to follow them.
Although technically, simply putting the ads in ANY prominent position on the page (i.e. basically short of doing your best to HIDE it altogether), and doing any of the things they TELL you in order to "optimize" them does "draw attention" to them by default.
I guess I could change my page to:
---------
You simply can't live without a widget. You should buy one ASAP. But darn, I have no idea where you can find one in YOUR area?
[Insert optimized Borderless AD UNIT w\ desc. text same color as rest of text on page, etc.]
Anyway, they are really nifty. So buy the first one you see, wherever you can find one.
--------------
:-) (That was a J-O-K-E Patrick)
Sounds like THAT WOULD be perfectly legal, or am I missing something else now? Seriously... I wouldn't want someone going out and doing this if it's wrong.
[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 9:35 pm (utc) on Dec. 7, 2004]
So, if [you]... can do something so simple and entirely legal, down to the very letter, and I believe intent, of the policy
From the policies page:
"Prohibited/Fraudulent Clicks
Any method that artificially and/or fraudulently generates clicks is strictly prohibited. These prohibited methods include but are not limited to: repeated manual clicks, incentives to click"
Isn't what you described actually giving "incentives to click"
if [visitor] wants [foo], visitor should [action=click on ads].
If monkey clicks yellow button, monkey gets banana.
If you feel that it is within the spirit, either do it, or ask the Adsense team to confirm your interpretation.
Frankly, if you were so sure, why bother to debate it in the forum, surely you'd have simply implemented it. It seems a little disingenous on your part to defend it so strongly, yet have an "is this okay?" tone to your original post.
Second rule: When uncertain don't ask us, (your friends) ask them (the person who may be affected or offended).
If it's my rights or my company's rights that may be affected by your decision or action then ask me. That shows respect and other elements of character that I value. Then, if there comes a time where you may - unintentionally - 'step over the line' you will have earned some currency, some likelihood of respect back, that may serve you. Doubts will more likely be resolved in you favor since you are a person who 'runs it by us when in doubt'.
Which leads to another rule I follow: "Resolve doubts in favor of the other person's interests, not your own." It's not the easiest one to follow but certainly worth the effort. Aim for win-win, not I win and who cares what happens to you. In other words, if you aren't certain that your actions will hurt someone(break their rules, etc.) you know - clear it with them first. This is a lot like the second rule, with a slight variation.
In the end the most important respect is self respect. Many time that's about the effort you put in, not whether you achieved perfection.
[edited by: Webwork at 10:03 pm (utc) on Dec. 7, 2004]
Anyway,
>>limited to: repeated manual clicks, incentives to click"
>>Isn't what you described actually giving "incentives to click"
Hmm, even I would be hard pressed to interpret that as an "incentive". People are going to do what they WANT to do once they KNOW what the options are. An incentive would be something to make them do something Other than what they would NORMALLY do in order to RECIEVE the "incentive" ITSELF, not to get something ELSE that they already wanted prior to knowing it was available. Simply pointing out the options I don't think qualifies as an incentive. Simply clicking alone certainly wouldn't provide a benefit to THEM (they still have to buy to reap any benefit). As I understand it the policy is talking about points, cash, software downloads, etc. Just to see what's on the other side of the click or to find what they are already seeking (i.e. they were already incentived when they came to my site), doesn't seem like an incentive I'm providing.
If that were the case the link just BEING there is an incentive to click on it to a naturally curious person. If it gets to that point, then my comment to Rodney about "anything short of hiding it is drawing attention to it" stands likewise here.
I like Rodney's argument much better.
P.S. I HAD already implemented it, which is how I know the improvement it made. I had assumed it WAS OK and was suggesting it as an option for the original post until you all claimed it isn't. You can also be sure it will be changed before you can find and report it :).
[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 10:22 pm (utc) on Dec. 7, 2004]
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
>>"Aim for win-win, not I win"
An excellent point. In fact I formerly addressed precisely this in an earlier self-edited post. If a person who is already LOOKING for a widget is pointed to where he can find it (which he may very likely have otherwise missed since he was focused on reading my content) and given a chance to make his own informed decision based on the link description if it is what he is looking for and still clicks on an APPROPRIATE link, who loses? Isn't that precisely why advertisers are IN adwords - to get appropriate click thrus?
The advertiser wins, the person wins, G wins and I win.
That's a win-win-win-win.
I may not agree with all of the TOS of this board - follow them or don't post.
I may not like the rules of baseball - follow them or don't play.
I may not like the rules of AdSense - take them off your site and walk away.
Google pays you, the advertiser pays them. If the advertiser agrees to pay Google since they agree with the rules set forth for publishers, you are in no position to "set the rules" on what "you" believe is a "win-win" situation. It doesn't much matter what anyone believes - it's the rules that you are bound by that matters ;)
Re-reading ALL the policy and after sitting and thinking about this some more and finally writing a detailed support note to GAdsense, to get their opinion as suggested (which I will post if they ever respond and give permission to post it) I realize Google was very smart and at the same time vague in their policy since this whole argument boils down to one thing: What is considered "UNDUE ATTENTION".
The only part of the policy, as others pointed out, which specifically applies to this and mentions "attention" is the ominous (and somewhat misnamed) "Incentives Section". (Sorry, Rodney's prior claim of ANY ATTENTION was apparently a misquote.) It specifies "drawing any undue attention to the ads". In the legal sense (as in courtroom/lawsuit) this is vague enough to be open to substantial interpretation until the cows come home. Can ANYONE disagree that the whole idea of advertising of ANY TYPE, from the advertisers side, is to have the ad get ATTENTION? Can anyone usefully disagree that pointing a user anxious to buy something in the direction of a seller who has it to sell is WRONG/UNDESIRED/DECEITFUL?
Then what exactly constitutes UNDUE attention? Is it perhaps positioning the Ad Unit (which could contain ANY unknown ad since they're not always contextually accurate) where people who could care less stumble over it to get to what they want and might even accidently click on it? Or making it look like an integrated part of the page by changing shapes and colors so they might not notice as much that it is an ad? Google encourages all of THAT!
What's even more interesting about the "Incentive" section of the policy is the last line which further seems to agree with ME. It specifically says: "...site cannot contain phrases such as... that could apply to ANY AD, REGARDLESS OF CONTENT. (emphasis added). Look at what this truly says! It's implying that only GENERIC phrases which don't take into account the actual subject of the ads are forbidden by this section. It does NOT therefore apply to specific phrases such as my widget example. Thus this agrees completely with what I'm suggesting rather than being against it.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what G responds to my question. Hopefully they'll actually refer it to a person who can think for themselves rather than answering in canned responses.
Publishers may not label the ads with text other than "sponsored links" or "advertisements." This includes any text directly above our ads that could be confused with, or attempt to be associated with Google ads.
If you label ads bellow, they will ban you from the program and the policy may look like this on next update:
Publishers may not label the ads with text other than "sponsored links" or "advertisements." This includes any text directly above or bellow our ads that could be confused with, or attempt to be associated with Google ads.
It has been discussed, asked of google, and posted here before...all with the same general result:
Don't put any text under, near, by, or about the adsense ads or adsense for search other than the 2 phrases Jenstar posted.
Don't mention to your visitors to look at the ads or visit "your sponsors" or support your website or point them in the general direction.
That just about sums it up.
You only have to deal with interpretations of rules if you plan on trying find ways to do what you want to do with the ads.
You can always go against what people have posted here, but you run the risk of getting your account cancelled. Why risk it?
>>other than "sponsored links" or "advertisements."
If that's so absolutely clear-cut and dried then why does NYT have an "Advertiser Links" LABEL and WashingtonPost have an "Advertising Links by Google" label immediately above all their Adsense Ads? Bizrate even has an "Additional Resources" label above their GAd ads! Obviously there are many other permitted exceptions and plenty of wriggle room even in the most "absolute specific" parts of the policies. Obviously G wrote the policy that way and meant it only as a general guide, not an absolute. Thus the vagueness in their language. Should the above all be reported? Think they'd get cancelled or even a warning?
If that's so absolutely clear-cut and dried then why does NYT have an "Advertiser Links" LABEL and WashingtonPost have an "Advertising Links by Google" label immediately above all their Adsense Ads?
Because they are Premium Adsense Publishers with over 20 Million pageviews a month.
They have a lot of things regular publishers don't:
[services.google.com...]
Always remember:
just because you see someone else doing something, doesn't mean it's OK for you to do it.
They could be wrong in what they are doing, or they could have totally different circumstances than you.
Do not risk it ; )
"this site will come off-line in the next few weeks unless we recieve 1000 clicks by the weekend. All visitors, please click on the right at least once."
so therefore, they nip it in the bud right at the beginning by banning even very innocent phrases that merely refer to the ads...and I think they are right in doing so.
It's their ad network. They get to make the rules.
If you want, you can argue against the rule by e-mailing AdSense Support, but I doubt very much that they'll make an exception for you. And unless you have a thoroughly professional site and are bringing in a substantial amount of revenue, they may decide (not unreasonably) that:
1) It's unprofitable to deal with a publisher who takes up so much of AdSense Support's time; and...
2) It's risky to deal with a publisher who wants to bend rules that were created to protect advertisers.
IMHO, it would be much more productive to go accept the rule, as the rest of us have done, until you reach 20,000,00 impressions per day. At that point, AdSense Support will be happy to discuss the wording with you. :-)
<If a person who is already LOOKING for a widget is pointed to where he can find it (which he may very likely have otherwise missed since he was focused on reading my content) and given a chance to make his own informed decision based on the link description if it is what he is looking for and still clicks on an APPROPRIATE link, who loses? Isn't that precisely why advertisers are IN adwords - to get appropriate click thrus?>
That's a good point, however it depends on a constant that doesn't exist. You're assuming that you know what the ads are going to be. If an ad displays to buy widgets, and you create a page that directs someone to the ads if they are interested, and the ads changes on the next page impressions, you are now pointing someone to click on a link to buy widgets when that link may not take them to a page where they can accomplish this.
Effectively, you'd be creating a click on your site, and causing the cost of a click to the advertiser to receive traffic that they would not want to pay for. The user may not have clicked on that link without your text indicating that they could buy widgets there, because the text (for an ad that does not try to promote widgets) said nothing of buying widgets.
europeforvisitors,
<It's their ad network. They get to make the rules.>
I don't think this is in dispute. I think we all agree that Google can make any rules they wish, but that MikeNoLastName is just debating the interpretation of these rules.
1. The page we had it on for the short time I felt it was acceptable was quite stable, ads and text wise, was extremely well targeted for a very specific, yet VERY popular and long-term interest phrase. Using the preview tool we see EVERY current potential ad looking almost identical text-wise and ALL pertinent to the statement. Some offered better deals for the same item, free shipping, etc. but all pertained to the same item. Mostly because they are all affiliates of the primary provider (yes, we tried becoming an affiliate for the item ourselves, instead but the stupid people who had no clue what they were talking about, and ignoring the fact that we come up #1 for their key term, exasperatingly rejected our application as being a competitor or something, which we're not, but which is a whole other subject)
2. Once again I emphasize the point that the original text instructed the visitor to "check the APPROPRIATE links". It doesn't mention ads, doesn't say to click willy-nilly just because they're there, allows the reader to decide for themselves, doesn't even say to do it for ME (as some on this thread are extrapolating the point), but only in order to satisfy themselves. Just to throw a monkey-wrench into the argument, I could just as well have two additional direct affiliate links for the same product on the page in which case noone could prove if I was referring to THEM OR the GAds.
Ok, all nay-sayers, to make my point, what would be your argument if I turned it around to the extreme and instead placed a bright red statement in the middle of the same page (minus the prior mentioned line of course) which said: "WARNING! DO NOT click on ANY links you find anywhere on this page, EVER, under any circumstance, or you may be VERY sorry!" (well, maybe not quite that scary, but you get the idea). (actually come to think of it, it probably does fall under that all-so-vague spectre of "undue attention") As far as I can see this does not violate any of the policies, and you know what? I bet it would get even higher CTR than the original line, but likely with disasterous results for the advertisers. The whole idea, as in marketing-101, is motivating the customer to action and it can happen for many varied reasons, good or bad. Which would YOU rather see? But, without ANY motivation, nothing seldom happens.
OK, seriously NickCoon, am I maybe misunderstanding your post and you're in fact saying that by using the term "appropriate" in this manner, I'm automatically IMPLYING to the reader that they ALL ARE appropriate? I suppose a very small minority of readers might read it that way and get this idea, but is it really the issue? If that's the whole issue I suppose we could come up with a better replacement phrase than 'appropriate links' easily enough, like maybe "only select links which with 99% or greater certainty specifically indicate by title and description that they sell this particular item". :)
3. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that it would be prudent in all cases to monitor such pages where this is used frequently to ensure that the ads remain targeted to the point and that at least one always links to an 'appropriate' ad matching the statement, if for no other considerate reason than keeping your own site content from appearing silly just like broken links.
---------------
BTW, So does 20+ million page impressions/month needed for special treatment include the ENTIRE site or just the pages you're placing GAds on? Anyone thought of forming a multi-site co-op to surpass 20 mil? Or maybe an Internet Publishers Ad Bargaining Union (still working on a good acronym, something like IPAYU or PAYUS :-) to get better policy concessions? :-)
Good day all!
You know why you put the text on the page and anyone including those from AdSense understands why you want to put text on the page relating to the AdSense ads. Forget about it or risk it - it's your choice. You can try to interpret the AdSense rules however you like - it won't matter if they shut you down. I think you have received some good advice and had your question answered by those who have a pretty good understanding of the program. Don't keep posting until someone agrees with you..
The support responder started with a disclaimer saying that she could not comment conclusively without seeing the actual implementation in this case (which had already been dismantled), however she "assured" (her term) me that language such as I quoted (which I CAN quote here since it is my own):
-"If you're interested in buying a widget like this, check the appropriate links to the right."
-"If you're interested in buying a widget like this, look for appropriate links on this page."
would "likely" (her term) be found to be in violation of the current policies.
HOWEVER, in the very next sentence she also added the following very important comment (again paraphrased minimally without distorting the original meaning):
If the 'links to the right', or the ONLY links on the page are Google ads, it is likely that G would consider the language to be drawing undue attention to the ads. (MY emphasis on ONLY)
SO... to me this says, as I suggested at one point earlier, if you have OTHER relevant (affiliate) links on the page, and say something vague enough like "look for appropriate links on this page" (or more obviously "look at affiliate ads to the left") they can't say a whole lot about it because there's no indication you're actually referring specifically to the Google ads. You might just as well have said the same thing about the affiliate ads, whether the GAds were there or not, or possibly WAS already saying it about the other links/ads long before you even added the Google Ads.
The remainder of her response was a few pertinent, inserted quotes from the policy and about how the policies are in place to protect the integrity of the program for one and all, yada, yada...[as Google anthem fades in] all of which we all have come to know, love and cherish by now.
So there we have it. GAd hath spoken.
