Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Was the CTR too high,even they were valid clicks?
My check for Feb is above 2k,will it be cleared?
My earning of March is about 1k,will I receive the check?
Last and most important,will it have some good to email google?Is there any chance for me to reinstate my account?
Thanks,and sorry for my poor English ^_^
I wonder what percentage of sites in the AdSense program do predate it? There must be thousands, but there also must be many that were created since AdSense launched.
There's a difference between sites that are created specifically to get visitors to click the AdSense ads, and those sites that have sprung up since AdSense since it is now possible to monetise content sites in a way that wasn't possible before.
Of course, I think this has meant that quite a lot of genuine content sites have come about because the webmasters know that AdSense will generally allow them to break even at least.
In China,there are not enough IPs,that means,many people from different homes or offices have the SAME IP.Maybe it will affect google's judgement of click fraud.
I've hear another similar problem. It seems there are not enough serial numbers for software in China, either. For that reason, several millions usually share the same key.
:)
So maybe a victim of to helpfull friends?
That's why none of my friends or family know my websites that have adsense. They might think they are "helping" you and just totally screw things up.
Protect yourself: Don't tell ANYONE your domain addresses when it comes to Adsense.
How many of us violate this one for instance?70-90 % if not whole 100%
Speak for yourself - my sites existed before Google did.
...or a site that has an ongoing war with a competitor
If this is one of the defining characteristics of how a site gets banned from AdSense, then being a for-profit site means you will get banned. To be in an ongoing war with competitors is the definition of capitalism. We are at war with our competitors every day: fighting us to get the same visitors' limited time and advertisers' limited dollars at our site.
If GM could anonymously eliminate 2 months of income from Toyota - erase it from their bank without Toyota having any means of appeal (and with the bank still keeping their service fee) - would GM NOT do it?
Of course they would. Every chance they got. If people who make statements like the ones above want their actions and thoughts to carry the spirit of the Rule of Law, then you should realize the nature of the marketplace and instead condemn the fact that Google doesn't fine itself for fraudulent clicks. Fraudlent clicks are returned to advertisers, but once "genuinely" clicked, Google will still get its share. If Google also lost the income from those clicks you can rest assured that it wouldn't be long before they found an alternative system.
It is incumbent upon you who ARE immune currently to insist that Google creates some kind of solution.
In most cases "competitors" would not stand to benefit much if at all from getting a site banned from AdSense, and risk losing quite a lot if caught, so IMO this whole concern is overblown.
Overblown? Lose two months income.
But, more importantly, please deal with the actual question that I presented. (I'll tell you that I think no one would be surprised that if the CEO of GM was KNOWN to do such a thing that he would be prosecuted. I am surprised that you took the time to point that out.) The question was if they could do it ANONYMOUSLY. Because it is the anonymity that makes it possible. Please have the courtesy to deal with the issue as it is stated, rather than creating a straw man and knocking him down.
Also, you did not address the issue of being at war with your competitors. I'd be interested to know your take on that.
Overblown? Some people would say that you are ignoring an injustice. Why doesn't Google lose the money as well? Is anyone willing to say that they way Google still profits after taking the income from another is wrong? Or willing to say that they way they have enabled others to sabotage competitors is wrong? Why not hold them accountable for building a system that is, if not accountable to publishers, at least punishes them as equally as it does publishers. Or, beter yet...INSIST that they build a better system.
thvi
If you want to argue that people sometime behave like fools, then I would be forced to agree. But this subject is all you ever want to talk about, and I think you should simply accept things and move on - either as a participant in AdSense or not.
P.S. If you're truly at "war" with your competitors, then there is no absolute way to protect yourself. There are dozens of unethical ways in which they could attack your business that have nothing to do with AdSense.
Thanks for your reply. Let me restate the idea. For example: 30 CLICKS
My account earned 10 dollars.
Google earned 20 dollars.
The advertiser paid 30.
Google says that the clicks are fraudulent. Google does not pay me. Google returns the clicks to the advertiser. The ads are then clicked "legitimately". Another publisher earns 10 and Google gets 20.
Instead of just holding the funds I earned by hosting the ads, wouldn't it be fair if Google also geve up THEIR funds, that there was an equal punishment?
For those 30 clicks, only the second publisher would be paid, and Google refunded their portion to the advertiser.
If that were the case, don't you agree that Google would find a solution to fraudulent clicks quickly?
[edited by: thvi at 7:09 pm (utc) on May 2, 2005]
Look, there's no question the head of GM would be a fool to engage in such behaviour because there's ALWAYS a way to get caught.If you want to argue that people sometime behave like fools, then I would be forced to agree. But this subject is all you ever want to talk about, and I think you should simply accept things and move on - either as a participant in AdSense or not.
P.S. If you're truly at "war" with your competitors, then there is no absolute way to protect yourself. There are dozens of unethical ways in which they could attack your business that have nothing to do with AdSense.
Hello jomaxx,
Thanks for your message. Actually I'm not trying to argue that some people behave like fools. Perhaps you have heard the saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Or, more locally: in your library is there a little machine that alerts people when unchecked books are taken out? Why is that? Isn't it because it is just too easy for people to walk out with a book? What does that tell you about people? Doesn't it say that, even librarians, will put a control on what people can do? Good enough for librarians, why not for Google?
In terms of moving on I would reply: Fish Market. Yes, in fact the New York fish market. Which was, for years, controlled by organized crime. Doesn't the fish monger have a right to be protected? Surely he does. And, if the owners of the property kept out the police, wouldn't they be complicit?
And, if the OTHER fish mongers let it happen, wouldn't THEY be complicit? Forcing the fishmarket to make it safe to do business is not so difficult: just say you wont stand by while othesr are hurt. Are you willing to do that?
In terms of business being war, I'll let my comments stand.
thvi, Thanks. I had read that Google actually refunded the money. Where did you read that they only (in effect) issue a credit against future clicks?It sounds like he's saying Google should have to refund their portion of the money TWICE, as some kind of punishment.
Hi hunderdown and jomaxx,
Whether Google refunds or issues a credit is not quite the issue I'm raising, but rather that, after the refund/credit occurs, when "legitimate clicks" happen, Google will still collect their percentage.
joemaxx, you are right: what I'm suggesting is that, if the first publisher has to lose their fund for fraudulent clicks, then Google should do the same. Surely such a system more equitably supports the risk and...would SURELY get Google to do what is necessary to repair the glaring hole that AdSense offers for fraud clicks.
But, most importantly...since they did not design the system like this - they will get paid every time - it is up to you publishers who are in the system successfully to TELL Google that it must be reformed. When will someone try to undermine your site? What is right?
Will noone tell Google that their very fine idea MUST be reformed?
Sorry to hear about anyone getting clicked-out. I'm afraid it could happen to me. That fear is probably why no one is complaining very loudly - other than meek mostly anonymous peeps from forums like this - to Google about how their system works. I'm not arguing for or against change, by the way.
As for made-for-adsense, I've stuck it on old sites and then "seen the light" that I should add more content. And mighty G itself tries to help you figure out how to get more clicks - tricking people into wanting to click the ads. They are not innocent of conspiring, except that they also hold the ultimate veto.
I've developed unused sites to get adsense ads to create revenue. These sites existed in name only before adsense, and have been launched as I envisioned in my head - the extra motivation (and time) came later than I had first hoped. I've also developed sites that don't have adsense, because of my own passions. They have information that is basically PSA material, and I wouldn't bother to detract from that with adsense. But adsense and other revenue pays for those sites server - i.e. their existence.
Thanks for your replies.
Visi, I'm surprised by your response. (I think most people would read the smile you typed at the end of you no offense statement as indicating that you actually mean some kind of offense. Pity.)
You think that Google should not bear any loss. Why not give back twice the number of fraudulent clicks. Refunding two for every one, to compensate for the trouble caused to the advertiser. Or...
Why not fix the system? Is there really any possibility that a refunded advertiser will NOT use the money again in AdSense? Any evidence of this happening in the norm? Isn't it true that most hop right back in the game withmore AdSense? Sure. While the publishers time is already gone, advertising space already used, pages already displayed (you see, there is a value in SHOWING that ad to 50,000 for every one that clicked it) but the money won't be coming. Google has NO advantage over the publisher?
Thinking like yours means there is no incentive for Google to reform the system but every incentive for advertisers to continue with it and for publishers to hope it doesn't turn against them.
The real question is when will you speak up and insist that publishers be protected by a system redesign? Is what scadsense said about most meekly hoping the system never turns against them despite what it does to others... is that the best you can do?
People are losing time and money being victimized by competitors. If you there was Gap in a mall where you live that was robbed every six months, forced to change their license name, wait a few months and then re-open, only to have it all happen again... wouldn't you agitate for a safer mall? Of course you would. Read this thread - a publisher lost his money. What will you do about it?
Wouldn't braver souls say: my content is valuable, and worthy of general protection aforded other kinds of publications. Google, if you can't protect me -- find another barbeque site for those sauce ads. Try running AdSense without publishers. Try investing some of that 1 billion in quarterly profit in a redesign...then get back to me. How long before your site is next, visi? Why not speak up now?
Moxie, moxie... sadly in short supply.
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to stick to the substance of the issues, if possible.
What I am asking is when will you be brave enough to say that what is being done is not done because of LAWS OF NATURE, but only because of poor design - design that can be changed. If your city was unsafe because of no street lights, would you accept it? Of course not. Those streets are just as unsafe to you as to anyone.
Can't speak to power? Why not tell Google you INSIST on a system that offers protection for the value of your publication? (I'm surprised by your interpretation of that question. Dictating? Could it be that you feel the weight of what is the RIGHT thing to do, and what you are doing? Just a question.)
Why not give back twice the number of fraudulent clicks. Refunding two for every one, to compensate for the trouble caused to the advertiser.
If Google had such a policy, it would spawn a new category of scam artists: people who'd buy ads, run up phony clicks, and make their profit on the double refund.
Thanks for your reply. I think you left out the key part:
Why not give back twice the number of fraudulent clicks. Refunding two for every one, to compensate for the trouble caused to the advertiser. Or...Why not fix the system? Is there really any possibility that a refunded advertiser will NOT use the money again in AdSense? Any evidence of this happening in the norm? Isn't it true that most hop right back in the game withmore AdSense? Sure. While the publishers time is already gone, advertising space already used, pages already displayed (you see, there is a value in SHOWING that ad to 50,000 for every one that clicked it) but the money won't be coming. Google has NO advantage over the publisher?
That "Or.." is really key, wouldn't you agree?
And the real basis of my contribution to this thread is my question to you: when will you tell Google what they are doing is wrong and INSIST that they reform the system? What is the right thing to do? If publishers INSISTED that the value of their work is protected, how long before Google would find a solution?
[edited by: thvi at 2:43 pm (utc) on May 3, 2005]
Why not tell Google you INSIST on a system that offers protection for the value of your publication
when will you tell Google what they are doing is wrong and INSIST that they reform the system
Thanks for your reply.
I find the gall of some people unbelievable. First...
As Lincoln said:
"Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials
for our future support and defense."
I think I have clearly illustrated that the system that Google has in place offers you no protection. Try to deal with the issues, rather than the emotions.
I am sure you feel uncomfortable with your position. It is virtually indefensible. Like your fellow expert ncw164x, you seem to think I am dictating, or as you put it, lecturing. Do questions bother you? (Or is it the weakness of your position that you are concerned with.) Is there some reason that publishers should not have the value of their works protected? Why NOT insist on it?
You wrote:
becase when you first login to your account you have to accept the adsense terms of service and if you dont accept then you dont have the adsense code on your site, it really is that simple
That's a fairly reductionist view. Simply because it is in an agreement, does that make it right? I could write an agremment saying I don't have to pay you. You could sign it. it would still be wrong. (And, illegal.) Wrong is wrong is wrong.
could you run it by me again thvi...
Sure:
Why not fix the system? Is there really any possibility that a refunded advertiser will NOT use the money again in AdSense? Any evidence of this happening in the norm? Isn't it true that most hop right back in the game withmore AdSense? Sure. While the publishers time is already gone, advertising space already used, pages already displayed (you see, there is a value in SHOWING that ad to 50,000 for every one that clicked it) but the money won't be coming. Google has NO advantage over the publisher?
All because... of bad design. Not that they can't, but that currently they have no motivation to change. They changed AdWords for advertisers. WHy? Because the Advertisers spoke up. Why won't you do the same thing?
When you say "All because... of bad design" what are you refering too?
Why not fix the system? Is there really any possibility that a refunded advertiser will NOT use the money again in AdSense?
I don't see why an advertiser would be willing to not spend the refunded money in the same thing he was supposed to spend it since the begining.
What's wrong with it!?
These are serious issues. Your replies seem to have a tendency to be unprofessional. One which you posted before and then edited - about pigs - and, above saying "now off you go...". I mention this for your own benefit. Being unprofessional will make it difficult to take you seriously, and it clouds your point. Wouldn't you agree?
In terms of design: there is, currently, no way for a publisher to stop someone from clicking a million times a day for weeks. If you have underemployed, vengeful enemies whom you have prosecuted in court, or even less nefarious baddies... it is only a matter of time.
If you are unfairly ajudicated, if there is NO baddie, just a technical glitch - you have little appeal ablity, as the stories on this forum attest to.
Why not give people log in codes. You want contextual ads, you like the content, you want the ads... gotta log in. Why not... IDEA2 Why not...IDEA3
Read the stories here. Ideas ARE needed. Solutions are needed. Your content, if you've employed people to create it or done it yourself, represents your time and... that's all you have on earth, is time. Taking a person's time and NOT giving them their money is wrong. Not giving them a way to defend themselves, nor a system that PROTECTS them is wrong. Gearing it so you make the money EACH time is wrong. Every time.
The issue is that if Adwords can be reformed to advertisers, why not AdSense to publishers? Why... because no one is willing to ask. Adwords advertisers asked - nay AGITATED. Shouldn't the rights of publishers should be protected?
Thanks for your reply. You wrote:
I don't see why an advertiser would be willing to not spend the refunded money in the same thing he was supposed to spend it since the begining.
What's wrong with it!?
Let me illustrate:
Your content supports ads, your pages host them. The advertiser gets value from that, through exposure (meaning people keep seeing the advertiser's name in the context of your content), and clicks.
Then, Google says your clicks are invalid. They refund the money to the advertiser, but pay you nothing. The value of your content is your work, which you gave. In return, you get nothing.
Google gives the money back to the publisher. Publisher puts it right back into Adsense. Googles refund is only temporary. They will get their cut once "legitimate" clicks come in.
The advertiser gets double value: your site, and the second site, Google gets its percentage, you get nothing, though your work was used.
for who?, they are not an issue full stop for me so i would like it if you kept your self opinionated comments to yourself
