Forum Moderators: martinibuster
A few weeks ago, just as a test, I reported a "Click my ads" site, and I am afraid the ads are still there...
Later I reported a single-page mesothelioma site, just containing random quotes of keyword-rich text and the Ads, and I am afraid the ads are still there...
On the other hand:
I am quite frequently on an Italian Adsense forum. Well, last week the moderator of that forum was suspended. The reason he could give is quite reasonable and easy to prove: a click attack the day after he threatened a competitor site that copied his contents.
He has written to Google several times but he has only been able to receive several copies of the same canned response.
I don't know him or his site, but being a Forum Moderator since quite long (and by the nature of his past posts there) he seems an odd candidate for click fraud.
Tu sum it up, I find it VERY annoying (and damaging for the program's public image) that Google acts in such a "relaxed & random" way about the TOS.
I mean, hundreds of blatant TOS violations that seem tolerated and then seemingly random publishers being struck with VERY little hope of reconsideration (probably NO hope if you are outside the US)
ASA, if you read this, my 2 c. of advice is: Google, please realize this is not a thing that can be so much aglorithm-ified. Take a larger share of the pie, and use it to pay REAL reviewers that manually review each site where the ads appear and that DO take the time to read the fraud reports / publishers messages.
I guess most of the publishers and advertizers here would agree....
You can make a test yourself: search a "click my ads site", report it and let's see if in a month the site has been banned or not...
ASA, if you read this, my 2 c. of advice is: Google, please realize this is not a thing that can be so much aglorithm-ified. Take a larger share of the pie, and use it to pay REAL reviewers that manually review each site where the ads appear and that DO take the time to read the fraud reports / publishers messages.
Couldn't agree more. I find Googles over-reliance on what they *think* is good algorythms very frustrating. My particular beef at the moment is the excessively dumb use of what *should* be smart technology to select the best paying ads. It actually encourages the very sites they are putting a lot of money/effort in to remove from the system, whilst bumping advertisers that actually sell something! I'm going to do a detailed post on this when I have just a little more data to illustrate.
What *really* p*ss*s me off is their over-reliance, and excessively dumb use of bots! I get one or other of the Google bots crawling my site quite a few times each, and every day. It's long been my argument that they could (if they chose) have a bot to look for phrases such as "click on the google ads", check if it's been banned already, check if it's actually serving ads and act accordingly. There seems no sign that this happens. Why?
The other pro-active thing that could be done is better use of stop words technology. One of my most popular pages uses what Google consider to be stop words, despite being a technical page with the words being used in a purely technical manner. Google uses stop words technology to give me PSA's. I no longer run adsense on the page. Why not use stop words to detect phrases such as "click on the google ads" and not serve the ads in the first place?
That would cut out many webmasters that are too dumb to know what's going on. Smarter webmasters would used phrases that said "click on the ads" without saying it. The algo could pick up certain keywords, look for patterns and flag it up to humans if it's got any doubts.
Not serving ads in the first place would cut a lot of the problem out. How's that for an idea Google? I'll send my bill in later.
"Why do you have to "put your two cents in" but it's only a "penny for your thoughts"?
Where's that extra penny going to?"
- Author Unknown
Sorry, I can't do that Dave.
"Why do you have to "put your two cents in" but it's only a "penny for your thoughts"?
Where's that extra penny going to?"
On a more serios line:
I can understand that certain passages (such as determining highest bidder) can hardly be made by hand, or require human intervention.
What I am suggesting is that two CRUCIAL passages are done with a human filtering: adding a new site and reviewing click frauds.
1) adding a new site.
How many new sites a day will appear in Adsense?
5.000? give each site a 1-minute look, that's about 8 people more looking at those sites.. Can't Google afford that?
2) Click frauds
Yes, the approach of detecting the "click on google ads" would probably solve 90% of those problems...
From the publisher's point ov view: how many cancelled accounts will there every day? 500?
How many of these will write back with some reasonalbe evidence discharging themselves? maybe 50?
Give each one 5 minutes, it's less than a person's day.
Don't we deserve that?
