Forum Moderators: martinibuster
but - I see more and more people, here and elsewhere complain that they got tossed because of illegal clicks, and the clicks were NOT from their domain or recorded IPs...
I am sure there are some unscrupuloous webmasters that are using programs or other tools to click away... But so many?
I have also watched a discussion between two webmasters, and finally one burned the other with a click robot... It played out in two months - the results were that the "attacked" site was out of Adsense, and dropped off the face of the earth.. :(
The attacker actually said she will ruin the other webmaster, and later gloated about the success.
So... The question:
Is it against the TOS to ask visitors NOT to click on the ads repeatedly?
If so, how will this impact the clicks?
(Why can't Google just add a "no click within certain periodfrom same IP for same account" to the system?!)
(Why can't Google just add a "no click within certain periodfrom same IP for same account" to the system?!)
Something like this is perfectly possible.
...and perfectly plausible. They're interested in all the ads and one by one are shooting them down...
Is it against the TOS to ask visitors NOT to click on the ads repeatedly?
I think you may be overly worried about this. You cited a case in which one webmaster attacked another and eventually got them booted from AdSense (Google may well have known that the site was being attacked, and didn't want to keep a site that gets attacked in the program....). But that's quite different from the normal behavior of visitors. I suspect that Google has ways to catch the occasional repeat clicks from a click-happy visitor and delete them, and not count them against the site.
Personally, I say nothing about the ads at all, except that I have a very bland statement about being part of Google AdSense on my policies page, with a link to the AdSense home page. That was OK'd by Google when I joined. Very few people even visit that page.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure if G want anyone to mention "clicking" in the same sentence as "Google ads"....
"What is your definition of 'click' in that statement?"
In reality, I have "tested" this. I have asked four different people to send a basic, but not answered question, in any online docs.
There were a total of three distinctly different answers.
So, asking Google herself is a gamble. (are you listening G?)
Mack.
Once you get an answer, be sure to save a copy of the email. That way you are covered if Google ever questions what you have done.
TJ
Yes, you can get different answers from Google. Sometimes that works to your advantage--if you don't like the first answer, you can write again, and you might reach a different person.
Get a small statistical sampling, ask them 5-6 times, then go with the concensus :)
"Please dont click on the ads unless you are genuinely interested in them"
This gets the users to look at the ads and ask themselves - "am I interested in them?" which draws attention to them. What google wants to avoid is content littered with subtle/not so subtle hints to users to look at the ads, instead of the actual content.
"Please dont click on the ads unless you are genuinely interested in them"
Others come to mind (all drawing undue attention IMHO):
"Whatever you do, DO NOT click the ads on this page."
"All of the links on this page are 'safe' except for the Google Ads. Avoid those."
I remember a website that said: "If you push this button, you will bring down the server. Therefore, I am relying on your integrity and self-restraint in NOT pushing this button".
I pushed it.
I don't think we can or should do any of these things for Adsense. But this sure is a fun topic. Maybe something like this would work for affiliate links.
I pushed it.
SO IT WAS YOU!
SO IT WAS YOU!
Yes, Noel, I brought down your server. FWIW, I've *thought* about whether to feel bad about it ever since.
It feels good to finally confess. I knew I should have apologized right away. But I couldn't find the 'Contact Webmaster' link because, well, the webserver was down.
But I must say, it was quite interesting the moral dilemna that the little page with the button put me though. A lesser person would not have hesitated. ;)
I run a forum, and most of the members are barely past the part of how to launch the browser, let alone realize something as "complex" as multiple clicks. You start talking IP address and their eyes glazes over, and rolls back into their heads...
What my point is that they might be good hearted, and there has been cases when good hearted members will say, "oh so if I click on this the site makes $0.10? Well let me 'donate' a $1!"... How often this happens? Anecdotally speaking often.
Keep them in the dark and let them behave "naturally," whatever that is.
For what it's worth, I've been running AdSense on a site that gets a lot of Internet newbies and a fair amount of regulars, and in a year and a half, there have been no problems.
I think this sort of thing should be okay, but I'd ask Google before doing it. I don't want to sound paranoid, but this could conceivably be construed to be "rewarding" users for clicking on ads by showing an ad-free site from then on.
Id say this is against the TOS. Id imagine what you'd write is something like:
"Please dont click on the ads unless you are genuinely interested in them"
One could argue that that might be a good idea for publishers & advertisors... since instead of ignoring ads, people who are genuinely interested in them might realize they are there and click, then buy from the advertisor...
Then again, people who aren't interested might click out of curiosity too.
I am not interested in circumventing the TOS, by making a psychological game, to enhance user CTR.
I am worried that some poor sap, or a malicious individual will click the ads multiple times, so often that Google will ban me from Adsense, even before I had a chance to react.
I have not heard anyone saying "Google reinstated me after multiple illegal clicks".
It seems G doesn't care where the multiple clicks come from. From their perspective, it makes perfect sense. Why should they care? There is no way for you to prove it that it was a competitor, and you didn't make a deal with them or something...
This is where Y! and MSN coming out with their own is going to help. G will have to protect not just her own advertisers, but publishers too... And she will have to be a bit more reactive to their needs toward the lower end, not just in the UPS stratosphere.
Re not hearing about people being reinstated after a click attack: I suspect that's because there are MANY cases in which they are never banned in the first place! The clicks are invisibly removed from the account, and nothing happens at all. The cases we've heard about on these boards where the cause of the banning may have been a click attack--and there haven't been all that many over the past year--seem to be instances of persistent, repeated attacks, such that Google no longer found it worthwhile to maintain the account, if they had to weed it constantly for the click attacks.
If you're in a dodgy area, or have angered some competitors recently, maybe you should be concerned. But otherwise, this is really not something to lose sleep about.
As the consensus has determined, this would be considered drawing undue attention to the ads appearing on your site. Although we understand that by asking users NOT to click on your ads your intent is to discourage clicks, this language could inadvertently encourage users to click by drawing undue attention to the ads.
If you are worried about click attacks from a particular user occurring on your site, I recommend emailing AdSense as soon as you notice something odd in your reports.
Also, I just wanted to let you all know that I'm on vacation this week, which is why I've been less active than usual. I'm still reading all of your posts and look forward to getting back into the swing of WebmasterWorld next week.
-ASA
Appreciate your feedback. Enjoy your vacation!
So, Google will take into consideration the psychological impact of a web site, and the consensus of the general populous.
Delightful.
