Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is it ok to display a gif inimated image of a hand pointing down to the adsense ads below it? or is that not allowed, just like inviting text is?
sorry for the dumb question.
It could be considered as as bringing unnecessary attention to the ads or it could just be an image on the website...
If you Emailed Google im sure they would send out a canned response ie. no.
RJ
Brett, I guess you asked so that someone would answer explicitly, so that's my take on it.
There is always that kid who puts his hand in the campfire to see if it is hot. I guess it is a genetic thing.
Grey? The color I was thinking of was stoplight red.
- as simple as putting some flashing text in the same screeen quadrant as the ads.
- put the ads inside a box where you serve flash all around it, but purely related to page content.
- put anything moving around the ads
- make the ads the only static content on the page ;-)
only as limited as your mind and all with any tos if you don't mention or call out ads at all.
I guess it is ok to trick users within the tos though. Just put the ads in the middle of content without modification and people don't realize they are ads.
Except for the fact that they are labeled as ads. Are you saying that the AdSense TOS is too lenient? Personally, I place the ad block to one side or the other of the content, but even if you put it in the middle, your visitors would have to be pretty hasty or poor readers not to notice that they were clicking an ad.
What did that last study show? Less than 30% of the users know they are clicking on Ads?
(I tried finding it, but couldn't) - anyone have the url to that?
What did that last study show? Less than 30% of the users know they are clicking on Ads?(I tried finding it, but couldn't) - anyone have the url to that?
(I tried finding it, but couldn't)
yep ...search engines ain't what they used to be..what did you get Brett?..bunch of "30%" occupancy hotels and some leads to books on amazon about "30%" of the people ..? ;)..
Your thinking seems to have become more lateral and anarchic of late ..HG's influence? ..
A friend tells me that the one I am looking for was a private commercial study done on website based ads.
--bringing undue attention to the ad (as a whole)?
--alerting the (otherwise clueless) visitor that it is, in fact, an ad?
--in violation of the TOS?
--in agreement with the TOS?
--all of the above? (so that Google can--arbitrarily?--decide whatever it wants to about the situation)
As I asked before, is Google being too lenient in the TOS? I asked this of Brett but I'd like to hear other opinions too.
I'm not proposing policy, just trying to let the original poster know there are many different options here that aren't so overt.
Incentives
Web pages may not include incentives of any kind for users to click on ads. This includes encouraging users to click on the ads or to visit the advertisers' sites as well as drawing any undue attention to the ads.
Everyone has opinions on this topic but I would suspect a big finger pointing at the ads falls under "drawing any undue attention to the ads" as I snitched on someone with a huge arrow running across the page to point at the ads and Google made them yank it.
Being upfront with Google and getting the word direct from the horse's mouth on the T&Cs is the best way to protect yourself, just email support. I would show Google what you want to do and ask them if it's OK before risking your account.
You can put flashing stars around the ads or make them neon purple, it won't help your click rate. If anything it might go down. All you're doing is giving people a huge visual cue that "ads go here" and that they don't have to pay any attention to that part of the page.
That's why text ads are better in principle and why they work better when they are integrated with (not "disguised as") a site's content. Then people have to actually deal with the ads. They have to scan the text to see if it's important, and maybe they'll see an ad for just the product or service they're looking for.
That's why text ads are better in principle and why they work better when they are integrated with (not "disguised as") a site's content.
Yes. And that's why less than 30% of users are aware they are clicking on an ad.
If you draw attention to an ad, it seems indeed less chance for it to be clicked, because they see it as an - ad.
DaveN
a) He is just being sarcastic
We should all remember that Webmaster World members come from many different cultures from all over the world. For many, English is (obviously) not their native language.
Be careful when you use sarcasm (not saying that Brett is being sarcastic), and maybe be careful about your use of humor, too. You might find something funny, while the member from Elbonia might take offense. What to you may be obviously sarcastic may not be so obvious to the member from Lower Slobovia.
Advice from someone who has spent years living abroad, "gone native," who married a foreigner, and who has to deal with these issues often.
Just a thought.
With the backdrop of experience there are a ton of things you can do within the program guidlines to remain compliant.
What if the finger were to point the other way on the screen, but flow to the right (left pointing hand, but moves to the right) - that certainly wouldn't violate the tos, but may increase ctr. Only a dueling page test could tell.
You TOS wielders want to do something other than try to beat people over the head and scare them out of the program with the TOS? Then write a good article on how to do quality tests on adsense ctr and ecpm rates.
Then write a good article on how to do quality tests on adsense ctr and ecpm rates.
That is exactly what my power point presentation was in New Orleans.
You TOS wielders want to do something other than try to beat people over the head and scare them out of the program with the TOS?
Well, I'm not trying to do any such thing. A significant number of threads do seem to be started by people who aren't familiar with the AdSense TOS, or are looking for guidance as to where the boundaries lie on certain issues. I think it's reasonable to respond to such posts with a reference to the TOS, a quotation from it, or an opinion based on experience. They can then use that advice to keep their site in compliance or bring it into compliance if it's not. That's not scaring them out of the program.
