Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I run one of largest travel websites on the web. What would you veteran webmasters do in this situation, assuming you have no honest idea as to who is behind the "invalid clicks" that were supposedly generated. I'm not interested in one line off the cuff comments. I'm only interested in real "in my shoes" replies.
1. It is possible to become a millionaire on the net without using WW. Brin and Page suggest themselves as examples. There may have been one or two others.
2. Just because someone shows a recently joined date it does not mean that they recently joined. To state the obvious that some seem to be ignoring: he could have signed up in a new nick.
Some of the forensic work in this thread is interesting though ;)
Either way this sort of thread can damage Google, bearing in mind although the amounts discussed is large, there are just too many complaints generally about Google and its agreement with independent contractors, and they way they operate.
If but for no other reason this sort of thing is very bad PR for them.
This sort of thread does NOT hurt Google - it helps them.
Just the knowledge that a large account can be booted may be enough to curb some illegal practices.
This problem could stem from any number of different sources.
E-mails to members asking that they click on ads, for example, could have ended up in Google's hands.
Forum posting or calls to action away from your own site asking people to click on ads.
Etc. , etc..
Invalid clicks do not necessarily mean that the account holder or his partners were doing it themselves.
Again this thread does not hurt AdSense or Google.
However the TOS are targetted towards the conduct of the webmaster responsible for the website. They cannot expect the webmaster to be liable for the fraud or other legal wrongs of other unidentified or identifiable third parties.
[edited by: James at 12:55 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2005]
They cannot expect the webmaster to be liable for the fraud or other legal wrongs of other unidentified or identifiable third parties.
If you look at the two examples that I gave which have both been described in other threads on this forum and which I have personally seen then the owner / webmaster is definitely liable.
Saying that these are "Unidentified" just doesn't hold water. If a newsletter or e-mail goes out from that site asking it's recipients to "click on Google ads" or the webmaster is posting his URL in forums and asking that people go to his site and "click on ads" then that account should be terminated for the health of the whole system.
I run one of largest travel websites on the web.
1. Well it would have to be on those figures. at $10 eCPM (reasonable average for volume travel site), that is 500,000 impressions per day.
2. To give you an idea of size, I remember back in early days of AdSense EFV posted here (appologies if my memory is wrong) indicating something like 15,000 impressions per day for his site. So you are talking about a big site
3. Would Google treat "one of the biggest travel websites on the web" in the somewhat cavalier way outlined here? No way, I am one of Googles biggest critics, but Google are not daft. They would deal with the matter personally and senstively for a genuine travel site of that size.
Either the premis on size is incorrect (the OP is winding us up, which is I suspect the answer), or the volume generated is so dodgy that Google do not bother wasing their time (EFV's smell test)
If bulk email for instance goes out by an adsense publisher asking people to click on ads, then the legal wrong is that of the publisher not the clicker! In that case he or she has broken the TOS, not the clicker.
If somebody, which for there own reasons and male fides, multiple clicks on a publishers website without the knowledge or intervention of the publisher than the publisher has not broken the TOS
In the first example the clicker is not in conspiracy to defraud google or the adwords advertisers or the TOS, as he or she is a stranger to the contract.
In the second example the clicker is in a different legal capacity.
If somebody, which for there own reasons and male fides, multiple clicks on a publishers website without the knowledge or intervention of the publisher than the publisher has not broken the TOS
Never suggested that.
However, it would be very unlikely that AdSense would throw out a large site without some pretty good evidence.
Like others here I just don't buy AdamAllen's naive innocence. SOMETHING is going on if the post is true.
The owner didn't want to disclose the identity but gave out some of the unique information.
Obviously the "exact" amount isn't $304K, but it's close +/- [unless WW shares IP info with G, I should remain anonymous here].
I run one of largest travel websites on the web.
So the above information is only haft true. It's not 304K, much lesser. It's not exactly the largest travel website but a large site in other industry. The information was just inflated.
When you post the information on WW, I don’t think you will give out the unique information which can be used to identify you. You avoid this information or refine it.
If you’d just lost $300000 would you spend time posting here?
Just because someone loses a very large sum of money doesn’t mean they cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Maybe he got tired of talking to his lawyers?
Granted, it’s hard to believe adamallen’s story but stranger things have happened. If nothing else this adds a little spice to a Sunday afternoon.
I've got to run. Thanks for your posts. I won't post the outcome. :)
From post #19. Obviously the thread maker has deserted and will not even post the outcome.
May as well save our breath. Errrr, fingers.
Ann
Anyone pulling in $150k monthly would be very concerned about G canceling their account and already have a lawyer going over the TOS with a fine tooth comb looking for soft or illegal clauses. Then you would be negotiating with G for a more equitable contract to protect your income. No way you just sit back and wait for a problem then run to a forum for advice.
I don't see any mention of calling his account rep to see what's goin on either. He may still get a canned answer but accounts that size at least have a warm body they can call.
Get a life, Yahoo shill!
[edited by: WallyWorld at 4:28 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2005]
I've got to run. Thanks for your posts. I won't post the outcome. :)
From post #19. Obviously the thread maker has deserted and will not even post the outcome.
Looks like the fun is over. Back to a borning Sunday afternoon.
May I also point out that the owners or operators of these forums can also become implicated insomuch that they are republishing was is prima facie defamatory material against a public corporation.
That may have been an issue back in the mid-1990s, but the laws have been changed to protect online services and forum owners. (Plus, how can you describe the post as "prima facie defamatory material" when you have no way of knowing that it's a lie?)
Why should he post is URL to anyone? People will either steal his content or click attack his ads or both!
He doesn't have to share his URL, but doing so might help his credibility. Of course, it could also hurt his credibility, depending on the nature of the site. :-)
This sort of thread does NOT hurt Google - it helps them. Just the knowledge that a large account can be booted may be enough to curb some illegal practices.
Agreed. We should never forget that advertisers , not publishers, are Google's customers. If I were an advertiser and I accepted this story at face value, I'd feel very reassured.
2. To give you an idea of size, I remember back in early days of AdSense EFV posted here (appologies if my memory is wrong) indicating something like 15,000 impressions per day for his site. So you are talking about a big site
I don't want to take this thread off topic, but just for the record, I get about 15,000+ unique visitors (not impressions) per day. I agree that a travel site would need massive traffic (far, far more than niche editorial sites like mine get) to earn $150,000+ a month.
So the above information is only haft true....The information was just inflated.
If you knew that half of a story was untrue, would you be inclined to believe the other 50%?
This thread is becoming an urban legend.
Yes, and it is more entertaining than "Are your stats delayed?", "My EPC is down 20% today," or "Where's my Google check?" :-)
Because Google is the highest paying ad network, everyone here seems locked under their spell. Realize though that you are participating in a system where you are at the mercy of a giant, a giant who doesn't seem to have the "bottom line" to support defending you when the time comes. They'll take your unpaid earnings and run. "If I behave myself I won't get banned", this simply isn't true. Their are thousands of people who are claiming to have been banned without just cause, their earnings confiscated, they can't all be liars. Somebody in government needs to finally step into this. The integrity of the internet is on the line here. We all know Google could crush the click fraud problem by taking harsh actions, but we all know that would not allow them to tread in the black, gray, and white areas of collecting click fees when and if they see fit to do so. While folks in the industry get rich off of click fraud, all the advertisers paying for it seem to take on the "well, there isn't much AdSense can do about it". It's nonsense, it's propaganda, and I can't listen to it anymore. While AdWords might not profit from click fraud as much as say enhance.com, they sure as heck profit from it, period.
All the senior WW posters here seem to think, "oh, another scammer just got booted from AdSense". Are you all mouth pieces for Google? I seriously wonder about that. Every time someone posts "I just got booted from AdSense" here at WW, all the senior members here start piling on the sh$t. Or, are you afraid to bite the AdSense hand that feeds you? Wake up people, AdSense could rock, it could be awesome, it could be bulletproof to a large degree for honest hard working publishers, but it's not, and it's not because of Google's greed. They set the bar for all of the smaller folks in the industry. If Google didn't have their hand in the cookie jar, would folks like BrainFox beable to deliver 0% roi, would enhance.com be able to rip people off left and right? Well not as much because they would stand out like a soar thumb, but now they get to operate in the Shadow of AdWords.
Does not have to be a lie, just a tendancy to lower in this case Google's reputation in the eyes of others that might be interested, ( As it were).
The law is not changed as much as you might suggest, if a forum continues to publish an obviously defamatory thread then they lose the same amount of protection that they may have had for a 1 off publication.
Why is everyone arguing or even commenting on whether the story is legit or not. DO YOU BELIEVE Google has the right to confiscate YOUR earnings without telling you why? Don't you honest publishers worry about this? Do you honest publishers feel steps need to be taken to protect YOU from this type of scenario. Drop the Google mouth piece for a second, publishers deserve more rights then Google is granting them. We're basically at 0 here people with publisher rights. Come on, wake up. We know Google reps read this forum, stand up, speak honestly without fear of Big Brother G.
I agree that the Google AdWords/AdSense model can't exist in its present form with the inequities it has built in. And, you are probably right that it will unravel with a big bang under a massive class action law suit. I don't think Google's billions will be able to save the day for them when it happens.
Until then, bring on the "I've Been Banned" treads! They are very entertaining.
If Juan from Argentina clicks your ads 2343 times in one day, why can't you have that information to protect yourself from Juan, or sue Juan.
And just where would I sue Juan? He’s in Argentina, Google’s in Cal and I’m in France.
Are you all mouth pieces for Google? I seriously wonder about that. Every time someone posts "I just got booted from AdSense" here at WW, all the senior members here start piling on the sh$t.
That might be because the person who starts a "I just got booted from AdSense" post will also add he clicked on his own ads or some such thing that make it obvious they did some thing wrong. FWIW I’ve been in the Adsense program from the beginning and never had any problems and I know many other webmasters like myself.
They'll take your unpaid earnings and run.
Going on two years and that has not been the case.
To make $150k/month this guy is at least doing 5,000 clicks a day... There is obviously something else going on here then standard "click fruad"
[edited by: markus007 at 4:58 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2005]
Perhaps yet another high traffic webmaster that won't post here again due to the carion like behavior that sets in when jealousy and consiracy theories abound.
James, hear me out.
A PUBLIC forum DOES protect the rights of the owner. If I start a public forum, and someone wants to defame the character of another person/business - the only thing the courts can do to me is subpoena me for information about that person.
I have been to court on multiple occasions in regards to this matter as a result of local businesses thinking they had grounds to sue me. It all started when a person stated that they had received poor service at a local business.
Following this statement, a WAVE of defamatory statements by other local individuals followed, speaking EXTREMELY ill of both the business, owner, and employees.
This alleged poor service caused the business to starve, as most of the community in my local niche frequents the site, and had read the statements made.
My safety-net was that it was a public forum - thus the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owner, and the owner DOES NOT have to remove or even moderate the information if he/she does't want to. In fact - it's better to stay uninvolved.
The MOST that could happen is that if G thought this thread to be defamatory, they could request its removal to the owner/admin - OR they could take it to courts and PROVE that the information is NOT true resulting in WW being forced to remove it, and possibly being forced to divulge the logged information about the individual responsible for the untrue defamatory statements. The burden of proof would be on G - to prove that the statements are in fact untrue.
