Revenue from Non Existant Pages

Pages were removed last year, but return to google cache

[Sobriquet]

I had about 7000 pages removed from my site after allegra, which are now showing again in google cache.

There pages are having my adsense code, but these pages do not exist in my site now.

If someone goes thru google cache, and click on the ads, do i get the money?

Just wondering.

[Sweet Cognac]

No, Sobriquet... I think that the ads on the cache pages are "google's" ads. So google gets the money.

[vincevincevince]

Sweet Cognac, you may be right, but from what I've read in the past, you may well be wrong. The publisher ID in the cache and the method of javascript is exactly the same as the original site, and numerous publishers have been reporting clicks which are not accounted for by their domain name (and even have had clicks whilst the server was down).

[leadegroot]

I have 'google.com' included in my url channels and I have seen impressions and - I am fairly sure, its been a while - clicks there.
So, yes, you should get paid.

(If the correct publisher ID is showing up in the soruce code for the cache pages - why would you think you wouldn't get paid?)

[Ossifer]

I just tried to add 'google.com' to my URL Channels - seems though you can't now do it, as it says the URI cannot contain a google host :(

[Quadrille]

I just tried to add 'google.com' to my URL Channels

Worth a try though, huh? ;)

[vincevincevince]

I just tried to add 'google.com' to my URL Channels

Remember that cached pages are served from IP addresses, not from google.com itself. Check the URL when you view the cached page. There are a few IP addresses used so you will need to add them all.

[ken_b]

If someone goes thru google cache, and click on the ads, do i get the money?

Yes. At least that's what Google told me when I had clicks from cached pages showing up in my stats.

[leadegroot]

Good lord! Well, thats a change - I certainly had it on a previous account (changed the account name, so had to get a new account)

Hmmm... if they have changed *that* then I withdraw my opinion that you would get the revenue - I expect if they have pulled the url from url channels then they are probably keeping the revenue too.
I also note that I hardly ever notice 'where on earth was that click/ impression made' results now. Have they tightened up their reporting, or did I used to have google.com clicks?

[Sweet Cognac]

Sweet Cognac, you may be right, but from what I've read in the past, you may well be wrong. The publisher ID in the cache and the method of javascript is exactly the same as the original site, and numerous publishers have been reporting clicks which are not accounted for by their domain name (and even have had clicks whilst the server was down).

Hmmm... if this is true, than it is a surprise to me, but it makes sense, maybe that is why reporting is different between a url channel and the page channel.

For instance if I am running 1 channel across the entire website, and running a url channel for the website, the difference in clickthrus could be attributed to this?

[jomaxx]

You add your publisher code, AdSense tracks it, you get your money. In the absence of any evidence, or any such statement from Google (in fact ken_b says Google told him you WILL get paid for such clicks), IMO it's fairly clear you would get paid.

Same as ads displayed from any other cache, or from translated pages.

[Hobbs]

had clicks whilst the server was down

I am one of those, had both clicks and earnings when my site was down for days and days.

[Sobriquet]

Wondering, google here pays just because it had those pages in cache, but these pages no longer exist in my site. they were removed almost 6 months ago.

something funny i guess