Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I found this pearl of wisdom
so you got re-instated, but only because you were able to circumvent the incompetence of google.
Exactly my thoughts. This shows born2drv was not at fault, but he had to circunvent G's procedures to get this recognized.
I think Google needs to face the problem of "wrong" bans more seriously.
Here is my proposal: a "manual inspection for re-inclusion fee": the publisher pays back to G (say) $250 for a manual inspection of the site, stats etc.
That won't take more than 15 minutes to one of the bright G's.
All this, with a standard procedure (explain story, give your logs, etc) so that there is no more need to do as born2drv needed to do, oiling wheel to ... find a phone number etc.
The "how did you get this number?" part is plainly sad for a serious corporation!
and Very Sad.
Here is my proposal: a "manual inspection for re-inclusion fee": the publisher pays back to G (say) $250 for a manual inspection of the site
Perhaps I am thick, but eh...
If G bans you and they take your last months earnings, say $1000, why would they want to bother to instead do work (manual review) and then only get an uncool $250? I would sit back and relax and grab the $1000 if I were G...
[edited by: Scurramunga at 7:40 am (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
The idea is good, but Google has always had problems offering webmaster services for money, its too much.. ehm Yahoo for them.
If it is too yucky to receive money directly from a webmaster, why not outsource the job to a trusted 3rd party that keeps the amount and has no influence other than making recommendations that Google can still refuse or accept.
The other problem is in the inherent danger in admitting to too many false positives in their system, they want the vagueness to act as a deterrent, they also cannot disclose any details on their click fraud system, or it would be self defeating.
as an international publisher (and that too based in India), I think , I would have had no chance
As an Italian, I don't know how much better I would stand..
I would sit back and relax and grab the $1000 if I were G
I can't believe that "relax and grab the $1000" can be Google's corporate policy. That would be incredibly short-sighted.
A need for cost efficiency keeps Google from investigating and banning reported MFA's whilst that same cost efficiency need also rules out any feasibility of investigating pleas from innocent publishers. I see an irony,
I agree, and I would say that they are using up precious resources hunting down and banning honest publishers when they could be using the same recources hunting down and banning the real bad guys.
Totally agree this is irony on the highest level.
Ann
They refund the money to the advertisers if you don't verify your PIN within a certain number of months, so I'd assumed the same was true if they shut your account down.
Actually HB Google does not gain that $1000, they loose their share on your future monthly earnings to competition
Once again dear Hobbs, I would like to take the opportunity to respectfully disagree;-)
Of course, my remark about G grabbing that $1000 was intented to be a bit ironic. I am actually one of the WW members who believes Google in general does a very good job with their Adsense program.
However, Google also makes sad mistakes that are very bad for publishers and advertisers.
But back to the $1000 grabbing and the proposal of Frox:
I think it very much depends on the publisher whether Google is gaining or losing profit by grabbing that $1000.
If a publisher has a quality site that converts very well for advertisers, and if this publisher is bound to generate at least $1000 worth of quality clicks each month for a long time, Google would be foolish to take the short term gain. Because that kind of publisher is the engine that keeps the content network running.
However, if this publisher collected his $1000 with bad converting smart-priced clicks, Google might gain more if the publisher was released from the program. Because bad conversions make advertisers go away, and after all, they are the ones that really bring in the money.
About that review-fee; there are some aspects about it I don't like.
It means small publishers with no budget are out in one strike.
The folks with the money can buy back their way in.
What if Google really likes this idea. Wouldn't the idea of introducing all sorts of fees for all kinds of services appeal to big G?
How about a fee for
- Being accepted in the program
- Faster payment
- Higher paying clicks
- Etcetera.
Would you like Google to introduce that kind of policy?
However, if this publisher collected his $1000 with bad converting smart-priced clicks, Google might gain more if the publisher was released from the program. Because bad conversions make advertisers go away, and after all, they are the ones that really bring in the money
I think most publishers don't know what the word 'conversion' is, it is the huge number of small fish that is creating the lower bid advertiser feeding frenzy, as for smartpricing, who really knows where that discounted money goes, but if G's words are true, then it is what is greasing the big Google wheels and luring more advertisers.
If Google wanted to keep only well converting publishers, you would have seen more stringent acceptance terms into the program, so no, I think Google is benefiting from the bad quality / low conversion / call it what you wish kind of sites as much as the high quality sites, and to kill off a major earner would not be business prudent.
Anyway, love to disagree with someone as polite as you HB ;-)
I agree, and I would say that they are using up precious resources hunting down and banning honest publishers when they could be using the same recources hunting down and banning the real bad guys.
But both the honest and dishonest publisher may show the same evidence of click fraud. The dishonest publishers are aware of this (and no doubt, aware that they can construct a scenario in which they can look like wronged parties). So the same resources need to be used in both cases.
IMO the fee for manual review is a bad idea also. If anything, the income from advertisers should pay for manual reviews, should they be needed.
Forget the "do no evil" line
You seriously think a multibillion organization would steep so low, and in the process possibly kill off one of its major revenue sources?
Was it for the "standard" appeal mechanism, he would still be banned..
There are lots of stories of people being reinstated, though, so I'm confident I can make my case even if I do get banned someday. Once I do that, let the chips fall where they may.
jomaxx, the system worked only because born2drv was lucky enough to somehow get the phone number he shouldn't have known.
Whoever gave out the phone number really shouldn't have; I suspect whoever gave it might have a hard time with their account manager now. I know who they are, and while they are assigned to some accounts, they are VERY busy people and don't have much time to deal with accounts small enough not to have an account manager.
[edited by: Andem at 9:41 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2006]
it was my fault i got banned in part because i didn't check my own stats and suspicious activity enough, hell, i didn't even notice it was going on.
it wasn't until a good friend of mine who knows a hell of a lot more about server stuff and logs etc than me looked into it that i was able to present all the documented evidence and log records to google that helped to get me back in.
i had spent about 4 months politely protesting my innocence with absolutely no effect.
my point is, it doesn't matter how innocent you are or how much you protest and offer to help, if you don't have the documented server evidence to show all the relevant facts you have no chance,
i know nothing about the google woman who advocates for the publisher but she sure as hell didn't look very far into my particular case as i wrote to google offering them root access to my server and stats to investigate and was politely told that they would not take me up on that offer, everything else i got was a canned automatic response.
i see it a bit like safer sex...you have to protect and cover yourself, you can't rely on anyone else to cover for you!
