Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Also there is a "dirty" feeling associated with doing that, mainly because I am a publisher, reporting another publisher, feels like a the tell tale in school.
On the other hand I strongly feel for helping out the network through which I am making a good living, and advertisers whose good is also mine.
Perhaps the dirty feeling will go away and more people would report violations if Google creates an ethical TOS version explaining cause and effect in friendly plain non legal English, morally outlining why each breach is unethical or dangerous to the well being of the network, for frankly there are some vague ones in there.
It might still feel bad reporting violations, but perhaps a little less than it does now.
Examples of vague ones that I wouldn't report:
1) The use of Referrals as alternate ads
2) Having more than one referral ad for same product per page
3) The whole "calling undue attention to ads" business is beyond my simple intellect.
4) ADD YOUR OWN HERE
This is not a call for TOS change, but a call for better communication.
No matter how many times you report TOS violations to Google they won't ban them - no matter how bad the violation. Anyone who has ever reported a site will most likely reort back that this is the case in their experience.
For the most part, I don't bother giving my email address when making the report, so I don't hear back. But there were two instances when the violations were so egregious, that not only did I report them via the goooooooogle ads notice, but I also sent email to AdSense and AdWords and Froogle and everyone I could think of. In one case, I actually got a reply back saying the matter had been taken care of, and sure enough, that advertiser was gone. (Now that I think about it, it might have been Froogle who responded, not AdSense) In the other case, I never heard back, but when I went back to look for that advertiser, he was gone too. I don't know that he disappeared ONLY because of me, but I like to think I was at least one of the nails in his coffin.
This is not envy or vindictiveness, it's business and my own sense of responsibility to my users and my clients. I don't want scammy or scummy advertisers on my personal websites. And I'm also an advertiser, on behalf of clients who spend upwards of $75k on AdWords every month - and I don't want my clients' ads appearing on these sites either.
Do you want to know what the key ingredient is in maintaining the "health" of the AdSense "network"?
Herds of ignorant masses clicking on AdWords ads, faster, more often, deliberately or accidentally - 24x7.
Calling for Google to make an effort to introduce "ETHICS" into their cash cow is absurd. It's like saying "Hey world - tell us which pages you don't like our ads on so we can pull them and make a fraction of the money we're making now!" Now there is a new school of thought!
Most people who purchase AdWords do not notice that by DEFAULT - Google sets up each campaign to automatically be shown on
1. Google
2. Google Search Network - (Nice way of saying any site with a Google search box"
3. GOOGLE CONTENT NETWORK - every made-for-adsense, crappy, spam, scraper, junk garbage site in the entire world.
Now if you consider THAT ethical, keep reporting people who obviously are more successful at using AdSense than you are, and good luck on your quest. Otherwise, I think this entire thread is basically about trying to teach a snake to eat itself - which is not going to happen in Google's case, regardless of the air-tight economics thorem proposed by this thread.
If you truely think that all attempts to restrain antisocial behaviour are at best the nasty and pointless actions of a "tell tale" then go live somewhere lawless and do without social norms and protections. (And leave us to the social protections we like.)
If you don't believe this then you should probably avoid ad hominem attacks.
(I just reported an ad promoting (illegal) bugging and sex/spying all over my site. Clearly the advertiser has managed to bypass AW vetting somehow and will upset some of my visitors. I don't want my pro-bono public site associated with illegal/antisocial activities. I have no problem with sex, BTW, before you draw inferrences.)
Rgds
Damon
Do you want to know what the key ingredient is in maintaining the "health" of the AdSense "network"?Herds of ignorant masses clicking on AdWords ads, faster, more often, deliberately or accidentally - 24x7.
Unless an acceptable percentage of those herds of ignorant masses make purchases, sign up for newsletters or whatever after clicking on those AdWords ads, I don't think that strategy will last very long.
FarmBoy
you are the "tell tale" in school, and more than likely one of those folks who grinds his teeth at other people's good fortune
The world must look very different from the perspective of a flea that lives off other people's blood, you call that good fortune?
keep reporting people who obviously are more successful at using AdSense than you are
Do you want to know what the key ingredient is in maintaining the "health" of the AdSense "network"?Herds of ignorant masses clicking on AdWords ads, faster, more often, deliberately or accidentally - 24x7.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG.
The key to maintaining the health of the Adsense network is that advertisers have a sustainable return on their advertising investment.
That has the best chance of happening when Adsense ads reach users who click the ads out of genuine interest, not by accident or because there's no place else to go.
The truly small-minded thinkers are those who think it's okay to manipulate users into clicking just because they might earn some extra nickels in the short term.
No matter how many times you report TOS violations to Google they won't ban them - no matter how bad the violation. Anyone who has ever reported a site will most likely reort back that this is the case in their experience.
That's not true as I've personally had a few serious offenders punted out of AdSense.
The less serious offenders it appears were given an opportunity to fix the problem, and one was temporarily suspended when they ignored the request to fix it.
Why? Because I am an advertiser. I spent a lot of money every day on Google Adwords and I do not want to see my ads on content scraping sites and I do not want my ads clicked because someone tricks or persuades people into clicking them but only when they have some real interest. And I do not want to see my ads on adult sites.
And if you do not stay within the Google TOS chances are you are stealing my money (with tricking people into clicking) or hurting my reputation (with displaying my ads on sites that are not more than crap).
Also I don't think competing Adsense publishers should feel discomfort when reporting violations. Because in every Adwords account there is a little checkbox that lets advertisers disable advertising on content sites when they feel they do not get the most for their advertising money anymore.
how do you know sites your ads are displayed on?
Do a search for your domain name in Google or search for your ad text.
Farmboy - I personally don't think that the "Average" AdWords buyer is saavy enough to compute the ROI from each of their Google click-throughs. They actually will not be that saavy for years - and as such when Google sends them their 100 clicks per day (95% of which are from the default "Content Network" of MFA / scraper sites) they are very happy, and blissfully unaware of the fact that they just wasted most of their money. You cannot look at this situation from the elitist point of view of an experienced webmaster - this is a minority in contrast with the general population - or the "herds of masses" that I was referring to.
Hobbs - I spend about $600 - $700 per day on AdWords. I make about $40 per day in AdSense. I cringe when I find my ads on cached versions of crappy pages that I would never ever voluntarily place my ads on - but they are there anyway. Other than stirring the pot a little before, the point I am making is that Google wants to make money, and their ethical TOS concerns are purely superficial window dressing, which if enforced, would drastically contradict their core business model. So as a result, even though I have a dozen campaigns set up only to run on Google Search results, my ads are on hundreds of sites. Am I happy because of this - No. Would I report even one of them - No. Why, Hobbs - becasue it's like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon - you can feel free to do it - but the odds of your success are low :)
And a far as the flea comment - if you sat in a room with 20 truly wealthy people, who actually earned their money (as opposed to inheriting it) how many do you think would have people's blood underneath their fingernails? If your answer is anywhre below the high teens, your perspective is a bit unrealistic. It is not a question of right or wrong - it is simply the stark reality of the evils of money.
The bottom line - you cannot force somone to click an ad. And if someone visits the website of my #*$! Sado-Masochistic Leather Gear Shop in Times Square, and then click an ad for the Hilton around the corner so they could book a room and try out their spiked anal beads - do you think Conrad Hilton is turning in his grave, or did Paris Hilton just get a new Blackberry for her Chihuahua?
Cheers!
What in the heck does AdSense have to do with SEO?ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
... as a matter of fact erotic is a KILL WORD that generates PSA's and I had to filter it from my own site.
Now isn't that some kind of optimization (Btw SEO means more than search engine nowdays).
And what does ratting out AdSense violators hace to do with SEO?ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Losing your AdSense account does not impact your search position whatsoever so if that's what you're doing to try to get ahead in the SERPs you're completely wasting your time.
No!
Ratting out MFA in your niche, means in the long term the MFA has to compete on lower profit, at certain point, the MFA webmaster might just concentrate on different niche. And you can pick his spot over time both in SERP and CPC. Then again Google is smart enough not to ban most publisher, so the point is moot. And yes its a dumb strategy, but it does happen.
Also, if doesn't take a rocket scientist, let alone a lawyer, to interpret the AdSense T&Cs for such issues as "CLICK THE ADS PLEASE!"
But its confusing enough for 71 post in WebmasterWorld in 2 days.
The problem I have is significant amount people will report violation of TOS, when there is simple thing as blending ads, putting trigger keywords around your ads, putting adesnse on your contact page, adsense ending up in empty pages in CMS, etc.
Banned for life from almighty Google is a harsh punishment, when we might not have any good alternative ads in the future.
And I just don't like RATS.
No, you have the wrong end of the stick entirely, and so long as you insist on holding it you won't see what you are missing.
As it happens, G contacted me out of the blue a couple of weeks ago and helped me tweak my ads (including a different kind of blending to the kind that I was already doing) and my CTR has more than doubled and today and yesterday I had 5x more than the number of clicks through that I have ever had before. Indeed, I had to send them a mail to make sure that nothing was wrong!
G is very happy to help you make money if you are honest and in it for the long haul for them and for you and for the end user.
If you are rip-and-burn black-hat that hurts them and their customers to make an extra 5c this morning then it seems, rightly, that they are not interested in continuing doing business with you. Hopefully not you personally, if you see what I mean! B^>
Just like investing money in stocks and shares, your horizon should be 5 years out, not 5 minutes.
Rgds
Damon
I for one do not feel like a tattle tale when I do report one of those, ahem, violators but I only report the most obvious ones that are flaunting the TOS not someone who may have made a mistake and will probably catch it themselves.
How do I feel about reporting them? Makes me feel good and ethical. No I am not jealous or mean spirited, I simply believe that if Google and I are partners then whomever else joins us must follow the same rules as I do. Unless they are a premium publisher :)
Ann
The use of Referrals as alternate ads
Can anybody actually explain just what is not allowed?
And I just don't like RATS.
Then get a cat.
If I see someone breaking into a car or a house I call the cops.
Likewise, if someone breaking the rules in AdSense and threatening the very program that pays my way, I'm calling Google-911 to stop that as well.
If that means you don't like me for being a rat then get in line.
You are not allowed to use Google ads in general ads as alternate ads to anything, even Referral ads are not allowed to be used as alternate ads to Google ad units.
... even Referral ads are not allowed to be used as alternate ads to Google ad units.
Hobbs, if you are going to make statements like this, making them accurate might help.
About the only way I can see your statement making sense is if you say "Google Referral Ads". And it still may be an incorrect statement. Whether allowed? A search of the Google FAQ:
Do I get paid a referral fee for every advertiser I sign up?No; Onsite Advertiser Sign-up is separate from the AdSense referrals feature. However, you should see a revenue benefit from new advertisers signing up to display ads on your site, as greater competition for your ad space will lead to higher potential earnings for you.
even Referral ads are not allowed to be used as alternate ads to Google ad units.
If you are talking about firefox referrals. I believe this statement is quite incorrect. I have documentation to the contrary
[edited by: Scurramunga at 9:03 am (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
let me explain it better:
- When Google does not find ads to be placed on your pages it can collapse the space, show empty space or load up an alternate ad of your choice (can be a house ad or other allowed networks)
- Google specifies that none of its ads can be used as alternate ads to other networks which is fine
- What did not make sense is why not allow Referral ads to be used as alternate ads for Google Ad units?
Anyway the Referral issue is very trivial and used as an example of one things that do not make sense.
I feel no ethical dilemma whatsoever reporting sites in violation of TOS. I reported two this morning, as a matter of fact. Of course I am not the arbiter of whether or not the site actually ARE in violation;my bolding
Then, IMO, you need to rethink your ethical standards. If you don't know the TOS well enough to know whether the sites are in violation, then you are doing a disservice by reporting them.
What if the Google employee reviewing the site has the same lack of knowledge? Okay, they get reinstated ... right?
What about the grief you put them through and the possible loss of revenue while they are down.
Then there is the "I'm no extert but" ... then don't act like one by reporting "possible" violations.
How about you give me your Tax ID number and I get a message to the IRS (or other tax authority) that you "may" be violating tax laws?
"I'm no extert but"
My ethical dilemma at the moment is I don't even know what a tert is let alone an "extert" but the experts on terts say it's an acronym for tertiary.
Not sure how that applies in your post but you're scaring me so I'm going to bed now and hope it's clear in the morning.
I reported someone today so I should sleep very well ;)
Too bad you couldn't have addressed the real issue of those without expertise playing Google cop.
This has already been said before in the same thread
and I take it to be what incrediBILL meant with
I am not the arbiter of whether or not the site actually ARE in violation
"Playing Google cop" can only be said about those that are in this business for the fun of it, for the rest this is a business whose integrity reflects on their livelihood, what is so difficult to understand about that?
As in, you are watching some guy acting very suspiciously on a street corner, outside a bank perhaps, and you report it. It is then the responsibility of people more experienced and qualified than you to decide if that person is really doing something untoward or not.
That is the role these reporters are taking on - they are not judge and jury. What makes you think every site reported is then thrown out and suffers "revenue loss from the downtime". By all accounts, it's near on impossible to get any violating site thrown out by this method.
Reporting a violation is exactly the same like when a visitor to your site reports a broken link, you verify that it is broken, ignore the report if it is not, fix the URL if it has moved or remove the link if it is not fixable.
This thread was originally intended to suggest for TOS violations to be made as clear as a broken link is in some areas, by removing the vagueness through samples on the AdSense Blog for example, and recruit more publishers towards reporting clear violations, which should speed up the cleaning of the system.
Not asking for a "TOS for Dummies" as EFV suggested,
not asking for a change in the current TOS
not challenging the ethics of reporting violations
and certainly not trying to define what is an MFA
What makes you think every site reported is then thrown out and suffers "revenue loss from the downtime".
I don't and I didn't say that.
This is a discussion about ethics related to reporting Adsense violations. I gave an opinion. I stand by it.
As in, you are watching some guy acting very suspiciously on a street corner, outside a bank perhaps, and you report it.
What is the "suspicious" activity? Do you see a gun?
Who do you report it to, the police .. the bank manager?
The bank manager has no more authority than any other private citizen on the corner ourtside the bank. If you report it to the police they will probably ask, "What is he doing?"
If you are no better prepared to report a TOS violation for Google Adsense than you have prepared your analogy, then in my opinion, you are the one violating a set of ethics.
What about the grief you put them through and the possible loss of revenue while they are down.
..which suggests clearly that G "temporarily" throws them out while they look into the allegation. There is zero evidence of this ever having happened.
If G does throw a site out:
a.) it's because they were doing something very much against ToS
b.) it's permanent and immediate so "possible loss...while they are down" simply doesn't enter into the equation.
People reporting sites are not playing judge and jury. In the majority of cases, there is good evidence that ToS are being broken. Then G will decide to proceed or not with the complaint. Your earlier post made out that reporters should feel guilty because they were causing greif and temporary "loss of revenue" to webmasters, something, as I just posted, that is not true.
G makes the big decisions around here - not us.
