Missing clicks

Clicks not being counted

[donelson]

I have a website which is showing traffic, but the CTR has been zero for a few days...

So, I went into a cybercafe and clicked on one of the AdSense ads on my website (only once) to see if it would be credited to my account...

It wasn't.

What should I do?

[Pengi]

Keep quiet about it and hope Google doesn't notice.

[martinibuster]

How long did you stay on the site you clicked through to?

[donelson]

I clicked through to the home page, then went to at least 20 other pages. It was a pretty good travel site, with mostly jungle tours etc. So I stayed around 6 - 8 minutes.

[BigDave]

When did it occur to you that this would be smart to post about, on a site read by Google employees, with your site in your profile?

I just find it entertaining that you are complaining about your invalid click not getting credited.

I've found that some clicks (monitored using adlogger) can take up to 2 days to credit, while others credit with the next click dump. I also have some that never show up.

I bet that your clicks are being held pending review, or they are all being considered invalid.

[Lagamorph]

Isn't it against the rules to display ads as if they are the links to your graphics? Since your site is tricking people into clicking you may be on your way to a ban. That would explain the clicks not registering, either real ones or the ones you click yourself.

Good riddens :)

[donelson]

I follow all the rules STRICTLY. In fact, regarding the pix above the Google Ads, I asked them to comment and they said it was okay as long as the pix are not misleading.

Also, they also used to say that Google AdSense ads must be surrounded by a visible border, but they changed this rule a few months back and now show "invisible" borders as one of the default suggested layouts.

NOTE: (!) I started using the approved "invisible" borders around six weeks ago, and for the first 3-4 weeks, I found a significant increase in click-thrus and revenues...

HOWEVER, after about 4 weeks, the value-per-click dropped to a little more than half what it had been before. This resulted in my revenue ending up about the same as before, but with more clickthrus and lower payouts.

Re: the delay in awarding clicks: - yes, I guess this is possible... How would you know if this is the case?

.

[gregbo]

Only G knows for sure what causes delays in reporting clicks. However, if your click was picked up by a server that's temporarily down or otherwise unavailable, it might be a day or two before it shows up in your reports.

[newborn]

donelson, you are right, I have had an issue, one day G credited me with clicks and such. Pushing me to my highest total ever. Then when I checked the follwoiung day some of the $$ was gone.
Here is the thing
-How do we know that G is not ROBBING US.
Big Dave I love your faith if you had it in Jesus you could turn a mustard seed into a mountain (or something like that)
I dont know that G is Not robbing all of us and that revenue and NON-DISCLOSURE is a perfect way to disguise the robbery.
I think the bigger picture is despite we all clammer and say G is honest we must realize that G still earns a big income off our ads that we put out, people are still paying, G does not want to give that up.

But the only Guarantee with G is that there is no Guarantee!

[BigDave]

newborn, hopefully you will learn to read better when you are a little older. At no point did I say that I had any sort of faith in google or that they were not robbing us. What I said was "can take up to 2 days to credit, while others credit with the next click dump. I also have some that never show up." Those were simple facts.

If you were to look at what google states publicly, you might notice that they never claim to pay you for every click. You only get credit for clicks that pass their invalid click screening.

I also know that it is possible for someone to click on an ad on my site, that will cause adlogger to log that click, but then the user, browser or server will do something to keep them from continuing on through the ad processing.

So I'm not telling you that Google is not robbing you. But I also don't consider the limited data that I have to be proof that they *are* robbing you.

Personally I doubt they are. If I thought otherwise I would stop using their service.

Then I said "I bet that your clicks are being held pending review, or they are all being considered invalid" which doesn't exactly show any faith in Google either. In fact, I think it is a sign that taj is about to get in some sort of trouble, and I bet it is because of those pictures.

[MThiessen]

clicking your own ads is not only a violation of G's tos it's also not a good test.

Since you obviously didn't stay on the page long, or bought anything, it likely discounted your click.

Also if you checked your google adsense stats after clicking it, you flaged the IP of that place you clicked as your "home". = discounted.

NEVER EVER click your own ads from anywhere. Even edit HOSTS to prevent accidental clicks. Google pays more then anyone out there for contextual links, don't screw it up.

If you don't like googles payout (best in the biz) look elsewhere.

[jomaxx]

Since you obviously didn't stay on the page long

The OP said he stayed on the site VERY long.

...or bought anything, it likely discounted your click.

I find it doubtful that either of those conditions (especially not buying something, for obvious reasons) would cause Google not to charge the advertiser for a click.

Also if you checked your google adsense stats after clicking it

Come on, that seems unlikely. Possible, and amusing if true, but unlikely.

[donelson]

No, I only clicked once at the cybercafe (I am not trying to cheat the advertiser), and did not check my AdSense stats or anything.

I was just concerned at the recent drop in my revenue and wanted to try a MINIMAL TEST to see what happened... and found something that did concern me very much...

[trannack]

I just had a look at your site - I feel sure that Google would not like the placement of your links and adverts. They are intended to deceive. This is beyond blending. I suspect that you have a high number of "misaken" clicks, with people clicking the advert and then hitting the back button.

I suspect that although you asked G about placing the pictures above the adverts - you didn't actually show them what you had done afterwards. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see another of those "I've been ....." threads coming up.

[donelson]

I share your concerns...

But I emailed Google the website address when I had a pale blue border around the ads, and they replied that my layout has been checked and was okay.

Then Google later said they were allowing the "invisible border" as well a few months back.

Although our click-thru has almost doubled, and our pay-per-click has more than halved, I'd be happy to go back to the pale blue border layout, but I'm afraid that our pay-per-click would not recover and we'd be seriously down on revenue.

All-in-all, I wish I hadn't removed the pale blue border...

[trannack]

The difference would be that with the border the adverts are clearly adverts - without - they jus blend too well. This will result in increased clicks - but not in increased returns for the advertiser. Which could possibly result in smart-pricing. If I was you, I would contact Google - put your concerns foreward - explain what you did - and why, and ask if it needs to be returned to how it was.

Lets hope its not too late ....

[danimal]

>>>When did it occur to you that this would be smart to post about, on a site read by Google employees, with your site in your profile?<<<

umm, gee, perhaps someone will create a fake user name on various forums, with your url in it, and keep posting about how they have been clicking on their own website ads.

it seems rather logical that google can't use this forum to determine who owns what website... so chill out.

>>>I feel sure that Google would not like the placement of your links and adverts.<<<

his ad placement is not how we would do it, but the legitimacy of it is between the publisher and google, and he did notify them of what he had done...

on top of that, i don't recall seeing "blend too well" anywhere in the tos(?)

[BigDave]

it seems rather logical that google can't use this forum to determine who owns what website... so chill out.

Google knows that can happen, but they also have access to a hell of a lot of information that they could use to connect them. Such as the history of the profile, to communications between adsense and the publisher, and records of a click coming from an internet cafe in the last few days.

[miki99]

I'm also wondering why I had 12 clicks yesterday, and only got paid for 4. I've never seen this before. I know I didn't click on any of my own ads.

[donelson]

I'm also wondering why I had 12 clicks yesterday, and only got paid for 4. I've never seen this before. I know I didn't click on any of my own ads.

How do you know how many were paid for?

[miki99]

Well, I have url channels for all of my pages. And looking at a report for the 27th, the day in question, I had 13 clicks in all. On one page I had 9 clicks and made 0 cents for those. Very strange, I've never seen that.

[swa66]

Clicked on one of the AdSense ads on my website

I follow all the rules STRICTLY.

Please ... how can we take you serious after those two statements.

I for one agree the website in your profile is deceptive with a non-clickable picture right above the google ads that are colored in typical link color.

If Google actually does allow that, then the adwords advertisers would shy away from the content network rightfully.

So I strongly hope Google revises their position (assuming you did in fact get real approval for what you're doing). I'm not going to push it so far that they should ban you, but demand you change your ways significantly: yep that's what I'm calling for as what you're doing is bad for the reputation of the entire program.

[donelson]

So I strongly hope Google revises their position (assuming you did in fact get real approval for what you're doing). I'm not going to push it so far that they should ban you, but demand you change your ways significantly: yep that's what I'm calling for as what you're doing is bad for the reputation of the entire program.

Since this is approx revenue-neutral, then if I go back (which I'd prefer), I will then take a reduction in revenue. Are you going to pay for this?

If not, then I defer to my careful and up-front contacts with Google on this. If Google ask me to change my layout, I will *certainly* comply.

[BigDave]

From what you say, Google has not approved it.

As I understand it, you had the pictures above an ad with the border around it when it was reviewed. Is that correct?

At a later point you noticed that you could create an ad without a border, and since Google approves of ads without borders, you implemented it without checking the new setup with Google. Is that also correct?

If both of those are correct, that does not mean that Google has approved having pictures right above ads without a border.

[donelson]

If both of those are correct, that does not mean that Google has approved having pictures right above ads without a border.

Yes, you are right. It could be that I am taking a combination of two approved layouts, which might not be approved together.

Certainly, there is no indication that you cannot combine those two... But, I will consider it and probably put the border back, and hope that my CPC improves when my CTR drops...

[BigDave]

There is an indication that you cannot combine pictures with a borderless adsense block. Other people have been contacted by adsense and told to put a boarder around their adsense to make it clear that the pictures are not part of the ads.

Try doing a google search on [adsense border pictures undue] and doing a little reading.

[donelson]

I've put the border back, to the way it was when Google last checked it.

[joelgreen]

Well, I have url channels for all of my pages. And looking at a report for the 27th, the day in question, I had 13 clicks in all. On one page I had 9 clicks and made 0 cents for those. Very strange, I've never seen that.

Publishers are not payed for clicks on the "site targeted" ads (payed only for impressions). That may be the cause.

[trannack]

If I was you - having replaced the borders - I would now contact Google. Get re-confimation that they are happy with the site layout. Explain what you have done - and why. I think otherwise - if you have indeed been smart-priced because of the border/blending issue, they may re-review the site, which may result in increased earnings.

Good Luck - and I think the lesson to all is that if Google say something is OK - it applies to that situation and exactly how it appeared at that time. If you fundamentally change something - IE remove the border to better "blend" after they have given you the OK, it is perhaps worth asking them if it is acceptable before you get hit by smartpricing, which has probably been caused by over-blending.

[donelson]

I would now contact Google. Get re-confimation that they are happy with the site layout.

I've now contacted Google for advice.

If Google says I need EITHER the border, or the small pix, but not both, then perhaps I should use the borderless ads but without the small pix above them?

What are your opinions on the best technique:

-- Attention-getting pix plus ads with border, or

-- "Open Air" borderless ads with no attention-getting pix

Thanks.