Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I am wondering whether your income determines your fate with Google in cases of Invalid clicks. If you are low income, do they just cut their losses and ban you. At higher incomes, do they try to recover the money but allow you to remain in the short term.
So:
-What does everyone think? It makes sense from a business point of view.
-Has anyone else experienced a charge back yet?
-What is the likely fate of a site that has a significant charge back? Will they ban or penalise you after the money has been returned? (By penalise, I means things like harsher smart pricing, higher scrutiny of all clicks etc)?
I hope nobody here would claim they're an "employee" of Google in any useful sense.
My response is: get real. Google aren't a monopolist employer in Europe or anywhere else. They're not even a monopoly in the narrow field of contextual text ad serving. Neither are they "outsourcing" anything to you anyway. Why do you consider it necessary to cast yourself in the role of a victim?
Yup, even as I wrote those words I knew it was inevitable that somebody would try.
They also ignored my point or are to geographically challenged. Last I checked, Santa Clara, California is not in Germany.
People always want to frame things in a way that is overwhelmingly in their favor. But that isn't the way that courts work. As someone else mentioned, there is a huge difference between the sympathy you get for being disfigured in an accident, and the sympathy you get because you signed a contract and don't like that the terms keep you from buying the new ferrari that you had your eye on.
My response is: get real. Google aren't a monopolist employer in Europe or anywhere else. They're not even a monopoly in the narrow field of contextual text ad serving. Neither are they "outsourcing" anything to you anyway. Why do you consider it necessary to cast yourself in the role of a victim?
Just the other side of the all is so fantastic argument. :)
The truth mostly lies somewhere inbetween.
People always want to frame things in a way that is overwhelmingly in their favor. But that isn't the way that courts work. As someone else mentioned, there is a huge difference between the sympathy you get for being disfigured in an accident, and the sympathy you get because you signed a contract and don't like that the terms keep you from buying the new ferrari that you had your eye on.
With that attitude people would have never left the mines. Google should be big and ugly enough to listen to some criticism. There are good thing about the adsense program and severely annoying things. The Stockholm Syndrome approach hasn't helped anyone.
This payback issue has just added another insecurity. Great would be if at one stage, one could rely on adsense and not have 2 other jobs just in case Google decides to kick you out.
From what I have read here it's not that uncommon that publishers would like more security. In the end it would also be in Googles interest as publishers could/would be more committed.
Some people are just not self-reliant enough to make it without being a part of a social movement. Count me out, I'm not one of you.
I disagree that click fraud is difficult to explain. All that is needed is a lawyer who has some experience with Internet communications technology.
On the other hand click-fraud, and discriminating it among valid clicks is an expertise held primarily by one company: Google. Click-fraud is very complex and Google must defeat it to insure its very existence, so their lawyers have been working on it for years. If they actually go to court with a case I wouldn't want to be choosing the opposing counsel and paying that bill.
edit: corrected spellin'
[edited by: Andreals at 3:10 pm (utc) on Dec. 10, 2006]
G should not distribute the money until it is safe and in the clear. If this means they hold funds for 60 or 90 days, then so be it.
My sentiments exactly. As I posted in the $200K thread, surely the point of G delaying payment until the following month is to allow them time to verify whether the recorded clicks are valid or not. If there is any doubt in G's mind, payment should be withheld until such time as they've investigated.
If they pay out, then they have surely put their stamp of approval on the account and declared the clicks valid. To come along months later and announce they've changed their mind, without, seemingly, being prepared to provide the publisher with any evidence to back their claim, seems nonsensical.
You must decide: are you a social activist or are you a business person?
Is there a reason someone cannot be both when situations warrant it? Social activism has produced collective bargaining, safe workplace conditions, and other things.
Some people are just not self-reliant enough to make it without being a part of a social movement. Count me out, I'm not one of you.
OK, so you disagree with me. Fine. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm willing to wait until the situation reaches the courts, if it ever does. In the meantime, I'll continue to raise consciousness.
I disagree that click fraud is difficult to explain. All that is needed is a lawyer who has some experience with Internet communications technology.Perhaps you should hire one to post on this forum so we can all understand it. Fraud alone is pretty straightforward, it is deception for gain.
FWIW, I have contacted some lawyers who have worked in other areas of cyberlaw; they may comment on these threads.
On the other hand click-fraud, and discriminating it among valid clicks is an expertise held primarily by one company: Google. Click-fraud is very complex and Google must defeat it to insure its very existence, so their lawyers have been working on it for years. If they actually go to court with a case I wouldn't want to be choosing the opposing counsel and paying that bill.
It is easy to describe several ways that click fraud can be perpetrated. That is what I was referring to. It is somewhat more difficult to describe solutions, but there are some relatively straightforward arguments that can be presented to illustrate the practical difficulty of detecting (and preventing) all click fraud. Such arguments have already been made by members of the Internet technical community, such as Bruce Schneier and Lauren Weinstein, and will continue to be made as the issues become more publicly known. As an aside, these people have worked in technology and security long before Google came into existence.
Andrea
Best of luck with your crusade gregbo. I think there are more productive uses for your time but it appears you will not be deterred.
Ever heared of the way in the middle, between union terrorism and top down exploitation? Think grey ...
You must decide: are you a social activist or are you a business person?
Accepting contracts not in your favour isn't good business. ;) Do as your told or say nothing isn't also not good business, maybe a short term strategy for middle management. Sitting there cheering your bosses every move is also more an employees attitude.
Maybe today we have to accept these terms, but if one doesn't look for the slingshot in this David and Goliath scenario, one should maybe do the wise thing and try to fill out a Google job application form.
Matter of fact is, Google provides the best ad deal on the net.. but has a severly inefficient communication and information flow and a prehistoric business model. Why not mention it and hope that sometimes, someone clever reads it, or try to think of ways to make them listen.
One can of course also just sit there and swing Google pom poms and dream of the great business person one is. I doubt anyone in the adsense program is really that great in business, otherwise we would be doing something else I guess. ;)
Maybe one day Donald Trump will chuck his other businesses and bank solely on adsense.. You never know.
[edited by: mattg3 at 12:40 am (utc) on Dec. 11, 2006]
[edited by: encyclo at 1:48 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] #14 [/edit]
Ever heared of the way in the middle, between union terrorism and top down exploitation? Think grey ...
But I don't think gregbo will ever see a compromise, I think he's spinning his wheels and would be better off pursuing other interests. This $200K case is the only one we know about and we are not even sure how real it is...
Grey occurs as a compromise between extreme positions. The side that begins thinking grey loses.
I am still at odds though how accepting black in favour of the opposition fits into this economic strategy... unless it's a short term waiting process, to strike when the opposition gets weaker..
If one doen't change one's strategy at some point one will always be the pawn in the opponents game.
Ideally though you want your opponent to be a communicating partner though.
[edited by: mattg3 at 12:55 am (utc) on Dec. 11, 2006]
One can of course also just sit there and swing Google pom poms and dream of the great business person one is.
There is an element of luck in every success, Larry and Serge are lucky they weren't hit by a truck on their way to Stanford in 1997.
And laugh all the way to the bank.
But I like to laugh more. And one of the many things hindering this is the Google communication/information black hole.
G should not distribute the money until it is safe and in the clear. If this means they hold funds for 60 or 90 days, then so be it.
I do think there are valid questions and concerns over this issue, but that proposal, to the degree you were really serious at all, is a non-starter.
But I don't think gregbo will ever see a compromise, I think he's spinning his wheels and would be better off pursuing other interests. This $200K case is the only one we know about and we are not even sure how real it is...
I'm totally open to compromise. G, on the other hand, has taken, for the most part, a "my way or the highway" attitude. Thus, they have left those who dispute their claims no alternative but to sue.
I'd like to hear some of your ideas on a compromise.
I'd like to hear some of your ideas on a compromise.
That is why I'm trying to discourage you from this quixotic adventure, pick your fights more carefully and don't throw good money and energy after bad... I'm running out of clichés.
Spend your time building a popular site with optimized ads, live beneath your means, invest your money wisely. Stop and smell the roses, let other people tilt at windmills...
LOL, yeah right. Why don't we take a vote to see whether most publishers prefer that Google hold their earnings in escrow for an extra month or two? Personally I'll take the money now and deal with the rare possibility of chargeback if it ever arises.
I can't agree with this. What if you use the money as a down payment on something and you can't get it back? Sorry honey, we have to sell the house because Google claims we owe them money... sorry we'll have to move in with your parents until we sort things out.
How many offices fire people and ask for their monthly or yearly salaries back? It is completely ludicrous.
Second, if you are living off your AdSense income, what the hell are you doing using it for a big down payment? Big down payments usually come with big payments, and that is not the way to survive on what could best be described as an unpredictable income stream.
In both cases mentioned, the chargeback was less than 2 months income. Have you ever heard of the "6-month rule" when it comes to being self employed? You should have 6-months of living expenses put aside as readily available cash, for whatever might come up. This isn't just for chargebacks, it is for any of the thousands of other reasons end up in deep financial doo-doo as well.
I'm sorry, but "I already spent the money" is not a legal argument that holds any weight. About the only argument that has any sort of chance in court, is whether Google would have to provide you or a third party with more information about why those clicks were ruled invalid.
A symptom of this thread having degenerated into a pro/anti-Google slugfest....
I read the thing and got nothing from it but nothing
With the increased opportunity afforded to you as a proprietor you must also accept the risk. If you can't do that, get a job.
That is why I'm trying to discourage you from this quixotic adventure, pick your fights more carefully and don't throw good money and energy after bad... I'm running out of clichés.
What makes you sure that my arguments have no grounds? A lot of the "brick wall is a brick wall" aspect of this issue is that people are more afraid of being kicked out of AdSense than in contesting G's questionable practices. So G is more empowered by people's attitudes towards it than any actual control it holds.
hal12b your comments betray your outlook as an employee. You are *not* an employee, you are exposed to every ill wind that can affect any business. You need to reorient yourself to the reality of this.
With the increased opportunity afforded to you as a proprietor you must also accept the risk. If you can't do that, get a job.
I have a job, and a very successful one, but thanks for the advice.
