Forum Moderators: martinibuster
We ask that publishers not line up images and ads in a way that suggests a relationship between the images and the ads
I've been seeing this a lot lately as I've been browsing the web. I wonder if they'll start sending out warnings?
And this issue is not the same as blending. Blending is not about drawing undue attention to ads; to whit, it's about making the ads stand out as little as possible.
You are absolutely correct. [sarcasm@Google]Blending is obfuscating the ads so they do not stand out. Or the ad pretends it is part of the site. Or that it appears as not an advertisement and luring the user into clicking...[/sarcasm@Google]
Sorry, timster. I am flustered with Google. Although technically indeed they are different, but conceptually they are both methodologies to get a visitor to click. One by drawing attention to the advertisement, and the other is by hiding it amongst real content.
rbacal writes:
The unhappy people get mad because their attempts to skirt the edge of adsense policy get foiled. It's the same people who complain, each time one of their fave "avenues" gets blocked.
The images in that blog show examples where webmasters are clearly trying to be deceptive. I am one-hundred percent sure that adopting such techniques has always been frowned upon, but since most people need everything spelt out (including the obvious) google has now come out and stated "hey, if you keep tricking your site visitors, we'll just ban you and move on." They have small and large publishers who bring reliable leads and they're not going to risk the reputation of the entire network on a few publishers that are willing to sacrifice user-experience for revenue. Disagree? Then try to approach advertisers directly and see if they'll pay even a penny for the type of placement shown in those blogs. If they care at all about ROI/targetted traffic, then they'll say no.
They hint that they are going to be stricter in their interpretation, but much of the wording is the same as my understanding.
My understanding has been that they want a border if you have pictures that line up with the ads. Not spaces or lines. What do they say in this post?
Consider using a full border around your ads or changing your ad colors, for example.
This doesn't say that adding a border means that it is approved, but I suspect that it means that if they object, they will ask you to change it, instead of banning you.
if you are breaching this new rule what will happen?
This is not a new rule.
That sounded like Clinton!
The point I was making was that the policy doesn't say anything new.
They have a record of telling people not to try and trick people into clicking. They also have a record of telling people to put borders around ads when the pictures might be confusing. Pictures that draw "undue attention" to the ads have always been out whether or not the ads have a border.
There is no evidence that anything has changed. They only attempted to clarify the situation, and muddled it in the process.
AdSenseAdvisor in that same thread:placing images above AdSense ads is not necessarily prohibited by program policies. However, depending on the method of implementation this could be considered ‘encouraging users to click on ads’
So what is acceptable? They gave examples of what's unacceptable, but not of what's acceptable and I'm still a bit confused.
Saratech35, I don't think it's that complicated. They don't want images near the ads that look like they somehow relate to the invididual ads. They don't care in the least about other images on the page, unless somehow the images are drawing undue attention to the ads. So, per their examples, images that line up with individual ad elements are a definite no-no, along with images that somehow induce the viewer to click. A big flashing arrow, "Support our Sponsors" embedded in an image, etc. won't be looked on favorably.
If the images are a logical part of your page structure and have nothing to do with the ads, you should have no problems. If you have to ask the question, the implication is that you ARE trying to improve CTR by image positioning. I don't think it's easy to be clever enough to position images in a way that makes visitors click more and also convinces a Google quality tech that the page is perfectly normal. Hence, image games are likely to be increasingly risky.
Whatson, you've asked a couple of times what the penalty for not removing images would be. Do you really want to find out? If your Adsense revenue isn't important enough to worry about, you might leave them up as an experiment and let us know if you merely get prodded to remove them or if your account is closed and your accrued revenue lost. ;) (I'm kidding, I don't really recommend doing that.)
I think it's important to realize that Google is made up of individual people, and the fact that one Adsense rep didn't object to a particular ad configuration doesn't mean that policies can't be clarified or changed outright. In my experience in dealing with big companies, practices can be all over the map until an issue escalates to a higher level of management, at which point an edict comes down to clarify what's OK and what isn't.
I made a thick #cccccc line between the image and the adblock, that swung it with the adsense rep in my case. They are very concerned that it is obvious what is the local website and what is an adsense ad.
how could giving specific examples of what is illegal muddle anything up?
since you find it so confusing, perhaps we can help clarify it for you? what exactly do you not understand?
Forget about the thickness and color of separator between image and ad.
Why is "misleading" user with an image is not appropriate, but "misleading" by blending is, and encouraged?
AdSenseAdvisor in that same thread:placing images above AdSense ads is not necessarily prohibited by program policies. However, depending on the method of implementation this could be considered ‘encouraging users to click on ads’
So what is acceptable? They gave examples of what's unacceptable, but not of what's acceptable and I'm still a bit confused.
Paraphrasing in other words what they have mentioned in several occasions (for example on JenSense [jensense.com] and on emails to publishers), there should be a clearly visible distinction between the ads and nearby page content (images, text, etc.), since the page content is not served by Google and the advertisers.
It's different in the case of the experimental [jensense.com] image+text ad units [problogger.net] that both Google and Yahoo have been testing (in the case of Yahoo, on the CNN [us.cnn.com] US Edition for over a year now), given that for those units they can select and serve suitable images, not confusing for users. It seems clear that this new kind of image+text ad unit (a mix of the old image ads and text ads) reduces ad blindness and increases ad reading, keeping conversions if done properly, that is without confusing users about the specific topic of the ad.
On the required distinction between ads and content, see for example Google's search result pages. The ads are blended with a style similar to search results, but there is a clear differentiation: border and space for the ads on the right, and a different background color for the ads on the top.
Of course, as all of us know, in addition to that distinction, undue attention from texts like "click here" or images of arrows, etc., are excluded in all cases.
Normal site text and images are a different matter. They have said on the official AdSense blog [adsense.blogspot.com]:
Does this mean I can't place ads on pages with images?You can definitely place Google ads on pages containing images -- just make sure that the ads and images are not arranged in a way that could easily mislead or confuse your visitors. For example, if you run a stock photography site with a catalog of thumbnail images, don't line the ads up with the thumbnails in a way that could be misleading. Consider using a full border around your ads or changing your ad colors, for example.
As AdSenseAdvisor [webmasterworld.com] said on this forum, when in doubt on a specific design, we should ask AdSense Support directly.
[edited by: Juan_G at 9:09 pm (utc) on Dec. 20, 2006]
:)
Play the game safe, or else loose ur money.
Should be interesting. At least one of the participants in this thread has done exactly what is described by google as unacceptable, using thumbnails despite being told by a number of people that it's deceptive.
I'd say the "clarification" didn't clarify much.
Does this mean I can't place ads on pages with images?
You can definitely place Google ads on pages containing images -- just make sure that the ads and images are not arranged in a way that could easily mislead or confuse your visitors. For example, if you run a stock photography site with a catalog of thumbnail images, don't line the ads up with the thumbnails in a way that could be misleading.
Ha! I know exactly which stock photo website Google was talking about! I just went to visit it and see if changes had been made. Several weeks ago, I visited the stock photo site, page one of the SERPs (PR7), looking for free stock photos, and I thought it was crossing the line. Its layout was almost visually identical to the layout example Google now says is banned. It had lots of small images about 60 x 60 pixels next to the Google text ads.
After reading Google's official clarification, and all preceding posts in this 100-post thread, I think the issue is: the misuse of small images as if they are individual hyperlink icons (like thumbnails).
Most site navigation uses text or icons or both. If both are used together, typically the icons are small images adjacent to the text, with the icon appearing to the left of the text. When both text and icons are used, and both are links, website visitors naturally assume or tend to think they are interchangeable, i.e., the text link to the right of an icon is intra-site navigation, not an ad, or a link to another (extra) site.
Do you remember when "images next to ads" was the "hot new thing" in Adsense? It seemed ridiculous at the time, but a lot of people bought into it.
I take it to be a clarification mostly about icons simulating navigation links. As in one image for one ad (1:1 ratio). The 1:1 scheme is so silly. Why would any webmaster do that unless it was to create the perception of a direct link between the image and the link, knowing full well it is common for small images next to text to be navigation icons.
If more clarification is needed, Google can simply give visual examples of other ad sizes and its position on them regarding what is misleading. I don't think that one large image with a skyscraper is going to cause the same confusion, because it has a link:image ratio of about 4:1.
Your site should have images and the images should have something to do with the content, and the ads are content-based. Just stay away from one image per link. I don't even think you have to worry about blending if you steer clear of small images in icon styles.
p/g
and if the users think, that it is not an ad at all, you have done even more wrong. users have the legitimate right to know if they are clicking on a content link or an ad.
what's the combined strategy?
1. attract attention, create a visual impact:
bad practice: disguise pictures as part of the ads
good practice: make the ads visible above the fold in the heat zone
2. camouflage, blend the ads:
bad practice: disguise the ad/pic combo as content
good practice: fit the ads nicely into your web design
and there we have the connection between placing images and blending (with shady motives, at least). these two are not too far away in case of decepting the visitor.
what's the consequence of the bad practice? loads of annoyed users, devaluation of clicks, low conversions, annoyed advertisers, smartpricing, loss of reputation for the whole network.
greedy webmasters remember one thing: it's NOT about squeezing every click out of your websites, it's about generating solid conversions for the advertisers through user satisfaction. that's what keeps you alive, not fooling your visitors.
