Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The reason I ask is that the examples they give show images that are related to the text ads. Their example of what not to do shows images of fruit next to ads related to fruit.
What if you use images that are just a mix of colors, no real objects, next to the ads. The images have no relation to the content of the text ads? Is this OK?
Is it really true that google does not want you to put even generic images next to google text ads?
And, in the policy clarification of December of 2006 [adsense.blogspot.com] they have explained the reason (that is, to prevent user confusion): "If your visitors believe that the images and the ads are directly associated, or that the advertiser is offering the exact item found in the neighboring image, they may click the ad expecting to find something that isn't actually being offered."
The reason I ask is that the examples they give show images that are related to the text ads. Their example of what not to do shows images of fruit next to ads related to fruit.
If we look carefully, the images are: an apple next to a "citrus" ad, a banana next to a "grapefruit" ad, an orange next to a "plums" ad, and a pear next to a "holiday fruit" (i.e. baskets) ad. Hence, user confusion.
What if you use images that are just a mix of colors, no real objects, next to the ads. The images have no relation to the content of the text ads? Is this OK?
Well, I don't know about that particular case. It would be something to ask to AdSense Support.
There was a related thread [webmasterworld.com] on the recent image policy clarification.
What if you use images that are just a mix of colors, no real objects, next to the ads. The images have no relation to the content of the text ads? Is this OK?
To put it in more general terms, you want to put graphics there to draw attention to the ads, which is the exact same reason why Google wants you NOT to do it. I'd definitely show Google a mockup before going down the road.
About drawing undue attention, this phrase was used in previous policies for texts such as "please click on the ads", and for images pointing to ads (arrows, etc.). (See for instance the old thread Is it ok to use image of hand pointing at AdSense? [webmasterworld.com]).
For the different case of images closely united to ads, Support has talked of misleading or confusing visitors about the specific topic of the ads, also in the recent image policy clarification (December 2006).
In the current AdSense Policies [google.com] (from January 2007), I think the following points refer to the first case, drawing undue attention:
And the following, to the second case, user confusion:
For doubtful designs with site images near ads, in a similar way to the already mentioned old guidelines [jensense.com] of August of 2005 about visible borders "to make it clear that the images are not being served by Google on behalf of the advertisers", the new guidelines [adsense.blogspot.com] of December of 2006 keep requesting a clear distinction between ads and nearby site images, in order to prevent any user confusion.
For these cases, Support recommends: "Consider using a full border around your ads or changing your ad colors, for example." That is to say, it's necessary enough differentiation to make it clear that any nearby site images are not part of the ads, for example by having the ad unit in its own box (full borders or different background color). They also mention that "If the ads and the images appear to be associated, inserting a small space or a line between the images and ads will not make the implementation compliant."
As always, I think it is important to repeat that -like AdSenseAdvisor [webmasterworld.com] said on this forum- when in doubt on a specific design we should ask AdSense Support directly.
What if you use images that are just a mix of colors, no real objects, next to the ads. The images have no relation to the content of the text ads? Is this OK?
Why do you want to do that? To get clicks? Or increase the quality of your page design?
In the old days, circa 1995, many sites used icons which were identical, next to text links, in a column, repeating small icons. They were not real objects with discernible meaning like a photo, but they saved downloading time. Would visitors be likely to interpret the images as icons or possible icons? That's the issue.
p/g
