Forum Moderators: martinibuster
If the person selects a reason, that's valuable information to me - knowing why the person no longer wants my newsletter.
I wonder if it wouldn't be beneficial to Google to have 3 or 4 reasons listed whenever a publisher adds a URL to the filter?
If the publisher indicates it is for competitve purposes, Google can ignore it.
But if the publisher indicates it is because of a misleading ad, MFA landing page, etc., it could trigger a quick review to see if the landing page meets quality criteria.
FarmBoy
Now that's a good way for G to leverage the publisher's whack-a-mole efforts.
Your dedication to making AdSense work better for publishers is encouraging. Alas, I fear your suggestions are falling on deaf ears.
"If an AdWords publisher makes a suggestion in the woods, and no one from Google is around to hear it, did he/she make a sound?"
I definitely feel G listens carefuly to comments on the forum. Last few weeks there have been dramatic changes w.r.t. MFA/Arbitraging/Landing page quality.
New tools for advertisers have already started rolling out.
It won't surprise me if some new tools for publishers are also around the corner.
The time for easy money for arbitraging sites is definitely over.
It won't surprise me if some new tools for publishers are also around the corner.
I'm looking forward to it. We don't need much, just some basic info about and control over the ads on our sites, that's all... :D
[ ] I feel the landing page is violating Adsense TOS.
Such an array of check boxes would be very valuable information for Google. But the fact that they (apparently) did not take the time to make use of the existing filter lists makes me wonder whether they would utilize such a statistic to identify the black sheep.
(this should be the default behavior - I can't imagine why it takes so long for the filter to take effect...)
:D
[x] Block all this sucker's sites, relatives, neighbors, and dog's account too.
[x] Block all this sucker's sites, relatives, neighbors, and dog's account too.
I thought of this as well, maybe not with this exact wording... ;-)
But seriously, we should try to give the Googlers some ideas for quick fixes that can really improve their understanding of publishers. The "block all ads from this advertiser" would of course we highly welcome, but I guess it will take ages to arrive (unless some of the weakling competitors implements such a feature into an overall publisher-friendly system). I can hear the moaning from The Plex already - "We can't implement this for technical reasons. We need to have an engineer on this - but the programmers are too busy buying houses in Silicon Valley. Too resource hungry!"
Let's focus on baby steps and quick fixes. Eventually we will arrive where we wanted to go!
Most of the MFA's even break adsense TOS, so there should also be a reason of TOS violation as well. At least that would flag google to look at the sites.
