Forum Moderators: martinibuster
This is a usefull option to against those proxy sites.
Btw I'm still looking for another option which can "Disable Revenue Sharing". In this way those f$%^&* hackers can leave me alone.
I would have thought such an option would be under My Account > Account Settings
Anyway, nothing here.
FarmBoy
There are unauthorized sites that have displayed ads using your AdSense publisher ID within the last week. Please click here to view them.
Some of these sites are IPs of Google cache and two are proxy sites.
[google.com...]
Where you allow third party sites to host your AdSense? Like Blogger.com?
It is called "Site Authentication".
Is that this?
Use this section to allow the AdSense crawler to access pages that are behind a login
The team thinks this'll help address a number of issues we've heard feedback on, and we hope to release it to all publishers if the testing goes smoothly.
-ASA
Although you recently banned the majority of the adsense/adwords arbitrage sites (not before time and a HUGE improvement to everything advertiser/google/publisher I might add!) I yesterday removed the 200 old ones I had filtered.
Today I set about re-checking. I have 100+ of the same spam/mfa/arbitrage crowd so far in the filter and I only spent an hour looking. Now they are the same advertisers just using other networks ads. This may well be better for both publishers and advertisers as well as googles credibility but...
The same low quality user experience is there. So I try to filter anyway. I dont want my visitors to think I put these links on my pages.
But most are using the same design and 30 or so domains at a time even in my small niche. It takes hours of work to find them all and then the filter is too full to add the next 50 or so that you find with the same layout and design a few days later.
When can we have better tools or a bigger filter?
[edited by: Genuine1 at 12:02 am (utc) on June 15, 2007]
But most are using the same design and 30 or so domains at a time even in my small niche. It takes hours of work to find them all and then the filter is too full to add the next 50 or so that you find with the same layout and design a few days later.
BTW, holiday or seasonal favorites - like decorations, wedding season,, etc. also cause inappropriate and wasteful specific ads running where they're completely irrelevant. Pages offering general, non-specific all-purpose widgets will bomb if ads are running specifically for wedding widgets. General "people's" apparel pages will bomb if ads are running for dog sweaters - and yes, I did once have that happening. And so do completely irrelevant, very specific widget ads run year-round, to the point where I'll have to take Adsense off the widget pages - which are VERY on topic for the "general" widgets and DO convert, based on a history of sales generated from affiliate links.
Pages that have good potential for converting for advertisers can get killed by inappropriate ad targeting - hence, we know our theme and target audience and should have better filtering capabilities. It would be better for us and definitely for advertisers (who make far more by acquiring new customers than we make for the click), and for the effectiveness of Google's program on the content network.
...and authorizing only a specific list of sites to display their ads. This is separate from the existing Site Authentication feature.
Will someone who has seen this elaborate?
Does AdSense provide a list of potential advertisers (sites?) similar to a Preview Tool display and then the publisher can check off which ones he/she wants to appear?
FarmBoy
Will someone who has seen this elaborate?Does AdSense provide a list of potential advertisers (sites?) similar to a Preview Tool display and then the publisher can check off which ones he/she wants to appear?
FarmBoy
I do not have the feature. But what I think AS Adviser means is that the publisher can dictate to AS which sites he places his/her code on or not.
In other words if you place your code on three different sites then you could tell G that you knowingly publish on those sites. Then if G comes across a site that is using your AS code it may raise questions about it.
Glad to see AdSense seriously considering this as it will go a long ways in calming the nerves of those of us who see the lack of such registration as very problematic.
And 4th is called
steal my content . com <--- ban this site using Google server side black listing.
Many site steals content with AS code. This will avoid those problem.
I've seen a few threads lately about hackers changing pub_ID codes, IT people surreptitiously placing their own IDs on corporate sites, and the like. A flag that raises the alarm when a different pub_ID is used on a site could be helpful.
Ann
1. we can allow only our site to display code
2. we can now have a stat on who might be using our code out there
any word on when full rollout will commence?
Although you recently banned the majority of the adsense/adwords arbitrage sites
Are you sure about that?
FarmBoy
There isn't - and that's the problem. Having your domains registered would at least say to AdSense that any domains not in your list are bogus and all clicks, page impressions etc. coming from outside of it should be dealt with accordingly.
I'd also like to be able to register my IP and/or MAC addresses as well.
[edited by: Play_Bach at 4:34 pm (utc) on June 15, 2007]
What was the guarantee that a crook would not place your ads on a "bad" website to get you banned or at least in trouble?
There was actually a big stink about back in September of last year, where some users felt this is what had happened to them, and due to the total lack of transparency in the program they had no way to verify it and try and get their accounts reinstated. It was determined that anyone could get anyone else banned from AdSense just by putting AdSense code with that users pub_id on a site that violated the AdSense TOS, no invalid clicks needed. Leave it up there, and if no one else reports it, report it after a month or so.
Kudos to the AdSense team... it only took you nine months to even start a beta program that might help with this issue.
Quick question though... even though you might not be legally bound to do so, do you think that perhaps re-evaluating some of those cancelled accounts over the last year might be the "right thing to do", now that you admit it could have been a problem all along?
-Michael
In other words if you place your code on three different sites then you could tell G that you knowingly publish on those sites. Then if G comes across a site that is using your AS code it may raise questions about it.
To clarify - yes, this feature would authorize certain sites to display ad code with your publisher ID, as Visit Thailand and iwannano1 describe, not as an advertiser review tool.
even though you might not be legally bound to do so, do you think that perhaps re-evaluating some of those cancelled accounts over the last year might be the "right thing to do"
Any publisher who thinks he/she's been the victim of sabotage at any point should certainly contact us following the directions here:
[google.com...]
-ASA
Any publisher who thinks he/she's been the victim of sabotage at any point should certainly contact us following the directions here:
[google.com...]That deals with invalid clicks. When I tried to find out about where impressions that were not coming from any URLs that I have in my URL Channels were coming from (which should cover everywhere *I* have my AdSense code) they kept telling me to send in my logs for any suspicious activity I noticed. I informed them that the thing that made it suspicious was that they appeared to be coming from somewhere else other than my site, and my logs would not actually show anything.
It took six emails to get the "specialist" to understand this. The advice I got was:
Add Google Analytics
Review my traffic logs
Add Google Analytics (again)
Was told again that clicks were monitored (in response to me saying it wasn't clicks I was worried about)I am a very patient person, and very good at getting my point across, but I'm guessing that the kind of replies I got would have frustrated most people into giving up, and with bannings you don't even have the option of a volley of emails like that (from what I understand, anyways).
My understanding is that people who get banned get exactly one appeal, and if the reason they are being banned is due to a site that is displaying their AdSense code being in violation, they are not told which site that is (I know I was told that letting me know which sites were running my AdSense code would give away proprietary info, which is makes zero sense). Can those who were banned from that at least get a second appeal now, and be allowed to know which site it was that got them banned?
-Michael
Of course, since they should have had google analytics running. tee hee.
It is worse than dealing with Dell support. And That is saying something.
Does anyone with 1/2 a brain ever review G's support responses on a random basis? (nope)
G needs a Quality Initiative.
Can those who were banned from that at least get a second appeal now, and be allowed to know which site it was that got them banned?
From the complete lack of response, is it safe to assume that the answer to that question was a "no"...?
-Michael
From the complete lack of response, is it safe to assume that the answer to that question was a "no"...?
I don't think anybody knows.
I JUST had a case where someone copied one of my sites (including my pub-id) onto an old domain. With this tool, I would have been alerted to it immediately!
I wonder about one thing though: Will the tool be smart enough to allow the Google Cache as an authorized publisher domain without my telling it?
For some really odd strange, stupid reason, AdSense doesn't look at the URL of a Google search cache request and decode it to understand that it already knows about the cached page. Otherwise it would know exactly what ads to place on the page instead of the random ones that I see when visiting a cache version.
So I worry that if AdSense is unable to understand that the Google IP in a URL for cache requests should be parsed for the original URL, that they won't automatically also look to the original URL in the cache request to determine domain authority for publishing.
ASA?
