Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just now when I logged in I got a new "Google AdSenseTM Online Standard Terms and Conditions" page from AdSense
"The Google AdSense banners on this site may serve cookies and/or web beacons. Our site has no access to these or control over them."
I don't have an existing privacy policy because my site doesn't have any members, it's just a place where I publish my content.
[google.com...]
RJ
Google uses cookies and other technologies to enhance your online experience and to learn about how you use Google services in order to improve the quality of our services.
So -- they don't use the term "web beacons" in their privacy policy. How can we be required to do so?
YM
ASA: Can you clear this up? I'd really like to be able to link to Google's privacy policy for Google's ads.
There are several references to ASA in this thread. When was the last ASA sighting around these parts?
FarmBoy
Will the privacy policy page have to be linked on every page on the site?
I assume we would have to have it linked at least from every page using AdSense.
It looks like we have until May to approve the new agreement so I would think we have that much time to get the privacy policy up as well.
I'm hoping that Google will take a closer look at the privacy policy thing before that so I'm going to wait and see.
Where does the every page thing come from? Surely a link from the home page would suffice?
Not everybody enters a Web site through the home page. If the purpose of the requirement is to cover Google's keester, then it obviously makes sense to have a "Privacy Policy" link from every page.
I still think it would be smarter for Google to have a "Privacy Policy" link of its own from each ad unit, but May is a long way off, so we all have plenty of time to wait for clarification and advice from Google.
Maybe ASA was outsourced to India also?
LOL
I still think it would be smarter for Google to have a "Privacy Policy" link of its own from each ad unit
That's a good idea but I wonder if that might have a negative effect on click-throughs, or a perceived one and like with related searches there could be a publisher rebellion (of course that's kind of what there is now!).
I still think it would be smarter for Google to have a "Privacy Policy" link of its own from each ad unitThat's a good idea but I wonder if that might have a negative effect on click-throughs, or a perceived one and like with related searches there could be a publisher rebellion (of course that's kind of what there is now!).
Perhaps not a rebellion, but certainly a good deal of angst.
It is an interesting dillema. I am not using or serving persistent cookies or web beacons. I have not been asked, nor given permission for Google to serve cookies or web beacons from my pages. As I posted earlier, I don't see anything in the terms and conditions that specifies that I must give permission for Google to do this.
I am not and can not be responsible for what a site that I link to does, and our privacy policy clearly states this.
Being required to alter our privacy policy to cover what another site may, or may not do would seem to imply some responsibilty for, and exposure to, what another site chooses to do. I am very uncomfortable with that.
I like the $$$. But, adsense only provides play money. I have never relied on it for anything more serious. I am leaning towards playing a little less if these conditions stick.
We have had this in our Privacy Policy, Cookies Usage and Legal Information for at least 12-13 years and no one worries about it one jot.
We have this information specifically on our .info company site and for the whole of 2007 from millions of page views from 170+ sites only 1,963 unique visitors serving 5,679 pages bothered to read any of the information.
That's a small portion of one day's metrics.
It's a non-issue.
From what I have been told many people were viewing to copy our legal notices!
The issue of web beacons is more troubling than cookies. It is a fundamental change in the adsense model as I understand it.
We began with Google offering to share ad revenue in return for using site real estate.
Now it appears to evolved into Google offering a share of ad revenue in return for site real estate AND the ability to actively track one's visitors.
Sure, they could do a lot of tracking before, but it was more passive. Web beacons can potentially be quite invasive. If Google is going to use these, why is it our responsibility to inform visitors? We, after all, are not the ones that are placing them or benefiting from the data so collected!
So, our choice is to keep suckling at the teats of G, or to wean ourselves and find other sustenance.
I ask this because there are some seo concerns with repeating the same link text on hundreds of pages ad nauseum. It would be nice to simply make it a gif text.
Maybe ASA was outsourced to India also?
LOL
Or maybe ASA is being replaced by a bot. RoboASA
I ask this because there are some seo concerns with repeating the same link text on hundreds of pages ad nauseum. It would be nice to simply make it a gif text.
Sure. Then you will recieve a threatening email warning you that you haven't put up your Google privacy policy, because their automated quality control systems couldn't spider it.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 10:21 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2008]
They know that for a long time already!
Absolutely IMO, any hint of something negative, confusing, or different is a bad idea. "Don't Make Me Think"
Its a little early to start worrying, but I wonder how G will confirm compliance? Would it be a facet of spidering, or limited to human-eyes reveiew?
They'll pick out someone here at WW who is bad-mouthing Google but not making much money for Google and shut down their account for non-compliance. That person will post about it and scare everyone else into submission.
I ask this because there are some seo concerns with repeating the same link text on hundreds of pages ad nauseum.
There are sites that have the same copyright notice, "About" links, etc. on the bottom of each of thousands of pages. Adding a "Privacy" link shouldn't create any problems.
FarmBoy
Strangely the entire text of the T+C was in a different language (not English) but the options below were in English, as are my account settings. There was no otpion to change the text to English.
I am pleased ww has once again allowed me a better insight into what I agreed to.
Not everybody enters a Web site through the home page. If the purpose of the requirement is to cover Google's keester, then it obviously makes sense to have a "Privacy Policy" link from every page.
Indeed. But is it a requirement of the new TOS? I would rather not have to implement this on 1,000 static html pages. So the questions remains, have Google specified that this must be the case?
There are sites that have the same copyright notice, "About" links, etc. on the bottom of each of thousands of pages. Adding a "Privacy" link shouldn't create any problems.
You haven't been 950'd, have you?
Too many sites with footers have been killed in the last year. Adding new footer links is treated differently by Google than tolerating existing ones. Go ahead and add new footer links to a 1,000-page site and see what happens.
1,000 new links to any new page, especially thin ones, makes Google very suspicious. Frankly, Google hasn't said it will overlook Privacy pages when it tries to assassinate sites with a 950 penalty.
Privacy notices are a complete waste of time. They don't prove anything and they don't guarantee the site's owners are going to abide by them. They're not self-regulating. I've never had a privacy policy page on any of my sites in the last ten years. Frankly, it hasn't stopping millions of visitors from viewing millions of pages.
When was the last time I looked at a site's privacy policy before using it? Never.
p/g
Too many sites with footers have been killed in the last year. Adding new footer links is treated differently by Google than tolerating existing ones. Go ahead and add new footer links to a 1,000-page site and see what happens.
I do imagine that thousands - no, make it tens of thousands of sites will be adding a "privacy policy" link to their footers in the very near future. If Google 950's even a small fraction of them, Google's AdSense inventory will fall drastically. I don't think it'll take long for their PhD guys to notice the correlation (not that PhD is required for connecting the dots in this case).
Too many sites with footers have been killed in the last year. Adding new footer links is treated differently by Google than tolerating existing ones. Go ahead and add new footer links to a 1,000-page site and see what happens.
So? Use 'rel="nofollow" in the link code.
...if you don't accept by May 25, that you won't be "able to login to adsense and make changes to your account", NOT necessarily that you won't be able to still be an adsense publisher...
Further down on the page is the following:
Note: If you choose not to accept these Terms and Conditions, you will not be able to continue using AdSense. You can resume access by logging in and accepting these Terms and Conditions by May 25, 2008
