Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My website is about an IT topic, in which I have some expertise. I started this website, just because I knew about the topic and started to write about it.
So, everything started just for promotion. I already had adwords account, because I was promoting some affiliate sites, some very tiny ones. Then I decided to create a campaign to promote this new website, and throw like $5 bucks a day out of my pocket. A month later, I signed for Adsense, so there was as point where I was running both, and the adsense earnings somehow compensated my adwords spending.
As time passes, the Adsense earnings overpassed my Adwords spending and somehow this resulted in a "business model" (please note the sarcastic use of quotes).
There were good times, in 2006, a peak, but then profits went down, and down, and down, mainly because the QS on adwords. I didn't care too much, because my website was good, and I was getting lots of free links from blogs and forums, so I was getting free organic visitors, and compensated the always increasing adwords costs.
At the beginning of this month, the Quality Score thing practically erased my campaigns by increasing 99% of my keywords to $10.00, and the only ones surviving were those 4 years old affiliate campaigns, which by the way, have all keywords in "great" quality.
Then, I had a few email interchange with an Adwords representative about this last event, and I'm quite sure this was the one that triggered a manual revision and got my adsense account down.
After these three years, my website grew a lot and it is somehow well known in its niche. I get like 500 visitors a day, free of charge, from the SERPS.
Also, there are like 150 people who regularly sent press releases for products related to this IT niche. I mention this so you have an idea, that I'm talking about a REAL website, with real people reading and getting help and useful information.
I know there are histories about people getting theirs accounts back, at least, I've read about 7 or 8 in this three years of reading webmasterworld every day. But those were cases about "invalid clicks", which turned to be a false statements, so, Google give them theirs accounts back.
So, the main reason to post this here, and ask this here publicly, is if you know cases from people getting the "your business model is not a good fit" that has appealed and get their adsense account back.
It is your AdSense account that was terminated not your Adwords account. So the problem is with your site, not your practicing arbitrage, and this is where you should look.
we need to put things in perspective here..
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
As you can see, it is NOT prohibited to drive adWords traffic to sites with adSense as long as they comply with Google webmaster and landing page guidelines.
Ads the Op has gotten a link to adWords policy, it seems he has somehow violated the landing page guidelines.
I wanted to say, it seems OP has somehow violated the google adWoords Landing page guidelines.
It is like the other guy said, why not canceling your adwords account instead? After all your "abusing" if any the Adwords weakness(buying cheap traffic), not Adsense (you are not making people to click).
FischerMX, if I were in your position, I'd privately find three or four pair of knowledgeable eyeballs, who aren't friends or relatives or co-workers (so they won't be afraid to tell you what they think) and have them go over my site with a fine toothed comb, and see if they can see something I couldn't. It's always my position that we all put so much into our own sites that we can't possibly see them as objectively as we maybe should.
your business model is not a good fit for the adsense program
Is that "all" that was offered as a reason for account cancellation?
Without further identification of business practices I find the statement a bit "Orwellian". A "death sentence" that leaves the condemned - and onlookers - to wonder exactly what the offense against the State breeds fear, uncertainty and doubt - FUD - not confidence. UD has historically been ascribed to Microsoft, not Google, "as a strategy". There have been many "short term WebmasterWorld members" who have posted here about their "mystifying banning" whom I have given little credence to. Your presence here, at WebmasterWorld, as a participaing member leads me to give your story - and mystification - credence.
fischermx, it appears that your "business model" issue had to do with "driving traffic" to the website and not on-page issues. Otherwise G would have said so. Yet, it needs to be asked: Have you made any recent changes to design, layout, etc?
Have you been driving "international traffic" to a website that was calculated to draw in U.S. IT vendor ads that were directed to U.S. businesses?
Did you recently do anything to increase traffic via link building that might be considered "less than quality"?
It would be interesting to know the origins of your non-paid traffic and your website's link profile. Has there been any "interesting" link building or other traffic building activity recently? A push of some kind?
Was there any measure of "conceptual clash" between the embedded message or promise of your Adword ads and the content on your webpages? Ergo, the quality score issues? For example, my favorite Adwords ads are those that implicitly promise to take me/clicker/visitor to a website where all questions will be answered. Instead of landing at a website with the answer(s) I arrive at a "website" that is an Adsense arbitrage page laden with Adsense ads - preferably of the high value PPC type. (Classic arbitrage.)
Is driving traffic to pages that are little more than re-publications of newswires really "an Adsense friendly 'business model'"? (Maybe one eWeek is enough?) Perhaps this is simply an emerging judgment call by Adsense, that advertisers don't deem ads on pages that are little more than reprocessed and repurposed newswires to be a good investment of their advertising dollars?
My guess, based upon several years of reading your posts, is that there are many many many folks whose "offense" is far worse than your's. Otherwise, you wouln't have been posting for 3 years. However, did anything change in the last few months? Any movement - a little sliding - towards the dark side? As the profits began to creep down with your increasing traffic costs did you begin to rely upon other means and methods to help close the profit drop? I have to ask. I hope you understand that.
If you are here to help others avoid a similar fate it would be helpful if you might outline how your business practices changed over the course of the 6+/- months before you received the dreaded notice.
What, if anything, changed concerning your business practices during the last 6 months, besides the increasing PPC costs?
We're here to support you. Please accept my questions as "exploratory, not accusatory". Asking probing questions is what I do, professionally, but you needn't answer them since you haven't filed a lawsuit. ;) However, in a sense, you have "sued" or made a claim against Google in the court of public opinion. Therefore - if you want a full and fair hearing, and all the support we can bring to bear in reaching a just outcome - it's likely in your's and everyone's interest that all doubts be resolved in favor of laying out every stinking little fact . . even those facts that you may have concluded don't, couldn't or shouldn't matter and therefore needn't be brought to our attention.
If traffic from Looksmart is enough to get one banned then Google at least ought to say that - before banning anyone "for the offense of buying traffic from Looksmart".
[edited by: Webwork at 1:35 pm (utc) on May 1, 2008]
"for the offense of buying traffic from Looksmart"
This was what really made me think. These poor quality 'traffic generators' send nothing but bot and very poor 'useless' traffic. However if Google was banning you for this reason, they would have kept all your earnings as illegetimate. So it really makes me think that it was something else..
The other point Webwork made w.r.t buying international traffic for advertisers selling primarily in the US also makes a little sense. But then the ads should not be displayed to this audience..by google. (unless the advertisers goofed up, with incorrect adWord campaigns) and maybe, complained to G ?
Could be anything really. Maybe just a 'novice' adSense 'expert'( at big G) who just took some 'initiative'. God help us with guys with incomplete knowledge and information and unfortunately there are many of those..everywhere in the world.
Maybe just a 'novice' adSense 'expert'
I would like to believe that the decision making process of banning, except for bold-face violators, is a multi-stage and multi-person process - especially in the case of publishers who have been approved for several years.
IF the "business model issue" was "the content model", i.e., reprocessing or re-purposoing newswires as "primary content", then perhaps the solution would be to 1) state clearly, in Adsense policy, that such re-purposing is unacceptable (without express consent, given in rare cases); and, 2) to "warn" the longstanding member that a "change in policy" makes the repurposing or recycling on such "content" unaccpetable or against policy => "So, take down the ads on those pages or be banned, thank-you very much".
Using "business model" as a reason to terminate is a bit too vague. I hope there's more forthcomming from both fischermx and Google.
I'd rather Google or AdsenseAdvisor participate in a handful of "banning threads" as "object lessons" - teach what was wrong, how it came about, etc. - versus simply having a longstanding publisher report "I've been banned and the reasons aren't entirely clear".
Of course, such "teach by object lesson cases" would have to be chosen carefully. They would have to be "gray area" cases where the banning would be justified BUT the reason "for the lesson" would be to help demonstrate and clarify how Google is in the process of "pushing the lines back".
A few good object lessons in banning - and redemption - with a clear warning that "from hereon forward the banning will be permanent . . " - might be good for everyone to see, including advertisers.
It's a judgment call but I'd like to see more teaching moments where people are publically pulled back from the brink - using the occassion to give fair warning that the lines are being redrawn and how they are being redrawn. Sometimes, when "the rules" can't quite be nailed down in words "teaching examples" help fill the comprehension gap.
A few good object lessons in banning - and redemption - with a clear warning that "from hereon forward the banning will be permanent . . " - might be good for everyone to see, including advertisers.
We do have the redemptions from time to time. fischermx is a longtime member in good standing and I think all of us stand behind him. Not saying this is the case with fischermx, even longstanding members have been known to overlook the obvious reasons for a deserved banning while pleading innocent- it's a strange phenomenom known to anyone who's investigated enough of these banned situations. I would like fischermx to be innocent and get his account unbanned. I think most members here would and wish him good luck.
The "lesson candidates" would have to be chosen carefully, be willing to "show all" and be made an example (how else and why else engage in the process) and, in the process, a rule or changing of the rules or how they are being applied would have to yield a measurable increase in clarity.
It seems to me that Google is prepared to hold out to the world examples of "good publishers", i.e., success stories.
It seems to me that Google might also do the publisher world - and the advetiser world - some good by having a few members who went to far - without necessarily acting upon an evil intent - particpate in a public process intended to help show and dramatize the risks and consequences.
It also seems to me that G might decide to be a bit more public about "bad actor bannings", not necessarity naming names but laying out the details and "exemplified pages" (like, but not the actual) to both show what is being rooted out and what will get you rooted out.
In the age of social media, the cluetrain and conversation commerce it seems to me that "veils" are increasingly unfashionable.
Dear Google: IF fischermx really isn't "one of evil intent", but has been otherwise slipping into bay practices, might he (she?) not make for a good "teaching moment" - with his or her consent? If fischermx's banning it part of an emerging change of policy wouldn't a public warning shot be a bit more noble than something less.
Again, this all assumes that we have been made aware of all the relevant facts. I've asked a few questions that I'd like to see answers to before making any bigger fool of myself pleading the case of one who might not be as blameless as first appears. However, in a world where "vibe" counts for something sometimes I've never gotten a "bad actor" vibe in 3 years from his posts.
Well, forgive me if I've said too much. Like MB said, I too wish fischermx well if his actions are as stated above and nothing more.
[edited by: Webwork at 4:34 pm (utc) on May 1, 2008]
International Traffic:
Well, yes many campaigns were world-wide targeted. However, from my country, I just see crappy ads and some shameless arbitrager who bids on anything showing in my website, however I see my website from computer on the USA it shows ads from even Microsoft/Oracle/PeopleSoft. So, I suppose that since this is an IT topic, the advertisers are smart enough to not target their campaigns to countries where there are no possible clients.
Link building:
Three years ago, I sent my website to good paid directories. Two years ago I paid one of those guys who manually or semi-manually send your site to a bunch of low profile directories, this last is the only one thing that might be shady on all my website life. But it was two years ago.
Conceptual clash:
My ads used to be like:
"Example.com", "Portal about Widgets", "Find info about widgets".
and then people arrived in a general page about widgets.
or
"Example.com", "Portal about Blue Widgets", "Find info about blue widgets".
and then people arrived in a page all about Blue widgets.
Business Practices Changes:
I did not touch my ads and campaigns for months and some for years. It was until the begining of this month, when 99% of my keywords were set to $10.00, that I started to create a couple of new campaigns and adgroups with more tight group of keywords, as this was the general advise to have a better Quality Score.
Looksmart:
Yes, that was the only other thing a bit shady, but again, I bought 10 visitors for $0.10, a $1.00 per day budget, for a website getting 300-500 visitors from serps and around 1,000 visitors from adwords, it does not make it a big sin, I think.
I think I just pissed them off by asking and asking about QS on adwords during this past month (April).
I think I just pissed them off
That's an unfortunate statement, true or not. I know such statements can arise from real frustration, especially from not knowing why one is "in a bad way" with another, but people seldom gain an advantage in a dispute from assigning motive to another - absent compelling and indisputable facts.
Let the facts speak to motive. Put up your facts and let the public ferret out motive, if any.
Sometimes playing the "they're after me" card starts to trigger inferences in people's minds that don't work in your favor. I wouldn't go there, not a step further.
What's the best reason(s) you can give for why a banning would be appropriate in your case and what would have been a better or fairer remedy - given your "level of innocence"?
Would the better solution have been to direct you to remove ads from all but original content pages - pages of your own making?
Were most or many of your pages "recycled material" = republished newswires that were primarily serving the purpose of promoting some other company? Can you see how paying advertisers might not care to have their ads displayed on pages - the contents of which are primarily another company's public relations statements?
Alright, "I'm trying too hard and not really doing it" because I'm in a situation where my ability to do what I like to do - advocate for a fair or just outcome - is really hampered. I hate to see a good man take it on the chin and hope for an outcome that is entirely fair in your case fmx.
Good luck.
[edited by: Webwork at 4:56 pm (utc) on May 1, 2008]
But instead, they go directly to the guillotine.
And respecting the recycled material, well, certainly yes, there is many recycled material, but yet again, there were no complain (from them) for the use of Adsense on those pages, the complain was for sending Adwords traffic to my whole website.
I think that if they didn't like us to use adwords to drive traffic to pages with adsense, they could be make it crystal clear: No landing page should feature Adsense on it. Period.
Judging from the blog posts linked to above, the implication is clear that using AdWords to grow your site by making others aware of it is ok. That's not arbitrage.
It's also recommended if you're monetizing an ecommerce site via AdWords, but are picking up extra change via AdSense. That's not arbitrage either.
And then there's the requirement for navigation and good useful content.
So if the technology you're site is known for isn't software cracking, bit torrent, or dvd cracking content, and it's original and useful, then you may have something to complain about because it's always possible you could have come under a rushed or automated judgement.
I do find it a little troubling that it seems like you're skirting around and avoiding that there could be an issue with your content, and keep referring to the format of your site (portal, eWeek).
And one important note: the directory, the news, the press release and the articles are all mixed up in the same format. So, when you click a "headline" you can arrive to a page with any of these, but they are classified in subcategories, so you have an idea where are you going while navigating on my site.
All this pages have adsense, right in the center/upper of the page, but not in the middle of the article, the ads have an extra frame, and an extra "advertisements" title. So, people clicking the ads are really, really sure they are ads.
And again, I know there are other "formats" of the email Google send to notify account cancellations. The most widely known is the one for invalid clicks.
There's another for questionable content.
And there's yet another for cases where your business model does not fit Adsense program.
I got the latest.
Instead, my ads are clearly marked as ads, as I said, double marked.
And also, the site is heavly interlinked, so you can go from a section to another because I left links to other sections in every section, so you are never "trapped" in a page without exit.
Conceptual clash:
My ads used to be like:
"Example.com", "Portal about Widgets", "Find info about widgets".
and then people arrived in a general page about widgets.
or
"Example.com", "Portal about Blue Widgets", "Find info about blue widgets".
and then people arrived in a page all about Blue widgets.
Those types of ads are a red flag for me as a publisher. I don't even bother to check the site out. I just automatically assume it's a MFA site and throw it into the competitor ad filter.
I can't be the only publisher that thinks the same way. Get enough publishers banning your site and who knows- maybe it triggers a review of some sort.
keep in mind, I'm not saying your site is a MFA site. That's just the impression I get from ads similar to the type of ads you were using.
Where are you located in the world ? Google would know, and some places around the globe are more suspect than others when dealing with how much $1000 is actually (half a month/a month or multiple year's wage ?)
If I were GOOG I'd be very suspicious of advertisers buying me 1000 of ads to get 1200 back from me in adsense. I'd seriously be worried about any account doing that, regardless of what content they might have or not have, especially if the organic traffic is relatively low (as you said it was).
The last time I read a banned thread here several months ago there was a similar story. Publisher asks, Is this site compliant? Google goes, Whack. Banned.
This is an interesting discussion but unfortunately it seems academic. I don't see how you can change a business model to make it compliant and get reinstated. Changing ad placement is one thing but a business model?
I hope you can figure it out, but it looks like the best minds here have already weighed in and can't discern the problem.
p/g
For all we know your site was never reviewed by a human. Algos and robots are not perfect and do fail. That's a fact. Good luck. ;)
BUT: Example.com is a domain name that matches the topic name!
Many MFAs in my filter have domain names that exactly match the topic name, so I do not think this would stop anybody of evaluating your site.
I'm not saying you ARE an MFA, and I wish you luck in getting re-instated.
Then again, after reading this thread all over again, I can't help the feeling that you were at least operating in several grey areas:
* Adwords-Adsense arbitrage (profit margin 20%)
* buying traffic from dubious sources
* submitting site to low-quality directories
* using ad copy that triggers publisher alarms
* duplicate content
* pestering Adwords folks with questions over QS
I just think that if the wrong folks at Google saw your site (and I have not seen it, so this is really guesswork) and had a look at the campaigns you were running and the money spent, they might come to the conclusion that your business model is indeed arbitrage.
With the various crackdowns over the past year (with some big players being hit violently) Google made clear that they do not really like arbitrage any longer, unless you are an official partner of Google (e.g. ask.com). So, in a way - one could have seen this coming.
Good luck anyway.
True, but what happens if the "they" in this case was an algo?
A real human with good sense may take a look at his site and say, "Ok the algo correctly flagged this but the site is actually decent so let's tell him to knock off the arbitrage because this is the kind of site we want in our program."
I don't mean to suggest that the outcome of this review was deserved in this instance based on the information fishermx provided and martinbuster's support for his case. Another review by a different employee could result in a positive outcome.
* duplicate content
* pestering Adwords folks with questions over QS
This may have triggered a review with adWords, who may have woken up the adSense guys.. However it shows a level of cooperation between the adwords and adSense folks, I have not seen before.
My experience with G is that normally Left hand does not know what Right hand is doing.. However things may be changing at Google.
The fact that they have a formal appeal channel, makes me think like if they admit they can go wrong in an account cancellation.
