Filter Display URLs?

Email from Google instructs opposite of what I believed

[fredw]

I sent a message to Google support this morning, complaining of a semi-offensive ad that I added to my filter list and is still showing after more than 48 hours. They replied within hours! (Usually my experience is they reply in a day or so.)

The reply instructed that when filtering an ad, one needs to filter the destination URL (the url in "adurl=" in the actual ad code). Which is what I do.

BUT! They also instructed that one must also filter the DISPLAY URL (the one that shows in the actual ad).

I have never added a Display URL to my filter list. I was under the impression doing so would not work, that only the Destination URL could be tracked and filtered by Google.

Can anyone, from their experience, confirm or deny this? Does it do any good to add Display URLs (not Destination URLs) to the filter list?

[zett]

Can anyone, from their experience, confirm or deny this? Does it do any good to add Display URLs (not Destination URLs) to the filter list?

To also filter display URLs is utter nonsense. 100% B.S.! Never heard that before, and also not true. In my experience (and I consider myself a filter expert), it may take up to 72 hours for an ad to disappear, but usually it happens within a day or so.

A few odd ads appear to be resistant to the filter, at least if we can trust the preview tool. These ads just keep appearing as if you have not filtered them. But from my experience this is in the range of 1 per 200 entries at max, i.e. less than 0.5% of all ads. From looking at those ads or advertisers it is difficult to understand why they are immune, but sometimes they just are.

[iridiax]

I recently added the display URL to my filter list for a longtime advertiser that I was never able to block with the destination URL, and coincidence or not, their ads disappeared the next day.

[wyweb]

I've yet to run across an ad that wasn't blockable. I am aware that other publishers have reported this, but it hasn't been my experience.

[fredw]

Hm. FWIW: Last evening, my "unfilterable" ad was still displaying, so I added its display url to my filter list. Today they are gone. Coincidence?

[enigmatech]

in my experience I have learnt that to properly filter an ad you have to do the following.

"sitename.com"
"www.sitename.com"

[zett]

to properly filter an ad you have to do the following.
"sitename.com"
"www.sitename.com"

This practically reduces your filter to 100 slots. I'd recommend this only for cases where an ad tends to not go away. (I sometimes really wonder though, whether Google has put any effort into further development of the filter and preview tool at all, since its launch. To me it looks like a long-forgotten piece of junk that somehow serves a need nonetheless.)

[g1smd]

Doesn't the filter work on regex? I'd have expected (www\.)?example.com to have worked.

If it doesn't, then consider that as a serious suggestion.

Disclaimer: I don't use that product.