Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
I'm just trying to understand why someone would NOT enable it. What is a scenario where you wouldn't want to do this? Is there some bug or inconsistent behavior with it? Are there webmasters for whom keeping a list of their domains would be inconvenient?
And I only ask because Google isn't strongly suggesting or recommending that I use it, they are just offering up a feature that, to my inexperienced mind, seems like it should be the default.
Weren't there issues about cache and different DCs...
For some reason many of my visitors used cached pages so I allow all sites and haven't found that any objectionable pages are showing my ads and can't figure out why they would anyway.
Personally, I can't think of any reason not to use it.
I'd rather see an additional option where you could generate a report of which sites were generating impressions/clicks, then create a blacklist from that.
I'd rather see an additional option where you could generate a report of which sites were generating impressions/clicks
You get this once you set up the whitelist--they report other sites on which the ads are appearing.
I HAVE noticed search engines caches and translation sites in that list, and I appreciate the argument that that represents lost income, but I can't help wondering if clicks there might not have an impact on smart pricing. My average EPC is currently about double what it was two years ago, and one possible reason why is the allowed sites.
I HAVE noticed search engines caches and translation sites... but I can't help wondering if clicks there might not have an impact on smart pricing.
Perhaps when someone copies my AdSense code and uses it with TOS violations I'll consider that as a reason but I just don't see it happening. Granted though, there are a fair share of irrational idiots out there, it is possible.
For some reason by the time AdSense got around to offering it, I'd moved on to worrying about plummeting revenue instead. Thanks again wyweb for reminding me of the rationale for wanting to protect my account.
Nothing changed. Not even slightly. EPC was the same. eCPM was the same. Bottom line the same. The only thing that was not the same was that I was now protected, at least in terms of adsense, from site stealers who didn't have enough sense to take my code out before they put my pages online.
but I just don't see it happening
When you activate allowed sites, you then get a list of sites using your code not on your allowed list. For me it is usually just search engine caches and translator sites, but every once in awhile when I check there is an actual site or two that has copied one or more of my pages with the Adsense code intact. Some are obvious spammers. Others just seem like people who probably mean no intentional harm but just like the articles and probably don't understand what copyright means. But in either case I doubt either type of site conforms to the Adsense TOS, so for me I'm glad I can use the allowed site option. For most people with a limited amount of sites it probably only takes a few minutes to set up, so I don't see any downside to using the option.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as the saying goes.
Nothing changed. Not even slightly. EPC was the same. eCPM was the same. Bottom line the same.
I think that takes away the only rationale for not using allowed sites. I concede that the smart pricing connection is speculative, but if you don't lose money, and if you protect yourself from a possible problem due to page or site copying, why not use them?
AND if you monitor the unauthorized sites displaying your ads you can find people copying you....
I'm just getting started in this business, so it sounds like I should use the feature:
-I only have a few sites, so it's not a problem managing the list.
-I have zero traffic, so I can monitor the activity as it grows and stay on top of the caching sites.
-I'm slightly anal-retentive about tracking things, and paranoid about people copying my stuff wholesale, so it sounds like now is a good time to enable it.
If I had established sites with real revenue, I can see where I'd not want to "fix it if it ain't broke".
If there is no downside, why doesn't Google just make this a requirement for all publishers?
Why did they wait for 3 years to roll it out too?
And why did they "wait" three years to roll it out? Well, why does any company "wait" to roll out a feature that hadn't been there in day one of ANY program? Perhaps because they hadn't developed all of the features of the program right from the get go? Perhaps because they hadn't realized it was necessary before then? Perhaps because enough publishers asked for it?
Longer explanation: Bad guy gets pissed at me for whatever reason, possibly entirely not my fault. Or they're jealous. Or whatever inspires bad guys to be bad guys ... and then they take my pub ID and stick it on a site that violates adsense's TOS in a hundred ways and kills puppies. And then they tell Google, "Look what Leva's doing with her Adsense Account!"
By not having Bad Guy's site enabled as an Allowed Site, I have a heck of a lot more plausible deniability.